Digital BW, The Print

On 04/09/2012 David Kachel wrote:
> >>Chromagenics were capable of tonality and extended highlight range 
> that
> went way beyond normal ISO400 films.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion but even the manufacturers of 
> chromogenic
> films would disagree with you.
> What amateurs thought were extended highlights in these films were 
> really
> flattened highlights due to the severe shoulders.
> The inexperienced got muddy gray highlights instead of blown out 
> highlights
> and thought it was better.

You seem to have descended into sneering hyperbole. This is not a 
religious debate. Have you ever actually used chromagenics?

Retaining some sort of vestige of detail in non-specular highlights has 
always looked better to me than detailless paper white. Rather than having 
to burn in what might not be there, chromagenics made this easier. If you 
got grey mush, it wasn't the film, it was your printing.

Chromagenics offered a different balance of attributes that looked great 
and made them tolerant of variable lighting conditions. This suited the 
kind of work I did.

Since you ask "why the testing?" it was because I was never a fan of 
grain. Starting in the '70's when TriX+D63/ID11 was the conventional 
wisdom, I was never crazy about it. I used it but I never had access to 
deep tank processing which was the only way it worked optimally. I was 
always one-shot processing in small tanks, not endlessly replenished D63 
that had a much greater solvent action. Eventually I switched to 
Promicrol, then Microdol X (lovely, but it cost a stop).

ISO100/125 35mm or better, PanF (ISO50) gave results I far preferred, but 
it was far too slow and awkward to use for magazine work.

In 30 years I tried most things as they became available. Why would I not? 
The whole point was to see whether I could do things better. I'd then 
standardise on what seemed to be the best for a few years.

For a lengthy period from the early 1980's to early 90's I standardised on 
chromogenics because they were, in my terms, the best blend of attributes.

Throughout that time I was running my own darkroom and printing my own 
work, usually against deadlines. I quickly became aware of relative 
strengths and weaknesses - which are, I have to say, largely subjective 
means-to-an-end. Unless you are St Ansel working each of sheet film to 
suit the ZS, photography is a balance, like cookery, rather than the 
mathematical absolutism that seems to dominate many peoples' thinking in 
the pixel-peepers' era.

Later the T-grain films offered a balance of improved grain (over TriX 
generation) smoother tonality and reduced tendency to block highlights. 
All without C41 PITA processing. I then switched to TMax400, later 
Delta400, w/TMax dev, for 35mm general purpose.

This means I have 100,000 or so negs ranging from ISO320rated FP4 in 
Diafine, through chromogenics, to Delta400 & 3200 in HC110 modified with 
extra sulphite, or TMax. Oh, and in 6x6, TMax100 in 1:50 Rodinal was my 
favourite, and still is

NONE of them are difficult to scan because I always preferred to dev on 
the slightly thin side and print slightly hard. But the chromagenic stuff 
is easiest of the lot, and the tonality and residual grain translate well 
to digital without aliasing problems.

You seem to be exaggerating and making assertions I find unrecognisable:

"Oatmeal mush" (you lose adjacency effects of silver dev which actually 
destroys fine detail, but chromagenic could resolve similar LPMM as 
comparable silver, with smoother tones).

"Also, characteristic curves don't lie" (true, they don't - chromogenics 
are very similar to any other film except in a somewhat extended highlight 
range due to absence of terminally clumped silver.)

"The fact that zero established fine art photographers use these weekend 
warrior films pretty much cinches it" (I have no idea whether that's true 
but FA photographers have all sorts of reasons for wanting to stay purist 
organic wholemeal, many marketing related. I am just a photographer, I 
don't elevate myself with the FA label, but nor do FA priorities indicate 
the path to nirvana for all photographers.)

 > These films are simply not up
 > to par...
 > Who on Earth would
> want to
> see traditional B&W films produce the oatmeal you get from chromogenic
> films. This belongs in the same category as those who stomp their 
> feet and
> insist that RC papers are just as good as fiber papers. In both 
> cases, they
> appear to be better because they are easier to use for those who are 
> not
> capable of getting the best out of real film and real paper. They are
> training wheels. They are little plastic pianos.

Hysteria aside, you use what is appropriate. This may be RC paper or 
fibre. I mostly shot for magazine repro, on deadlines. RC was quite 
useful. If I had time, fibre was much nicer and more satisfying to use, 
but once it had been halftoned and litho printed you'd not see a 
difference on the page. RC enabled me to sometimes get to bed instead of 
not. Clients wouldn't pay for fibre either, because I charged 5x as much 
for 5x as much work.

If you want to sneer at the sheer indolence and sloppiness of not giving 
clients air-dried, archivally processed, selemium toned fibre prints, 
well, I think that says more about you than about me.

> Those who are unable to wring peak performance out of a Ferrari will 
> always
> insist that their Volkswagens drive just as well.

Please just accept that different photographers have a less fixed and more 
pragmatic view. I have worked as a pro for 32 years, have processed my own 
photos since age 11, had a bit of a name for B&W quality when it was still 
in demand, and have done consultancy for Polaroid (fat lot of good that 
did them). I do not expect everyone to like what I like, nor use the same 
methods - it is part of photography for everyone to negotiate their own 
path to wherever they want to get. Your dogmatism and exaggeration is 
rhetorical, according to my experience. Which you are welcome to disregard 
but please try not to be so bloody rude. I don't know why photography 
forums are so infested with intolerance, there is no One True Way.

> Lastly, if you are serious about your work, you won't create it on 
> film
> doomed to destruction even if you think it creates good images. 
> Chromogenic
> films are simply one-color, color films. That is, unstable and 
> destined to
> fade. Real B&W film is almost bullet proof, especially if you treat 
> it in
> selenium.

Regrettably untrue. You seem unaware of mould, which I have on a few 
frames of my 70's negs, and the tendency of acetate base to turn to acetic 
acid, which is afflicting a colleague's work of similar age (Kodak 
Rochester published a paper c.1990, no longer seems to be on the web since 
K's decline). Estar seems OK though. Which reminds me, I've met the 
purists who sneer at anyone who doesn't shoot everything on 2475 Recording 
Film - who'd tell you that a "proper fine artist" would have no need of 
ISO400 anyway. The same people have lists of Leica serial numbers in their 
heads and will throw a hissy fit if you use the wrong Summicron. Of course 
a proper, proper real fine artist would be mining and refining their own 
silver, hand-coating wet-plates and shooting on (at least) 10x8 Deardorff. 
God save photography from the photo pedants.

FWIW my allegedly ghastly and heretical chromogenic negs show no sign of 
fading dye, but any I really care about have been transposed to digital 
anyhow. I suppose I'll start another row by saying I can get more out of 
them, or at least far more easily, printing digitally anyway. In fact 
there are negs I was never able to print well from early in my career that 
digital has made possible to realise properly. I abandoned darkroom 
printing after 25 years of doing it almost daily, because all my favourite 
best papers had disappeared or been eco-reformulated to not work so well.


-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep