Differences between films and/or developer

[markbarendt]

Thanks to all folks...this was the answer i didn't want to read, but...that's it. Condamned to lifwtime testing! could be funny...

Not necessarily.

While films are malleable in look there are several rules of thumb.

Moving too a slower film, say from Tri-X to FP4, will get you more fine detail and less grain, and vice-versa.

Sure development and exposure changes/choices can make Tri-X (actually any film) look different but switching films will normally make a bigger difference.

Slower films do require more exposure and that means that the camera settings you are used to with Tri-X will have to be adjusted. This is a style thing and a practical thing. Either the shutter has to be slower or the aperture more open or a bit of both.

If you opt for slower shutter time, you may want to use camera support more. If you opt for more open apertures that will affect your depth of field.

These changes aren't intrinsically good or bad, the real question is "what fits your style?"

Thankfully, even just one test roll with prints done "normally" can give you a reasonable feel for a film.

[keithwms]

Condamned to lifwtime testing!

Not at all! You certainly shouldn't have that impression. You could pick one film and one developer and have a very successful photographic career from that.

My question is what you are hoping to improve, i.e. what is it that you are dissatisfied with. If you are specific then you will get good, specific suggestions from people who've been there. If you ask what is "better" or "best" with no more specific qualifiers, then you'll just get pages of scattershot.

[eskimo]

why i have to be unsatisfied or be scared to have not a succesful photographic career to ask which element has more weight in a tonal change, whether a dev or a film?? I'm not searching something i don't have, nor i asked "which is better or best", or did i?
Maybe i wasn't clear in my question, or maybe i already red the answer: one change it's not so evident, it's a particular mix of changes (temp, film, agitation, dev, etc) that makes big differences; i think.

[keithwms]

My response wasn't as much aimed at you Sorry.

But really, there are so many variables in the workflow with any of the films and develoeprs you mention. If you don't know what you are aiming for then you'll have to explore a very large parameter space. When you say sensitive, the question is with respect to what? "Tonality" is a very hard thing to define, there have been many threads. Try to think of specific things you want to address... grain, range, shadow detail etc. "Tonality" encompassess all these things and all of them suggest a lot of different avenues.

[Sundowner]

one change it's not so evident, it's a particular mix of changes (temp, film, agitation, dev, etc) that makes big differences; i think.

Sort of, but you can't change all of them at once, unless you just want to confuse yourself. You have to go step by step, methodically changing ONE thing at a time...or you won't know what you did that made the difference. My process for figuring out Tri-X in my Nikon F took 13 rolls, and all I was doing was increasing my development time...I didn't change temperature, agitation rate, or anything else. Just the time. And that was only in ONE of my cameras.

Also, I saw HUGE changes just from that development time being altered. So, sometimes a big difference can be made by altering one variable. Although you pretty much have to stick to proper scientific procedure when you're playing with darkroom chemicals, photography isn't an exact science, and there aren't many universal answers. It's an art, and you have to ask questions about the look and feel that you want.

[Oren Grad]

...i'm asking whether there'is more difference between a change in a developer than in a change of similars films...like HP5 and tri-x or FP4 and plusx 125 for example.

It depends on the film. TMX in particular is quite sensitive to choice of developer - you can get a wide range of characteristic curve shapes out of it. Phil Davis had a nice article on this in Photo Techniques magazine some years back. Other popular films, such as the ones you mention, tend to deliver a more consistent rendering across different developers, so that you need to change films (or papers) if you want a substantially different tonal scale.