Dev-Film Combos: What are "the Old Standards"?

"Alan Smithee" wrote in message news:isacd.754154$gE.337523@pd7tw3no...
I've been doing B&W darkroom for less than a year now. I hear people talking
about all sorts of different developer and film combinations, my question
is: what are considered "the old standards" of the canon. I'm not interested
in trying every film with every developer, just films which are currently
available, I wouldn't mind knowing what tradeoffs are involved with certain
developers (ie. quality vs. difficulty vs. stability vs. longevity). Thx.

Tri-X in D76 1:1

FP4 in Acutol 1+15

etc.

"Alan Smithee" wrote in message news:isacd.754154$gE.337523@pd7tw3no...
I've been doing B&W darkroom for less than a year now. I hear people talking
about all sorts of different developer and film combinations, my question
is: what are considered "the old standards" of the canon. I'm not interested
in trying every film with every developer, just films which are currently
available, I wouldn't mind knowing what tradeoffs are involved with certain
developers (ie. quality vs. difficulty vs. stability vs. longevity). Thx.

Tri-X in D76 1:1

FP4 in Acutol 1+15

etc.

Alround developers like Ilford ID11 or Kodak D76 (same developer)
pure, or diluted 1+1, will give good to very good result with any
available film. Rate your filmspeed at half the manufacturer speed,
and develop 20 % less than indicated. That should be a good guess to
start with.

So TMY 400 rate at 200? Leave the toe in the dust in other words.

Alround developers like Ilford ID11 or Kodak D76 (same developer)
pure, or diluted 1+1, will give good to very good result with any
available film. Rate your filmspeed at half the manufacturer speed,
and develop 20 % less than indicated. That should be a good guess to
start with.

So TMY 400 rate at 200? Leave the toe in the dust in other words.

Alan Smithee wrote:

I've been doing B&W darkroom for less than a year now. I hear people
talking
about all sorts of different developer and film combinations, my
question
is: what are considered "the old standards" of the canon. I'm not
interested
in trying every film with every developer, just films which are
currently
available, I wouldn't mind knowing what tradeoffs are involved with
certain
developers (ie. quality vs. difficulty vs. stability vs. longevity).
Thx.

I don't think there are any "standards." There is only what you
prefer.

The film/developer combination really depends on what what your
goal is and or what you desire in the final print. Meaning you
may want/need a fine grained developer like Microdol-X, a less
so but still fine grained developer like D76. Probably both are
"old standards." Usually the developer is selected based on the
film or situation. A pyro stain developer for instance. Or a
POTA developer (course now that the short-sighted CEO morons have
discontinued Tech Pan there's little need for POTA...but enough
rant.)
I hear a lot of people rave about pyro. Why not just use pyro for everything
if one's aim is the best neg possible?

Alan Smithee wrote:

I've been doing B&W darkroom for less than a year now. I hear people
talking
about all sorts of different developer and film combinations, my
question
is: what are considered "the old standards" of the canon. I'm not
interested
in trying every film with every developer, just films which are
currently
available, I wouldn't mind knowing what tradeoffs are involved with
certain
developers (ie. quality vs. difficulty vs. stability vs. longevity).
Thx.

I don't think there are any "standards." There is only what you
prefer.

The film/developer combination really depends on what what your
goal is and or what you desire in the final print. Meaning you
may want/need a fine grained developer like Microdol-X, a less
so but still fine grained developer like D76. Probably both are
"old standards." Usually the developer is selected based on the
film or situation. A pyro stain developer for instance. Or a
POTA developer (course now that the short-sighted CEO morons have
discontinued Tech Pan there's little need for POTA...but enough
rant.)
I hear a lot of people rave about pyro. Why not just use pyro for everything
if one's aim is the best neg possible?

Alan Smithee wrote:

Alan Smithee wrote:

I've been doing B&W darkroom for less than a year now. I hear people
talking
about all sorts of different developer and film combinations, my
question
is: what are considered "the old standards" of the canon. I'm not
interested
in trying every film with every developer, just films which are
currently
available, I wouldn't mind knowing what tradeoffs are involved with
certain
developers (ie. quality vs. difficulty vs. stability vs. longevity).
Thx.

I don't think there are any "standards." There is only what you
prefer.

The film/developer combination really depends on what what your
goal is and or what you desire in the final print. Meaning you
may want/need a fine grained developer like Microdol-X, a less
so but still fine grained developer like D76. Probably both are
"old standards." Usually the developer is selected based on the
film or situation. A pyro stain developer for instance. Or a
POTA developer (course now that the short-sighted CEO morons have
discontinued Tech Pan there's little need for POTA...but enough
rant.)
I hear a lot of people rave about pyro. Why not just use pyro for everything
if one's aim is the best neg possible?

Well for one thing, pyro is quite toxic to many people.
I never use it unless I wear gloves...

Again it's a matter of aesthetics, or what you prefer.

If I need greater negative density for any particular
negative I'd probably prefer selenium intensification,
and I can control it locally. Or I'd might prefer unsharp
masking. It depends on the negative.

There are numerous creative options available and it's
largely a matter of preference.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Alan Smithee wrote:

I've been doing B&W darkroom for less than a year now. I hear people
talking
about all sorts of different developer and film combinations, my
question
is: what are considered "the old standards" of the canon. I'm not
interested
in trying every film with every developer, just films which are
currently
available, I wouldn't mind knowing what tradeoffs are involved with
certain
developers (ie. quality vs. difficulty vs. stability vs. longevity).
Thx.

I don't think there are any "standards." There is only what you
prefer.

The film/developer combination really depends on what what your
goal is and or what you desire in the final print. Meaning you
may want/need a fine grained developer like Microdol-X, a less
so but still fine grained developer like D76. Probably both are
"old standards." Usually the developer is selected based on the
film or situation. A pyro stain developer for instance. Or a
POTA developer (course now that the short-sighted CEO morons have
discontinued Tech Pan there's little need for POTA...but enough
rant.)
I hear a lot of people rave about pyro. Why not just use pyro for everything
if one's aim is the best neg possible?

Well for one thing, pyro is quite toxic to many people.
I never use it unless I wear gloves...

Again it's a matter of aesthetics, or what you prefer.

If I need greater negative density for any particular
negative I'd probably prefer selenium intensification,
and I can control it locally. Or I'd might prefer unsharp
masking. It depends on the negative.

There are numerous creative options available and it's
largely a matter of preference.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Alan Smithee wrote:

I've been doing B&W darkroom for less than a year now. I hear people
talking
about all sorts of different developer and film combinations, my
question
is: what are considered "the old standards" of the canon. I'm not
interested
in trying every film with every developer, just films which are
currently
available, I wouldn't mind knowing what tradeoffs are involved with
certain
developers (ie. quality vs. difficulty vs. stability vs. longevity).
Thx.

I don't think there are any "standards." There is only what you
prefer.

The film/developer combination really depends on what what your
goal is and or what you desire in the final print. Meaning you
may want/need a fine grained developer like Microdol-X, a less
so but still fine grained developer like D76. Probably both are
"old standards." Usually the developer is selected based on the
film or situation. A pyro stain developer for instance. Or a
POTA developer (course now that the short-sighted CEO morons have
discontinued Tech Pan there's little need for POTA...but enough
rant.)
I hear a lot of people rave about pyro. Why not just use pyro for everything
if one's aim is the best neg possible?

Well for one thing, pyro is quite toxic to many people.
I never use it unless I wear gloves...

Again it's a matter of aesthetics, or what you prefer.

If I need greater negative density for any particular
negative I'd probably prefer selenium intensification,
and I can control it locally. Or I'd might prefer unsharp
masking. It depends on the negative.

There are numerous creative options available and it's
largely a matter of preference.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Alround developers like Ilford ID11 or Kodak D76 (same developer)
pure, or diluted 1+1, will give good to very good result with any
available film. Rate your filmspeed at half the manufacturer speed,
and develop 20 % less than indicated. That should be a good guess to
start with.

So TMY 400 rate at 200? Leave the toe in the dust in other words.


At a slower effective film speed you'd actually be giving
the toe areas more exposure/density. The greater density
from overexposing the highlight areas would be held back
by giving less development.

Of course I don't recommmend doing this based on someone's
blind advice. You should test your film for the processing
methods you use and arrive at your own effective film speed
for your own normal development time.