Bruce Barnbaum - The Art of Photography - An Approach to Personal Expression

Once you know the zone system, you will have no need to bracket your exposures. Bracketing is nothing more than a fudge factor for those who are unsure of what they’re doing. Let me hedge on this by saying that periodically—and only on rare occasions—you may want to make more than one exposure and development because the lighting is unusual, weird, or perhaps very “different”. Doing several exposures along with different developments makes sense in strange situations. You can learn from them while making at least one usable negative along the way. Except in such rare cases, a complete understanding of both the zone system and your film’s characteristics should put you right on target without the need for extra exposures and time-consuming developments.

Note

Choose any great photographer—let’s say Ansel Adams—and ask yourself how many truly great photographs he produced in his lifetime (50+ years of photography). 50? 100? 200? Maybe even more. But that is about four per year at best!

I strongly recommend that you avoid bracketing because it promotes sloppy field techniques. I’m not against making a second exposure of a negative that may be extraordinary just as a back-up in case the first is damaged, but the back-up negative should be the same good exposure as the first one.

Negative Materials and Developers

Let me note at the start that new films are constantly being introduced, old films disappear, and existing films may undergo changes. The same holds true for developers, so the information in this section may become outdated rapidly.

The commonly used panchromatic materials (i.e., Kodak Tri-X, Ilford FP-4+, HP-5+, Fuji Neopan Acros 100, and comparable films by other manufacturers) are generally developed by a selected few developers (i.e., Kodak HC110 or D-76, Edwal FG-7, Rodinal, Ilford ID-11, etc.). Kodak T-Max films or Ilford Delta films (both using T-grain technology) can be developed with Kodak T-Max or XTOL developers. Other developers may be employed for special purposes. The question often arises as to which combinations of negative materials and developers give the “best” results. There are differences, of course, and some of the combinations are better for certain purposes than others—but which?

If sharpness or smooth grain is a prime consideration, then it’s best to recognize that the slower speed films have finer grain and generally better sharpness than faster films. But how do the various developers affect your images? My experience indicates that the film itself, along with the length of development (but not the developer per se), determines the final outcome to the greatest extent. In other words, if one of the films mentioned above were developed by each of the developers listed, it would be difficult to show that grain or sharpness varied significantly as long as the development times were approximately equal. Excessive development increases grain noticeably.

There are people who claim that certain combinations are clearly superior to others, but even after inspecting the evidence carefully, I remain unimpressed. The differences range from extremely subtle to nonexistent and are of marginal importance. Furthermore, a very fine grain film may have finer grain than a coarser grained film no matter what developer is used to process either one.

There are other, more important, considerations regarding film/developer combinations. First, which combination yields the greatest detail in both highlights and shadows? Some film/developer combinations show great separation of shadow tonalities but little separation in highlights. Other combinations show good highlight separation but little shadow separation. I haven’t tried all of the combinations (after all, I’m a photographer, not a lab technician), nor have I tried all of the films or developers separately. Generally, I shoot 4 × 5 sheet film and occasionally . Long ago I settled on Tri-X film for my sheet film and Ilford Pan F, FP4+, and HP5+ for roll film (for increased, normal, and decreased contrast respectively). The results have been excellent, with each of the films yielding smooth tonalities and fine grain. I use HC110 as my prime developer because I find that it produces good highlight and shadow separation. I develop the T-Max 100 in T-Max RS or XTOL.

Whatever you choose as your film/developer combination should be based on your goals as a photographer. If high speed film is necessary for your photography, avoid testing low ASA/DIN films. If fine grain is critical to your imagery, stay away from high speed films; they are noticeably grainier. A little testing will show you which film/developer combination yields the best highlight and shadow details for your purposes.

Testing is a means to an end, and the “end” is the best possible photographs you can make. Don’t waste your time testing and retesting, refining and further refining your test results. There is a difference between photographers and sensitometrists. If you are a photographer, start making real exposures for expressive photographs after some initial testing. Any modifications of your test results can be made during the “real” shooting.

Another consideration is contrast control. Which combinations allow the greatest flexibility for expansion or contraction of contrast? In general, most of Kodak’s standard or T-grain films are quite good in contrast flexibility, though Plus-X film lacks expansion capability to such an appalling extent that I avoid it completely. More development fogs Plus-X overall, increasing density greatly without increasing contrast appreciably. All Ilford films seem to have wonderful contrast control characteristics, and their gradations of tonality are beautifully smooth—better, in fact, than the equivalent Kodak films. But Ilford HP5+ becomes excessively grainy with increased development, though it is quite smooth and finegrained with reduced development.

Be aware of a strange quirk in Kodak’s marketing: it produces several distinctly different films named Tri-X. A quick clue to the fact that the films are different is that sheet film Tri-X is rated at ASA 320, whereas roll film Tri-X is rated at ASA 400 (and the roll film Tri-X Pan Professional is rated at ASA 320). Why Kodak gives these different films identical names is strange indeed.

Concerning developers, each one has its proponents, but I find some of the arguments arcane and immaterial. Whether one developer produces a finer edge demarcation when measured on an optical bench is immaterial because we all look at photographs with our eyes, not with a microscopic caliper! Of material importance is the separation of tonalities in highlights, mid-tones, and shadows, the effect of the developer on film speed, its characteristics in contrast expansion and contraction, and its ease of use.

For example, I have found that using Kodak HC110 to develop either HP5+ or Tri-X, according to the time/temperature charts, separates tones quite nicely throughout the entire spectrum. It produces noticeable grain during expanded development (particularly with HP5+) but extremely finegrained negatives with the compensating procedure. It’s easy to use because it’s a liquid concentrate which can be quickly diluted. It also lasts a long time in the bottle without noticeable deterioration, even as it turns dark brown (but there is a limit). It suits my purposes well. I feel that these are the important considerations, and I recommend that you judge your choice primarily on the same considerations.

Testing and experimentation will uncover combinations that are best for you. My choice may or may not be your choice. The important thing is that you are satisfied with your own combinations. Your goals are surely different from mine, and your final combinations may be different to enable you to best achieve your goals. I stated my film and developer combinations as examples, not as recommendations, as I have done with other examples throughout this book. Please accept them as such.