> Finally decided to start experimenting with B&W with a home darkroom. > Bought an enlarger Philips PCS2000, with EL-Nikkor 50f2.8 at a price I hope > I won't loose too much if I sell it again. Has tri-one color head for > variable contrast and timer. Found plenty of info on how to use it. Durst > Comask easel for 18x24 cm paper was included in the sale. > Have my mind set on Ilford XP2 (C41 processing)as the first film to start > exploring, so no probems with film processing yet. > Will buy beginners set with trays and small stuff, should be OK. > > However I am overwhelmed by the choice of papers and chemicals for papers. > Any suggestions for the first paper to start with and the chemicals to go > with it? Erwin, I recommend that you start with a variable-contrast RC paper as you will find it easier to quicker to process and work with as you learn how to print. I would however recommend AGAINST Ilford XP-2 as the film negative is often not permanent. I have XP-1 and Agfa Vario-XL (an early chromogenic b&w film) negatives from as long ago as 17 years that are still printable, but I have XP-2 negatives from only 6 years ago that have deteriorated so much that they are no longer printable. I recommend settling on one or two good, standard, conventional black-and-white films and then sticking with them. If you choose one film, make it a nominal 400-speed film; they're quite good and the speed is often useful. Good ones include Kodak Tri-X, Ilford HP-5 Plus, Ilford 400 Delta, and Kodak T-Max 400. I use Kodak Tri-X myself for the following specific reasons: it is forgiving of exposure errors; it handles over- and under-development well; it is nearly impervious to heat in storage; it doesn't have to be fresh when you shoot it; it tolerates long hold times (a hold time is the duration of time between exposure and development) with little change; it is easy to print; and it is easy to get. However, the other films are equally good, each in its own way. An example of a film that must be fresh when you shoot it is Kodak T-Max P3200. An example of a film that handles long hold times exceedingly poorly is Agfapan 400. An example of a film that is intolerant of exposure errors is T-Max 400. I also recommend that you not make automatic assumptions about film graininess and sharpness based on speed. Agfapan APX100 in Rodinal is grainier than several 400-speed films; faster films often offer great subjective sharpness than slower film because of the crisp grain and greater edge sharpness; and the graininess and sharpness of films has a lot to do with processing and enlarger light sources. For instance, you can print the same Tri-X negative on a cold-light enlarger and a Leitz Focomat II condenser enlarger, and you would draw radically different conclusions about the film. Beware or generalizations! Also, beware of "received wisdom." It has been reported forever that Rodinal has the best "acutance" or edge sharpness. It's good, but no better than D-76 diluted 1:1. Other "old saws" may be misleading or wrong. If you want the sharpest black-and-white 400-speed film, I suggest you try Ilford 400 Delta developed in Formulary TFX-2 developer. This is a proprietary glycin formula sold by Photographers' Formulary in Condon, Montana, USA, that is a modification of Geoffrey Crawley's FX-2 glycin formulas. For a subjective sense of brilliant sharpness, I don't think this combination can be matched, let alone beat. Ilford HP-5 Plus in conventional developers also has a high sense of subjective sharpness. Bear in mind that many higher-resolution, slower films actually look LESS sharp. High resolution and high sharpness are not equivalent to each other. T-Max 100 has about the highest resolution of any film available, but it has a soft look and relatively low edge contrast that makes viewers think it is relatively less sharp. Re papers: three things affect the tonal rendition of the final image: the film, the film developer, and the paper. The paper developer is relatively unimportant. For this reason, you should choose a readily available, easy-to-use paper developer that is non-allergenic, and then stop worrying about it. I suggest liquid developers made with Phenidone, since they're easy to mix, have low odor, and aren't allergic sensitizers. These include Ilford Multigrade Developer, Kodak Ektaflo Type 2 liquid developer, and Agfa Neutol WA. As for papers, most RC papers look quite a bit worse than fiber-base papers. The image seems to look like it's more "on the surface" and less "in the paper"; the surface looks plasticky; and the image tone looks "veiled," even if only slightly. My favorite RC paper is Ilford Warmtone RC. It's got a beautiful surface, no veiling, and it's easy to print on. I use a lot of it in 8x10 size. It's the only RC paper that is equal in my affections to the better fiber-base papers. Ilford RC papers also have about the best archival permanence among RC papers. If you decide to go ahead with XP-2, this paper is a really nice match for it. However, most papers these days are quite good. It's worth it to buy the smallest available packets of five or six of the papers most easily available to you, and simply try them all. If there one or two appeal to you, settle on those and stick to them. Most of all, keep in mind that photography is a CRAFT; you don't buy good prints in a box or a bottle, any more than you buy a good eye by purchasing an expensive camera. Slight differences in materials are relatively unimportant to the aesthetic effect of the final result, particularly to non-photographer viewers, who simply don't notice the small difference that we photographers natter over endlessly. Many photographic hobbyists get sidetracked PERMANENTLY in an all-consuming search for the "best" materials--the best lens, the best papers, the best developer, whatever. It's a fool's errand and not worthwhile. Artistic judgement and good craftsmanship count for more. I can make a better print using a $30 used camera lens, Tri-X, and RC paper, than a worse craftsperson will make with a $3,000 Leica lens, the slowest, most high-resolution film, and the finest archivally-processed, selenium-toned fiber-base paper. Tools and materials only count for one third of good printing--good judgement is another third, and experience and practice are the final third. Don't get overly wrapped up in only the first third of the process. Good luck, and let me know if I can offer any further advice. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
