Is there a Magic Bullet?

[Bill]

OK so I need to make a confession (again). I am a self confessed ‘magic bullet chaser”. (Feels a bit like an AA meeting. Perhaps we should form a ZA (Zonies Anonymous) group.:D)
I have tried most combinations of film and the common developers, I have tried Pyro, I have changed formats going from 35 mm to 645 to 6x6 to 4”x5” but still I am not happy with the work I am producing. I want it SHARP and if possible grain free.
I almost bought an RB67 last week thinking that would be the answer. Luckily it has been sold so that is one decision taken away from me. Perhaps a Hasselblad is the answer?
I have decided that to break from this cycle I must limit myself to a small range of films in just one (or perhaps 2-3) developer(s).:eek:
For 35 mm and 120 I intend to use Prescysol EF and for 4”x5” ID 11 or Perceptol.
I am going to try to stop taking images of brick walls, grey cards and other assorted test images.
Do you think this is a wise move or should I keep playing about searching for that elusive magic formula that will give me the images I crave?
Bill

[Dave]

The magic bullet you seek is hidden underneath the Holy Grail, let us know when you find it.

[percepts]

There is no magic bullet.

What I suggest you do is to set yourself some little projects. Take a look at some images by people whose work you admire and try and produce something similar. But before you go out to take photos, analyse the makeup of that image you want to make something similar to. Look at the tonal relationships. Is the background much darker or lighter than the main subject. What is it that makes the main subject jump of the print, if it does. How are the elements of the image arranged. Understand its makeup fully. Then when you go out to take some photos, you should look very hard and long at scenes to try and find those things. And imagine how they will look when printed and what contrast control you may need when printing them.

IMO the most common reason for being disappointed with one's own work is because subject selection is poor. It is simply not good enough to think that is a nice view, I will photograph it. It is how it translates to B+W that is important and most landscape views do not translate well into black and white. You've got to really really look very hard to find good black and white subjects in the landscape. I find that I can walk around a small area for an hour or so before I start seeing really well in black and white. Then and only then do the images start to come. If you don't do that, then the results are often disappointing when printed.

[Sandeha Lynch]

Even once you've found the magic bullet one problem remains ... you still have five empty chambers. :rolleyes:

[Trevor Crone]

Bill, I think the nearest we can get to 'the magic bullet' (where did this term originate)? is to stay with just a couple of items, be it developers, film or whatever and really get to know what we are using, what it is fully capable of, its limitations, etc.

[Bill]

Thanks guys for the quick responses.

Bill

[Rob Archer]

The important thing is not to get bogged down. Enjoy your photography. Over the years I've found a few good combinations that work for me (e.g. HP5+in ID11 (1+1), PanF+/Stoecklers), but I still enjoy trying out different films and developers and I'm sometimes pleasantly surprised. The key is to find something that works for you use it as a standard for measuring the others.

Rob

[wiesmier]

The Magic Bullet for you is to embrace blur!

[Bill]

Dave - I think the guy you want is Dan Browne.

Percepts - That is a good idea. I have only twice worked on a project, once for a group exhibition in 1987 and once for a course I did at Lancaster University.

Trevor - Good advice and the way I have been thinking, hence the thread.

Sandeha - You mean I have to think about another 5 things.

Rob - I think you have it there. I am so busy searching for the magic formula I no longer enjoy going out because I am convinced it is not going to work.

Wiesmier - Tried it once, a long time ago taking images of trees moving in the wind, but I'm over it now!

Thanks for all the replies

Bill

[Mike O'Pray]

I know it was Rob who introduced B&W landscapes and their difficulties but in case this was one of your subjects, I have seen a B&W landscape book in my local library which isn't bad. If you are interested let me know and I'll get the ISBN number for you. You might be able to get it on the inter-library scheme.

Mike

[Ian David]

I want it SHARP and if possible grain free.
...
I am going to try to stop taking images of brick walls, grey cards and other assorted test images.
Do you think this is a wise move or should I keep playing about searching for that elusive magic formula that will give me the images I crave?
Bill

Bill

A question that I had to ask myself a couple of years ago was - what is it about photography that turns you on? Some people love the endless opportunities for testing and measuring and calculating that photography and processing offer, and are basically looking for an outlet for their perfectionist tendencies. Sometimes these people are not really that interested in what they photograph. That is fine. Some people are looking to produce images that are beautiful, emotive, or whatever, and are not bothered about film speed tests, etc. That too is fine. Some people tend to be drawn in both directions, and that is something that has afflicted me from time to time. If I am honest though, I am much more interested in producing meaningful images. And I have found that the search for ultimate resolution, minimal grain, perfect calibration of everything, etc, can sometimes become a significant obstacle in the way of producing satisfying images. I don't think the above categories are exhaustive, but I think it is important to honestly ask yourself what you are really seeking.

My solution to an obsession with sharp, fine-grained images was:
1. own a good lens(es) - and be confident that they are good - no further testing;
2. re 1 above, if you know you will never be satisfied until you have tried Leica or Hasselblad or some other "magic bullet" brand, go straight there now, rather than buying, doubting and selling six other cameras/lenses first;
2. use mostly one type of film - relatively slow (eg FP4+ plus tripod when required);
3. use a single processing regime for each type of film and stick to it - one that is recommended for that film (manufacturer's data sheet is a good starting place).
4. limit yourself to using one format for a while - 120 is a good compromise.

If the above doesn't work, well... have you considered getting into ultra large format?

Ian

[Mark Burley]

Or - just go and buy a Hasselblad...

Signed: Medium format Zeiss glass junkie!

[Bill]

Ian - Lots of good points there. I would like the best I can do but not just test charts, real useful images. I know nothing is ever perfect, it just doesn't exist. I do think that the testing and stressing over quality has taken over and I rarely take images now that are any good (in my opinion). I already own 4 Leica's and whatever I buy I never sell a camera. Points 2 (second one) 3 and 4 are what I am now proposing to do in principle. Don't even plant the seed of ULF (Too late!)

Mark - You offering to treat me?

Bill

[Bill]

I know it was Rob who introduced B&W landscapes and their difficulties but in case this was one of your subjects, I have seen a B&W landscape book in my local library which isn't bad. If you are interested let me know and I'll get the ISBN number for you. You might be able to get it on the inter-library scheme.

Mike
I'd be interested to know which one as landscape is where my interest lies.
I have about 300 photography books including a number of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, David Butcher, Joe Cornish, Charlie Waite, Craig McMaster, Trevor Crone and one I got for Christmas but have resisted opening so far John Sexton. I just enjoy the anticipation of opening it and what I will find inside. Sad, but I also like to hang on to a magazine for a week after it has arrived before reading it then limiting myself to say 2 articles each time I read it. That way you can fully appreciate them. I now only read Black and White Photography magazine. Probably irrational delaying reading it I know but each to his own.
Thanks
Bill

[Dave]

Ian, excellent advice; however I confess I'm having trouble with the format part at the moment. :o

Bill, I wasn't going to bring it to the Lakes, but if it will help I will, just so that you can play with a proper 10x8, and no it's not the Bulldog. If you ask Barry nicely he may bring his banquet camera with him too.:)

[Bill]

Thanks for the offer Dave but I think I have enough cameras to keep me amused for now. :)
If others can produce work to the quality shown here then I should be able to as well.
What I need to do is settle down and start taking images rather than tests and not be put off by failures but learn from them.
I have done it in the past so need to work at getting the standard back.
I am looking forward to the Lakes weekend and the chance to learn from some excellent photographers.
Bill

[Trevor Crone]

SNIP; What I need to do is settle down and start taking images rather than tests and not be put off by failures but learn from them.
I have done it in the past so need to work at getting the standard back.
I am looking forward to the Lakes weekend and the chance to learn from some excellent photographers.
Bill

Bill, I think you've given yourself your own good advice. Once you are in the 'ball-park' with regard to film processing etc., I feel the best way is to just take photographs of subject matter that has some meaning/emtional appeal for you. You can always fine tune the technical side as you go along.

I used to test films and development times, then I realised I too was spending and worrying about the technicalities and not 'feeling' the photograph. I decided it was time to just get on with it and adjust film speed vs. development time as I went along. Yes I got a few, perhaps more then a few, bum negatives but I eventually arrived at a 'system' that I felt is right for me.

[Dave]

SNIP
I am looking forward to the Lakes weekend and the chance to learn from some excellent photographers.
Bill

So am I.

[Bill]

Thanks Trevor. All I need now is to work out a project and get started.

Dave - And I thought you were one of them!!

Bill

[Steven Taylor]

Why not get yourself a Holga or something that leaks light, has a plastic lens with aberrations and just let the images happen. You will feel so liberated and it's amazing what you will get.

The first project on Paul Hill's MA course is to do something you've not done before. The idea being that you come out of your comfort zone and go back to being a beginner. It's amazing how many of his students carry the project on often through to the major project.
Steven

[Bill]

Thanks Steven. Maybe not a Holga but I may use a P&S Canon that I have in a drawer somewhere and 35 mm just to get the flow going again.

Bill

[Bob]

The Magic Bullet for you is to embrace blur!

Listen to who's talking: you've embraced it, given it a big sloppy wet kiss and taken it home with you! :D

[dicko]

Bill, I think the nearest we can get to 'the magic bullet' (where did this term originate)? is to stay with just a couple of items, be it developers, film or whatever and really get to know what we are using, what it is fully capable of, its limitations, etc.

I've realised recently that I needed to place more limitations on my tools so I can explore their capabilities - I'm leaving stuff in the cupboard, cameras especially, and sticking to a Nikon SLR, 50mm f/1.8 lens, either Tri-X or HP5 film, DD-X dev, MGIV RC paper, and ignoring the lightmeter and guessing exposures. I hope to learn a lot from this!

[Richard Gould]

Bill, if you ever find that magic bullit let5 the rest of us know, i think the best thing is to find somthing you enjoy in photography and keep on enjoying, and I am a great believer in keeping things simple, Richard

[photomi7ch]

Embrace the grain. make it a factor in your prints some people love grainy pictures it adds to the composition in some cases. But don't go to pieces.

[Victor Krag]

Seeking out is certainly part of the fun I think.. No matter the format, the magic bullet could be as simple as getting the exposure correct first, to set everything else in motion. High accutance fine grain dev and an accurate thermometer helps, too.

[Dave]

I was thinking again about this magic bullet thing on my drive to work this morning, and mentally running through my pictures, which tend to be landscapes.

Do the successful ones have a common factor?

I decided that they do, and it’s simply that my favourites were taken in less than good lighting, which is a contradiction, so I should explain. I mean they have all been taken in uncomfortable lighting; in rain, mist, predawn or around the very end of the day; never in visually strong lighting, but in lighting that will impart a sense of modelling, and hopefully mystery to the scene.

Then again if you are into, sharp, contrast, or detail this revelation may not help much!

[Steven Taylor]

I was thinking again about this magic bullet thing on my drive to work this morning, and mentally running through my pictures, which tend to be landscapes.

Do the successful ones have a common factor?

I decided that they do, and it’s simply that my favourites were taken in less than good lighting, which is a contradiction, so I should explain. I mean they have all been taken in uncomfortable lighting; in rain, mist, predawn or around the very end of the day; never in visually strong lighting, but in lighting that will impart a sense of modelling, and hopefully mystery to the scene.

Then again if you are into, sharp, contrast, or detail this revelation may not help much!

That's the very formula I am working to at the moment... I was going to keep it to myself, now you have let the cat out of the bag.:slap: I think that it is quite well known though, think about Michael Kenna, Rolf Horne, John Sexton that's where he got the tittle Quite Light, some of the best images by Tom Richardson. Dave, I couldn't agree more but don't tell anyone else.
Steven:):)

[Trevor Crone]

Too late, I'm onto it as well.:D

Most of my landscape/coastal photography is taken in soft lighting, over cast days, at dawn and pre-dawn. Like Dave I just love mist; seems to becoming rare these days in the south.

The only time I use strong directional light is when photographing architectural subject matter.

[RH Designs]

"Uncomfortable Light". Now there's a title for a body of work! It's about all we seem to get in these parts lately ...

[Steven Taylor]

Thanks guys for not giving me a hard time about my spelling on that last post. I'll try not to be so bad in the future.
Steven

[Steven Taylor]

Too late, I'm onto it as well.:D

Most of my landscape/coastal photography is taken in soft lighting, over cast days, at dawn and pre-dawn. Like Dave I just love mist; seems to becoming rare these days in the south.

The only time I use strong directional light is when photographing architectural subject matter.


Trevor move north, we have no shortage of overcast days and mist. I went to Coniston the other morning to photograph the Lake in the mist, I had trouble finding the Lake.
Steven

[Dave]

Trevor move north, we have no shortage of overcast days and mist. I went to Coniston the other morning to photograph the Lake in the mist, I had trouble finding the Lake.
Steven

I do wish you would stop saying things like that. :wag:

[Steven Taylor]

Trevor move north, we have no shortage of overcast days and mist. I went to Coniston the other morning to photograph the Lake in the mist, I had trouble finding the Lake.
Steven

Accept in mid May when we are always bathed in glorious sunshine, usually happens around the 16th and 17th May.
Steven

[dicko]

I used to live in Lancaster. Whilst we only had one of what the the Met Office calls a 'Severe Weather Event' (i.e. it rains a lot) every year, it used to start toward the end of September and continue until about the second week of June the following year. :)

[Dave]

Accept in mid May when we are always bathed in glorious sunshine, usually happens around the 16th and 17th May.
Steven

Perhaps we should change the date so that we get some decent photographic weather? :)

[Bill]

I've just checked the weather records for May for the last 8 years and it has been fine around those dates for 2 of them. The rest have been wet with winds up to 35 mph.

http://www.lakedistrict-weather.co.uk/monthsums/monthly-weather.html

Anyway it's not rain it is Lakeland Liquid Sunshine.

Bill

[Dave]

I've just checked the weather records for May for the last 8 years and it has been fine around those dates for 2 of them. The rest have been wet with winds up to 35 mph.

http://www.lakedistrict-weather.co.uk/monthsums/monthly-weather.html

Anyway it's not rain it is Lakeland Liquid Sunshine.

Bill

That sounds more promising. :cool:

[Mark Burley]

Not sure about treating you to a Hassie Bill - but am quite happy if you wish to use/borrow it on a certain Cornwall Bash in April for half a day or so...

I am still hoping to join you all in the lakes - but cash is now looking decidedly on the thin side and it looks like I may not be able to make it. I am in mourning already. Rest assured that all devious means of raising the necessary funds will be explored...

[Bill]

Never mind, it was worth a try:D
Afraid I won't be in Cornwall but thanks for the generous offer.
Would be good if you could make the Lakes weekend but travelling is expensive these days. You will just have to be more devious.
Bill

[Tom Stanworth]

you can get super sharp grain free images from the formats you now use. My advice?

Go to something really simple and just take shots that interest you. Work on another goal: vision

Sharp and grain free is not a creative goal, it is a technical parameter, which may do nothing to enhance the image and may even hinder it. It is useful sometimes, but taking images that interest/captivate/tickle you and then working hard in the darkroom will be a lot more productive when you have the creative reason to be there.

[Bill]

Thanks Tom
I am currently re-assessing my work in light of everybody's comments.

Bill

[Tom Stanworth]

Bill,

At the same time as reassessing what you are doing, do not be tempted to stray away from your areas of inspiration and interest. Some people are more literal photographers than others. Some are out and out impressionists. I, for example, don't do blurry/soft/soothing landscapes or street scenes very often. It is not because I don't like other people's but because it is not the way I see things. It is not me; and my images are a reflection of the same. It may well be that sharp, low grain images are more in keeping with your vision, but I think it is important to have a firmer idea of what those creative intentions are and then apply the technical parameters.

In the OP, you do not mention the sort of subject matter you tackle. Perhaps you can tell us something about that so we know where the sharp/grain free goal factored into what you do?

[Bill]

Hi Tom,
My 'normal' subject is landscape. I like the work of photographers such as Fay Godwin, John Davies, Ansel Adams and the like. There are also several photographers on this Forum who I would like to equal, although that is unlikely. What I want to be able to do is produce images with a good range of tones that are sharp and with reasonable grain. To that end I lean towards Pan F Plus for film and Perceptol for developer although I am currently using Prescysol EF as it seems more versatile.
You mention creative intentions and technical parameters. Do you not think that there is a Catch 22 situation there? It is no good having a creative intention if technically you cannot realise it but then again you can be technically perfect but produce sterile and boring images. Which one do you work on first? My instinct is that I want to get the technicalities right then look for a project to use them on.

Bill

[Dave]

My opinion is that you are approaching this the wrong way around. Capture the mood first, and worry about the technique later; much, much later. Sterile pictures of technical perfection are very boring.

[Dave]

Brooks seems to think that a certain amount of discomfort (http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW0511%20-%20Suffering.mp3) is required.

[Ian David]

I have subscribed to Lenswork for a few years now, and that is the first time I have heard Brooks' voice.... the mystery is shattered!
On the topic of technique v. creativity, I think the answer is to try to develop both at the same time (with an emphasis on the creativity). At least that is what I am trying to do. To do that, I personally have to fight my instinctive urge to first achieve technical perfection which I think is just a form of procrastination. There will always be further technique to master, and it is easier (perhaps more comfortable?) to improve technique than to develop creatively.

[Les McLean]

I have subscribed to Lenswork for a few years now, and that is the first time I have heard Brooks' voice.... the mystery is shattered!
On the topic of technique v. creativity, I think the answer is to try to develop both at the same time (with an emphasis on the creativity). At least that is what I am trying to do. To do that, I personally have to fight my instinctive urge to first achieve technical perfection which I think is just a form of procrastination. There will always be further technique to master, and it is easier (perhaps more comfortable?) to improve technique than to develop creatively.


Technique v Creativity has been subject that has been debated for years and one that all serious photographers have faced at one time or another. Many years ago I decided to concentrate on the technical side of film esposure and development and improving my printing skills, although I did continue to visit exhibitions and buy books to help me with creativity.

My logic at this time in my photographic life was that the craft side of photography could be mastered simply with sweat and some tears and once done the skill would never be forgotten. More importantly, I felt that to master the craft would allow me to open my mind and concentrate fully on the "vision". Now I never have to think deeply about technical issues when I make photographs and I can concentrate on seeing, a luxury that is allowed simply because I am at ease with the technicalities of our passion.

[Tom Stanworth]

Bill,

Judging from what you have said, there are a couple of thoughts that come to mind (personal opinion to follow):

The vision is really important, but your choice of materials are very heavily directed towards fine grain at all costs. I personally would change that and go for something more robust. I can give you some very, very subjective and personal opinion, which may or may not help you. It would be in keeping with a fresh outlook, a simple outlook and one that permits plenty of flexibility (I am thinking mainly about 120 and LF):

Ditch Pan-F. This film has its fans, but it can be fiercely contrasty and display a limited tonal range - in short it can be a PIG to get completely reliable and consistent results under variety of conditions. I know of some who manage this, but many more who do not, but pursue it because it has the fine grain they seek, leaving everything else to suffer. It can be very hard work indeed in high contrast light. It is also very slow and has limited acutance, although Prescysol will bring out more bite. Great film on a tripod under low contrast conditions, but when things get contrasty, I would rather try to ride an angry bull with a thorn in its hoof.

I would also walk away from Perceptol, especially with Pan-F. Used straight it has very low acutance, but fine grain; although images will look smooth, they will lack crispness. Diluted 1+2 or 3 it gives better speed and acutance but with bigger film formats Prescysol would be my choice (its like Pyrocat HD - the dev I used before I went to Kabul where water quality varies wildly - mine is awful). In short, the materials you use are great and have some fantastic applications, but they would not be my day to day choices. (aside: I did a test of FP4+ in Perceptol 1+2 and Pyrocat HD (same or similar to Prescysol). The latter had very noticeably better acutance and image crispness on a 20x16 or 20x24 off a 5x4 neg whilst remaining effectively grain free).

Once again... extremely personal subjective opinion: Choose a standard slow film which is flexible and robust. I would pick either Fp4+ or Delta 100. The latter has far finer grain, higher resolution but a more modern look. The former has IMO has more pleasing tones under a wider variety of conditions, but is grainier. Take your pick, but get to know it.

I would stick to prescysol as you are used to it and it will deliver good acutance and reasonably fine grain with 120/LF. Get working smoothly with your choice of FP4+/Delta 100. I think you will get a much better success rate with these films than Pan-F when it comes to producing pleasing prints time after time under varying lighting conditions. Prescysol will help keep highlights under control too.

Concentrate on your printing and vision. Once you have gotten to grips with a solid film/developer combination and can get the expected results, focus very much on seeing and then delivering the results you desire through effective printing.

See individual images as something which must be take to their fullest conclusion at every stage; from seeing the image through to printing an ultimately finishing (spotting, matting, even framing etc). Only when an image (assuming it is one you feel is a good one) is take to the end of its path can you say how successful you have been and what you would do differently next time. This might sound daft, but many images need setting off with a mount and frame to look, well, framed and complete. Just my opninion, but my learning accelerated dramatically when I took this approach.

Do not fuss to hard over images that did not work. Focus much more on the ones that do. Don't beat yourself up over missing the (your) mark, focus on enjoying the experience when things go well. Ansel and Co had a lot of dull images. We remember teh good ones and you are no different.

Read like crazy. Look through books with images from photographers you enjoy, but root out those you do not know well. Do not fixate on the images solely from a pictorial/graphical perspective, but from the sense of 'what they do for you... what you feel, sense etc.' I find this really important for images that do not hit you immediately but leave you needing to come back time and again. Forget emulation, take away senses, feelings and understanding, but not complete images. If you do the latter, it is all too easy to look for images in scenes that adhere to 'success templates' rather than being receptive to the impact scenes have on you then taking the photograph that follows.

Photograph less, stand and sit more. Do not go into autopilot every time you encounter a scene - this can result in a formulaic approach ("ah, yes, this is obviously my foreground interest, which will be lower left and....with a wide angle lens...") . I take my initial shots and then often sit on a rock for a bit and let things soak in. I look around the scene and just relax, enjoying whatever it is that drew me to it. I find this helps me get in touch with that excitement or buzz, even if I cannot consciously place or articulate it at the time. The subsequent photos are often very different from the initial ones and sometimes much better (sometimes not). I find this technique very useful for scenes that have no 'simple solution.'

Look at high quality original prints but resist the temptation to burn your own afterward. Looking at great prints is a good way of keeping in mind how wonderful a well executed print can be. It helps a great deal from a printing perspective.

Feel free to ignore all of the above. Just some thoughts that come from dealing with some of the same gremlins as you are now facing. There is no magic bullet, but I feel it is important to have technique and technical understanding that support your creative goals (especially in the area you are interested in). You do not need to go nuts, but you do need solid ground under your feet.

[Bill]

Thanks Tom for your very comprehensive reply and advice which is appreciated.
I normally use Perceptol diluted 1+2 but I think I am now leaning more toward Prescysol EF as it is so versatile.
I have used many films in the past including FP4 Plus and Delta 100. One of the problems I encountered with FP4 Plus was a spate of drying marks in the emulsion which is why I stopped using it for a while. On a weekend workshop with John Davies he had found the same and gone to Agfa film instead.
I think Les McLean touched on it in another thread when he said it was perhaps a matter of confidence. I seem to have hit a run of bad results which has resulted in the thought that nothing is now going to work.
I have decided to simplify things for now, go back to basics using one camera, one film and one developer printing on one paper and see if I can get going again.
I am also going to decide on a project to work on to give me a focus which is lacking at the moment.
I am also fortunate in that another member has offered the opportunity to take part in a negative exchange where we print from each others negatives to see how different people interpret the same negative. This will I hope enable me to broaden my scope and vision.
I know I have achieved the standard in the past (say 20 years ago) it is now a case of re-building and getting back to that standard again.
Thanks again for your help and support.
Bill

[Tom Stanworth]

Good luck Bill!