New to group with questions

What makes you think the original poster is interested in landscapes,
or anything of the sort that interests you?

I do not recommend T-Max 400 film for outdoor work, because if its
curve shape, which tends to make skies too light and contrasty, and
foregrounds too dark and lacking in contrast. I reallly like Fuji
Neopan 400, best of all the current ISO 400 films, all of which require
more exposure and less devbelopment to achieve optimum quality. I
expose them all at about EI 250 or 320.

D-76 1:1 is OK, but I prefer the Paterson developers above all.


Jean-David Beyer wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
michael_79 wrote:

Hello Group,
Recently my dad gave me a Nikon FE2 Camera with a few lenses...the
pictures have turned out great; however, I know that I would have
better pictures if I was able to develop my own. With this in mind I
was wondering if anyone could give me the name of some good books that
could help me to learn the process. Also for developing your standard
35mm film what chemicals are needed? I have seen many different names
for chemicals and am completely in the dark about which ones are used
for what, and the same goes for paper.
Any help would be most appreciated
Michael


You may be surprised to find you are asking religious questions and will get
many contradictory answers.

As you will note, the religious fanatics have already started work. ;-)

I have a Nikon FE-2 and some lenses as well. The 28mm f/2, the 50mm f/2, the
55mm f/2.8 (?) macro, and the 105mm f/2.5. I like the 105mm the best,
especially for portraits.

For 35mm, I always use it hand-held (except when doing test exposures), and
I find 100 speed film a bit too slow (except in Arizona in the summertime),
so when shooting monochrome, I normally use the TMax 400 speed film. Maybe I
am getting too shakey in my old age. ;-) After testing it, it actually tests
out at 400 speed, but I normally expose it about double that so as to get
better shadow detail. TMax films are the first ones I have tested under the
conditions I normally use, that come out at the box speed. Back when I was
testing things like Tri-X and Plus-X, they tested out at about 1/2 the box
speed unless I used 1/2 gallon of chemistry for a roll or a few sheets. With
a large amount of chemistry under conditions I do not normally employ, all
the films I tested came within 1/3 stop of the box speed, which is about the
experimental error of my procedures.

You can get excellent quality from 35mm, as Ansel Adams has shown with the
work he did with a 35mm Contax camera. There are certain things that 35mm is
especially good at. And there are things where a larger format camera with
swings, tilts, rise, fall, and shifts, are a great convenience.

I would never take a 4x5 to shoot a wedding and its reception. And I would
not normally use a 35 mm to shoot landscapes (except when the terrain is
such that I cannot take a 4x5 and its tripod). But when doing landscapes
with 35 mm, it is important to make different compositions than you would
with a larger camera.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 12:10:00 up 11 days, 2:56, 4 users, load average: 4.27, 4.20, 4.13

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
UC wrote:
It is extremely irritating for people who are asking about 35mm to be
answered by those who are using 4x5, and who have NOT A CLUE about the
best technique for 35mm.

GO AWAY!!!!!! WE DON'T CARE ABOUT ANSEL ADAMS, OR YOUR 4X5
TECHNIQUES!!!!!!!!

Having a bad day or something?

I started photography using 35mm about 35 years ago. I use it to this day.
I find it curious that you assume that I "have NOT A CLUE about the
best technique for 35mm" when you have no way of knowing that. Are all your
pronouncements based on an equally valid basis as that one is?

That you mention that you use T-Max assures me that you haven't a
clue....



--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 12:25:00 up 11 days, 3:11, 4 users, load average: 4.13, 4.16, 4.12

UC wrote:
What makes you think the original poster is interested in landscapes,
or anything of the sort that interests you?

I have no more idea that he is interested in the sort that interest me than
you have that he does not.

I do not recommend T-Max 400 film for outdoor work, because if its
curve shape, which tends to make skies too light and contrasty, and
foregrounds too dark and lacking in contrast.

And I like TMax 100 (and if it is too windy, TMax 400) especially for
outdoor work _because I prefer the curve shape_ (straight line; extremely
short toe). This is a valid point of disagreement at an artistic level, but
for a beginner he should pick something, anything, and work with it for a
long time. If a longer toe is desired, use 320 speed Tri-X.

I reallly like Fuji
Neopan 400, best of all the current ISO 400 films, all of which require
more exposure and less devbelopment to achieve optimum quality. I
expose them all at about EI 250 or 320.

Sure. It is all about curve shape (assuming you get the grain pattern you
require for your images) and where you want to place the important
luminances of the subject. So whereas I test TMY and find its EI comes in at
400, I still expose the stuff so Zone V is at about 0.9 net density when
processed to a contrast index of around 0.6 (normal). I could set my meter
to an EI of 200 and get that.

D-76 1:1 is OK, but I prefer the Paterson developers above all.

Sure, and I prefer Xtol 1+1, but for a beginner, why not use something easy
to get and easy to use? Around here, there are no longer any photography
dealers who sell chemistry or film. You have to go to supermarkets, drug
stores, or shopping malls for a very bad selection of films, no papers, no
chemistry. So I deal with B&H and Calumet, mostly.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 12:35:00 up 11 days, 3:21, 4 users, load average: 4.32, 4.17, 4.11

I disagree. Stop bath is indeed necessary to prevent the formation of
scum on the negatives. I found this out the hard way, following what I
had heard from some people.

Use a stop bath.


Mike wrote:
To develop 35mm B&W film, you will need 2 chemicals: a developer and a
fixer. The rest are not really necessary.

For a developer, I recommend "D76" to start. Any fixer will do.

Check out Ilford's website and find their PDF file on processing your
first roll. They go overboard-- for example, you don't need a seperate
"stop bath" chemical. Just use running water instead. You don't need a
"photo flo" chemical. Just use distilled water. Never use a film
squeegee-- just hang the negatives using a binder clip and let them dry!


On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:28:32 -0800, michael_79 wrote:

Hello Group,
Recently my dad gave me a Nikon FE2 Camera with a few lenses...the
pictures have turned out great; however, I know that I would have
better pictures if I was able to develop my own. With this in mind I
was wondering if anyone could give me the name of some good books that
could help me to learn the process. Also for developing your standard
35mm film what chemicals are needed? I have seen many different names
for chemicals and am completely in the dark about which ones are used
for what, and the same goes for paper.
Any help would be most appreciated
Michael

In article .com,
"michael_79" writes:

Recently my dad gave me a Nikon FE2 Camera with a few lenses...the
pictures have turned out great; however, I know that I would have
better pictures if I was able to develop my own.

Maybe, maybe not. That depends on what sort of film you're shooting
(Kodachrome is very impractical to process yourself, conventional B&W
films are easiest, and C-41 and E-6 color films are in-between but closer
to conventional B&W), where you'd have it processed if you don't do it
yourself (the local drug store's 1-hour lab, a consumer mail-order lab, a
pro lab, etc.), your level of skill, etc. Overall, you're most likely to
get superior results yourself if you shoot B&W and would otherwise send it
to a generic consumer lab, and then only after you've got some experience
under your belt.

With this in mind I
was wondering if anyone could give me the name of some good books that
could help me to learn the process.

I used _The Basic Darkroom Book, 3rd Edition_ by Tom Grimm (ISBN
0-452-27436-2). It seems like a good basic introduction. There are also
lots of Web pages on the subject; try a Web search. These will at least
answer some of your basic questions.

Also for developing your standard 35mm film what chemicals are needed?

The traditional steps for B&W film development a

1) Developer -- Examples include Kodak D-76, Ilford ID-11 (which is nearly
identical to D-76), Kodak HC-110, Kodak XTOL, and Agfa Rodinal. This is
just the tip of the iceberg, though; there are probably hundreds of
commercial developers available and hundreds more (maybe thousands) of
mix-it-yourself formulae. The developer is the choice that most affects
the way the final negative looks. It's also the choice about which
people sometimes get "religious." Ignore the zealots and pick something
that's mainstream and popular to start with. That'll guarantee you can
get help if something goes wrong. Most developers should not be
re-used.

2) Stop bath -- This is typically dilute acetic acid, but some other
options are available. "Indicator" stop baths contain a dye that causes
the chemical to change color when it goes bad. Non-indicator types
should usually be discarded after one use. Some people use diluted
vinegar as stop bath. Even plain water can be used as a stop bath,
although you typically need to go through a slightly longer stop step
when using plain water.

3) Fixer -- Lots of fixers are available. The main distinction is between
normal and rapid fixers. The latter work faster than the former, as you
might guess. There are also hardening and non-hardening fixers. You can
typically re-use fixer several times; check the instructions.

4) Hypo clear -- This chemical helps get rid of the fixer, reducing wash
times and saving water. It's cheap enough that it's safest to just
chuck it after you've used it once.

5) Wash -- This step uses plain water. Traditionally, a 5-minute rinse
under running water does the job, but alternative methods exist.

6) Wetting agent -- This is the final step. The chemical is similar to a
detergent; it's designed to get water to flow off of the film more
quickly, reducing problems with spots caused by evaporating water
leaving crud behind. This chemical is often referred to as "Photo Flo,"
which is the name of Kodak's wetting agent. Like hypo clear, it's so
cheap that it's safest to use it just once.

For color (C-41 or E-6), the steps are similar but not identical. Color's
more finicky than B&W, but still do-able at home. You're less likely to
see better results doing color film yourself, with the possible exception
of scratches on the finished film.

For B&W, I recommend you pick a mainstream developer, such as any of the
ones I mentioned or various others; then pick the rest of the chemistry
from the same supplier. This practice reduces the odds that you'll
encounter contradictory instructions. Once you've learned the basics, you
can certainly mix and match manufacturers; sticking with a single
manufacturer at first is just a way to keep from adding unnecessarily to
the confusion factor.

Note that the only steps above that truly require chemistry are #1 and #3.
You can use plain water for all of the others. I don't recommend
eliminating the wetting agent, though, and hypo clear reduces washing time
from 20 minutes to 5 minutes, so it's very worthwhile.

I have seen many different names
for chemicals and am completely in the dark about which ones are used
for what, and the same goes for paper.

Paper processing is much like film processing in terms of the steps and
chemicals involved, with a couple of exceptions:

1) You use different developers for film and paper. For instance, you
might use Kodak D-76 for film and Kodak Dektol for paper. Although you
CAN use D-76 for paper or Dektol for film (for example), film and paper
have different characteristics that mean you won't get optimal results
that way.

2) You don't typically need hypo clear when working with resin-coated (RC)
paper, which is the most common type today. Hypo clear is generally
used with fiber-based (FB) paper, but FB paper is harder to work with
than RC paper, so I recommend you start with RC paper.

Film and paper are typically processed with different hardware, too. For
35mm film, you'll probably use a "tank," which is a light-tight plastic or
stainless steel cylinder with a way to pour chemistry in and out while
maintaining the light-tight seal. In total darkness, you load the film
onto a spiral reel and put that into the tank. You can then turn on the
lights and pour chemistry in and out of the tank. For paper, you need an
enlarger. (Unless you just want to do contact prints, which for 35mm is
probably not what you want.) After exposing the paper, you transfer it
from one chemistry-filled tray to another. You can generally do this with
safelights turned on. These are lights that emit amber or red light to
which the paper is relatively insensitive, so they won't fog the paper (up
to a point, anyhow).

I recommend you start with one type of process (film or paper), learn it,
and then start with the other. This will help reduce the amount of stuff
you need to learn. If you start with film, you can buy the developing tank
and other necessary film-developing hardware fairly inexpensively and keep
an eye out for local bargains on enlargers and/or watch eBay for enlargers
at good prices, without feeling pressured to buy an enlarger immediately.
(Of course, you can buy a new enlarger if you prefer, but used enlargers
are so inexpensive right now that it's hard to justify the price of a new
one.) Many cities also have rental darkrooms, if you prefer to learn how
to use a darkroom before investing in an enlarger. Note that you don't
need a darkroom to do film developing; you just need a closet, bathroom,
or whatever that you can darken completely to load the film onto its
developing reel. You can even do this in a changing bag, which is a
light-tight bag with built-in gloves to let you manipulate whatever you
put into the bag.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

UC wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote:

UC wrote:

It is extremely irritating for people who are asking about 35mm to be
answered by those who are using 4x5, and who have NOT A CLUE about
the best technique for 35mm.

GO AWAY!!!!!! WE DON'T CARE ABOUT ANSEL ADAMS, OR YOUR 4X5
TECHNIQUES!!!!!!!!


Having a bad day or something?

I started photography using 35mm about 35 years ago. I use it to this
day. I find it curious that you assume that I "have NOT A CLUE about
the best technique for 35mm" when you have no way of knowing that. Are
all your pronouncements based on an equally valid basis as that one is?



That you mention that you use T-Max assures me that you haven't a
clue....

You should see the "films" that Julia Margaret Cameron, Nadar, Hill &
Adamson, Eugène Atget, Fredrick Evans, Alfred Stieglitz, and others had to
use. Yet their images reveal that they had a clue.

At the 35mm level, Gene Smith did quite well with Tri-X (though it seems to
me he made his life difficult sometimes), Robert Frank, and others did not
always get wonderful film to work with, and they learned to use the medium
anyhow.

It seems to me that you pick your medium and then master it. Once you do
that, you can make wonderful images with almost anything. The thing to do,
once one graduates from being a beginner, is to select the materials and
processes so that you can make the images you require to express your
artistic intentions. After all, the idea is not to manipulate fancy
equipment, but to make effective images. And I pick what I find makes my job
the easiest. That may well not be what makes your job easiest.

If I cannot see an image, then no matter what equipment, film, chemistry,
paper, mat board, frames, ..., I use, nothing will help me.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 12:45:00 up 11 days, 3:31, 4 users, load average: 4.08, 4.16, 4.12

Jean-David Beyer wrote:

That you mention that you use T-Max assures me that you haven't a
clue....

You should see the "films" that Julia Margaret Cameron, Nadar, Hill &
Adamson, Eugène Atget, Fredrick Evans, Alfred Stieglitz, and others hadto
use. Yet their images reveal that they had a clue.

Yes, you're right, they did. In my book, I discuss precisely this kind
of photography.


At the 35mm level, Gene Smith did quite well with Tri-X (though it seems to
me he made his life difficult sometimes),

Yes, you're quite right about that...

Robert Frank, and others did not
always get wonderful film to work with, and they learned to use the medium
anyhow.

It seems to me that you pick your medium and then master it. Once you do
that, you can make wonderful images with almost anything. The thing to do,
once one graduates from being a beginner, is to select the materials and
processes so that you can make the images you require to express your
artistic intentions. After all, the idea is not to manipulate fancy
equipment, but to make effective images. And I pick what I find makes my job
the easiest. That may well not be what makes your job easiest.

The point I was making was that thie original poster asked about 35mm,
and you brought up 4x5, and T-Max 400 and Xtol, neither of which I
would recommend for 35mm work...in fact, I would put them at the bottom
of the list...

#1 Neopan 400 in either Acutol or FX-39...
#2 HP5 in either Acutol or FX-39...

I have not used Tri-X since they started making it in the new plant...I
realy got tired of Tr-X's flat mid-tones, anyway...

bill wrote:
Dickhead

That is a bit unkind. ;-)

"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...

I am writing a book on this very topic: 35mm B&W.

Since UC does not like the Basic Photo Series so much that he is writing his
own book, I hope his is better than David Vestal's books on the subject.
While I find Vestal's books a bit oversimplified, they are quite good of
their kind. There certainly would be little point in writing yet another
35mm B&W book unless it were better than what is out there. I hope this is
not yet another book that fills a much needed gap on library shelves. ;-)

I can send you a draft of what I have so far. Ignore any recommendation
to follow Ansel Adams's books, as they are not suited for the 35mm
worker at all..

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 13:05:00 up 11 days, 3:51, 4 users, load average: 4.08, 4.13, 4.09

bill wrote:
: Dickhead

Bill, If we all ignore the troll it will go away.


--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

In article ,
Jean-David Beyer writes:

UC wrote:
It is extremely irritating for people who are asking about 35mm to be
answered by those who are using 4x5, and who have NOT A CLUE about the
best technique for 35mm.

GO AWAY!!!!!! WE DON'T CARE ABOUT ANSEL ADAMS, OR YOUR 4X5
TECHNIQUES!!!!!!!!

Having a bad day or something?

Could people please just stop responding to the troll? If he's ignored,
the signal-to-noise ratio in the group will improve.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking