Film Processing Craft: Adjust and Adapt, or Master the Materials?

First of all ("first off," as people like to say now—to which the Ed. in me wants to shout, leave the off off!), I have to apologize for comments again—I have compiled the "OCOLOYs" comments twice and each time I manage to screw up and kill them off the post again. I frustrate myself. I work on being organized, but let's face it, it is not a native aptitude of mine. Anyway, I wanted to follow up on the film post. I've located two experts who might be able to help answer the question of latent image stability—one lives in the Los Angeles area and works for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and I knew him in the old days, but apparently I'd have to pay to find his telephone number. The other is just up the road in Rochester. (I tried emailing.) There's been a tad bit of confusion in the comments—what we were talking about is the lag between exposure and development, which is a different thing than the proper storage of unexposed film, or than archival processing, or than the permanence of negatives.

It's not rocket science—wait, yes it is
I wouldn't mind writing a bit more about film photography. I have a great deal of experience and practical knowledge stored away in my brain. But let me just say this: one thing I definitely learned in my years of editing a magazine about techniques is that generalizing across materials is a minefield. Perilous. A fool's errand. When you do an experiment, you have to accept that you have only tested those exact materials under those exact conditions. You cannot blithely extrapolate outward and make breezy pronouncements about how all such things behave. So many variables affect the results that when David Vestal and another photographer tried to duplicate each other's processing methodologies at long distance in order to solve a problem, they couldn't replicate each other's results, even after trying to chase down every variable they could think of. Something was still different.

There are two common ways to cope with this, and which you prefer might have to do with personality or psychology more than anything. The first is to let the fur fly and not worry about it—use whatever comes to hand, process it however seems best according to whatever advice you can find, and adjust and adapt. In fact we might even call this the Adjust and Adapt Method. In one of Ralph Gibson's darkroom books he told of a photographer who timed his film development by smoking a cigarette and rolling the tank around on the floor with his foot. As soon as the cigarette was done, so was the film. (I think it was a he. Might have been a she.) These are the freewheelin', what-me-worry types. The other is to pick a couple of common materials and incrementally master them, by a continual process of experience, experimentation, and learning. Let's call that the Master the Materials Method. That's what I chose to do. I picked two films and two papers, main and backup (only one developer because I could scratch-mix it from its constituent chemicals if my supply of the pre-mixed packages ever got interrupted), and learned them thoroughly, through-and-through. I may not have known nearly as much about your materials, but I sure knew mine front-to-back and soup-to-nuts.

By Frederick H. Evans. Platinum paper was integral to
Evans's vision and craft.

The disadvantage of the Master the Materials Method is that we're dependent on manufacturers for the continuing supply of said materials, and the more knowledge we have, the more vulnerable we become. I took self-defensive maneuvers when I merely imagined that Kodak Plus-X might be discontinued, and ended up leaving it behind more than twenty years before it was actually discontinued. Did you know Frederick H. Evans gave up photography when the supply of commercial platinum/palladium papers ended because of importation problems caused by WWI? When Oriental Seagull paper stopped being exported in from Japan for a time in the '90s, one master printer was so bereft and distressed that I had to field a cascade of anguished emails and distraught phone calls until he finally found a substitute. All of his printing expertise had been worked out in the context of how that paper behaved and responded. Without it, years of hard-won skills evaporated. Not just a loss—a blow. These sorts of problems were common to hear in my world at the time. We knew, for example, that Agfa had quietly changed the formula for Portriga paper long before they announced it. Alarmed Portriga fanatics poured out their hearts. (I finally got Agfa to admit and explain: environmental issues.) Michael A. Smith was so attached to Kodak Azo contact printing paper that when it was discontinued he invested in having a substitute manufactured independently. Linda Connor used to speak in lectures about her worry that Kodak's printing-out paper, called Studio Proof, would be discontinued (she used gold chloride toner to make the image permanent). Sometimes these are issues of artistic continuity—it might not have been the case that Linda couldn't find another paper, but just that a changeover of materials would create a sudden, unwanted change in the look of her prints.

This is the reason for my longstanding "philosophical" stance that what I want is for photographers to have what they need to do their work. What I personally want for myself is only one little corner of that. I want everybody to have what they need. Whatever enables their creativity. Whatever enables them to keep using their knowledge and keep practicing their craft the way they wish to and choose to.

Awesome Leitz
Mastering Materials was a heck of a lot of fun, I'll say that. I really enjoyed it. I could expound at length on the differences between enlarger light heads—Ilford XP2 looked like a completely different film if it was enlarged with a cold light head or the awesome Leitz Focomat II, the Duesenberg of enlargers, which was a true condenser enlarger with very collimated light. I had a standard for the age of my D-76 stock—I wouldn't use it if it hadn't aged for five days and I wouldn't use it past 45 days old (it was still good enough at 90 days, but I was conservative). The reason is that the activity of D-76 changes with age. I could have told you all about it. Think it's different with digital? Well, people here wouldn't think so. We know that sensors have been changing continuously, that Photoshop or Capture One take time and effort to master, and that expert printing with the latest inksets and the most beautiful papers is as far as can be imagined from just "pressing a button and the print comes out."

That's enough brain-dump for today. Sorry if this is tl;dr—I didn't have enough time to write short.

Mike

Book of Interest this Week

Home Fires Volume II: The Present. There is of course a Volume I: The Past.  TOP reader Bruce Haley has produced documentary work relating to conflict, humanitarian crises and environmental/industrial/land use issues for 30 years. He received the Robert Capa Gold Medal for his coverage of the ethnic civil war in Burma.

This book link is a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Comments

[Stelios]

Ilford recommends that Pan F is developed within 3 months of exposure (says so in the datasheet). Does not have the same requirement for Delta 400. So there's probably something to do with different films too.

[Ken Tanaka]

Ya lost me after the 2nd paragraph, Mike. What? :-0

[Albert Smith]

"...some custom, perhaps—that would allow a man to pair up with—does this sound crazy?—a partner of some sort—a woman, maybe..."

From my life experience, you get married, the next thing you know, you have a wife. So there's a downside. But I'm not bitter.

[Pieter Krigee]

KODAK Azo paper was NOT a print-out-paper [P.O.P]. It was a “normal” silver bromide paper. Because of its low sensitifity it was not very useful for enlarging. It was mostly used as a contact-printing paper. History of KODAK Azo paper goes back to the 1880’s.
Michael Smith was using KODAK Azo paper for his contact-printing of his large-format negatives. When production was stopped, he tried to copy the KODAK Azo formula.

[John Krumm]

Mike, I always really feel the loneliness when you write posts like this. I was thinking you live a monkish life, but monks have their rituals and communal living. Keep eating healthy, and keep engaging with the community, someone will come along.

[Patrick Perez]

On the subject of a manufacturer stealthily implementing a change, I recall a few (maybe 5 or so) Kraft announced that they had made a change to their boxed Macaroni and Cheese aka Kraft Dinner, but wary of a backlash to a beloved iconic product held off making the announcement for something like 6 months, so any outrage would be deflated. 'You have been using the new version for half a year and didn't notice!' I think the change was to switch to natural coloring or flavoring. I'm not a frequent consumer of it (though on occasion, it's just the thing) so I couldn't tell. I probably haven't had it in 10 years.

My wife, Mrs Perez, and I, like many couples share a brain in that we don't try to do it all in the arena of running a life together. I'm the one who remembers to pay the bills on time, and she just needs to remember to setup autodeposit to our joint household account. She's the one who remembers birthdays and anniversaries, and I'm the one who shows up.

Patrick

[Jim Grey]

I still shoot film mostly, and since 2020 develop my own b/w. I do it not because I enjoy it, I do it because it's faster and cheaper than sending it to a lab.

So I'm pragmatic about it. My developers are HC-110 and Rodinal because they are one shot and keep for a long time. I shoot only about 2 rolls a month, so long-lasting developers are cost effective.

I'm still discovering the universe of films that look good to me in these developers. Then I will shoot just those films going forward. I hope it is a large enough universe of films that film discontinuations don't amount to life crises for me.

[Dave]

Mike,

You should give the person at Kodak a call. What's the worst that could happen? Kodak's word regarding latent image stability should be as good as gold.

Hey; I remembered the Kodak contact printing paper name before reading it at the end of the post. I don't remember their "P-O-P" paper name though. (I never used it. "Studio Proof" doesn't ring a bell for me.)

I remember reading a story about a couple who sent out party invitations on printing out paper. The people who didn't write down the info on something else found that the invitation had turned black by the time the party day arrived.

"cisbigoted" - had to look it up. Got a rough idea. Will not bother using it ever. (Your post was the fourth search result, so there's not much info out there.)

Regarding "Mastering the Materials", the book Pentax and SLR photography by Robert Fuhring, 1969, (https://www.ebay.com/itm/392897706238?hash=item5b7a8738fe:g:SO0AAOSwkttfKZzT) told of a master printer named Charles Reiche who wouldn't go outside during his lunch time for fear of ruining his eyes for the next hour of printing.

I'm not sure how famous Mr. Reiche was. You would be much more likely than I to have heard his name.

[Phil]

Before I even got to your last paragraphs, I started thinking of the digital equivalent to losing (or being forced to change) a critical part of one's workflow and the first thing that came to mind is the screen built in to my "Late-2015" 21.5-inch Imac. It's the first 4K monitor I've had. It opened up new vistas (sorry about that) for selecting and processing my photos. The computer itself is now frightfully slow and, thanks to Apple, can't really be upgraded. It just barely runs DXO Photolab. But that screen, and a good pair of reading glasses, allow me to get the processing just right so my photos seem to look good (to my eyes, at least) on other people's screens. Sure, maybe one of those new 24" Imacs will be just as good, but what if it isn't?

[Richard Man]

Lodima paper, based on Azo:
https://www.lodima.org/photographic-paper

[Malcolm Myers]

For info on Kodak film ask Robert Shanebrook

http://www.makingkodakfilm.com/

I heard him on the Camerosity podcast some time ago. What he doesn't know isn't worth knowing I suspect.

[V.I. Voltz]

Agfa Lupex was also similar and even older than Convira. The neo-Adox, a brand of the company behind the German photo store Fotoimpex, makes a modern version. These are very slow, predominantly (but not 100%, no matter what Michael Smith said) silver chloride printing papers.

Voltz

[darlene]

Me thinks your fantasy is just that ... but a good one. ;)

From my experience, having someone love you unconditionally is the best partner to have.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

If you're not controlling the lighting and using spot metering to determine the exposure needed, maybe it hardly matters how precisely you process the film! On the other hand, piling uncertainties on top of each other does not lead to a stable structure.

What I did was to use the most mainstream processing for my normal exposures (which I thought was D76 1:1), but do it fairly precisely (I used a water-bath to make sure the chemistry was at the same temp, and to keep it stable in the tank); to eliminate variables. Also tried to keep the wash temp matching that, but never had a temperature control valve to automate that part. I did also use other chemistry for pushing, Acu-1 mostly. And I did go through a period of using Autofine instead of D76 for my normal exposures, before I started working in a shared darkroom at college.

I did however have a rather bizarre resistance to the idea of "personal Exposure Indexes". I really probably should have adjusted either my exposures or my processing some. Would have had to be the processing, since I couldn't possibly have tolerated lower EIs.

[Daniel]

"leave the off off!"

Should we do it "early on"?

You know, you know, you know, anyways?

[Bob G.]

Mike,
I, for one, would like to hear about your film experiences. You know, like before we lose you to dating and stuff… 😀

[Mark B]

I definitely try to stay in the master-the-materials camp (D76 and HP5+; Dektol and Ilford MGRC), though "master" hardly describes my darkroom product, and mostly I'm trying to limit the number of darkroom variables. Maybe the distinction between master-the-materials and adjust-and-adapt is akin to that between craftsman and artist. In any case, a column where you impart nuggets of darkroom wisdom is much appreciated.

[Aravind]

Ah, the offensive offs and of! Off the cuff, I can mention a few of those that put me off.
1. "The ball came off of the bat". Why do we need the of with off? Doesn't "The ball came off the bat" sound better?
2. "The film is based off the novel of the same name". Shouldn't it be "based on"?
3. "The company is based out of Seattle". What? Isn't the correct usage "The company is based in Seattle"?
I will push off for now :-)

[John Robison]

Besides ‘Adjust and Adapt’ and ‘Master the Materials’ there is a third way. It could be termed ‘Lowered Expectations’, especially good if you have no one but yourself to please.

[Earl Dunbar]

And then there’s the changes to film stocks themselves. Agfa APX 100 (my favourite medium speed film) changed before its demise and “rebirth” - at least the new design of the packaging is a clear indicator of what stock you might have. I have not made extensive effort to find the closest match as serendipity led me to Rollei RPX 100 which I’ve only used in 120. Whether it exactly matches or not is irrelevant to me since I really like it.