A Perfect Negative?

An older man enjoys reading his crumpled newspaper while sitting on a park bench in Halifax, Nova Scotia in 1976.

Tri-X and D-76 

© Peter N Parsons

When I was a beginning photographer I was always experimenting with different films, developers, filters, photographic papers etc. I spent days pouring over photo supply catalogs, magazines and books looking for the magic bullet that would make me a better photographer. 

In a way I was not unlike today's digital photographers who are always on the lookout for the latest cameras and lenses to make them a better photographer, hoping technology will produce better photographs. 

Back when I became a newspaper photographer in the early seventies the film of choice was Kodak Tri-X with a blazing ASA (later ISO) of 400. Tri-X was available in both 36 and 20 (later changed to 24) exposure rolls. We used the 20's for everyday work but carried the 36's for sports or big assignments The camera of choice was Nikon or maybe Pentax. At my newspaper the photographers were required to use their own equipment. I had a couple of Nikkormats with 35mm, 50mm and 105mm lens. The paper graciously provided a Metz flash and pool equipment including a 200mm lens and a Nikon F with motor drive.

We had two film developers, Kodak D-76 and fixer for everyday work and a developer called Acufine which allowed shooting Tri-X at 1000 ISO. We were always shooting hockey and basketball as well as other indoor sports in dimly lit arenas and gyms. To stop the sports action a shutter speed of at least 1/500 of a second combined with a wide open lens aperture was needed.  Acufine was a godsend for sports photography however picture were grainy, contrasty and with little detail in the shadows and highlights. But it did not matter because pictures in the newspaper were grainy, contrasty with blown out highlights anyway.

As stated we used Kodak D-76 and Kodak Rapid Fixer for our everyday developing. A new batch of developer was used at full strength. Development was the manufacture's recommended time and temperature using a chart. At first the developer was too strong and produced negatives that were both over developed and contrasty. Corrections were made, usually by adjusting the developing time by eyeballing your previous negative. The gallon size of developer was used until it was exhausted producing thin negatives which were hard to print.

We used a Kodak Ektamatic print processor which gave a quick, if not permanent print which was great for newspaper work.The Ekamatic prints could be also be fixed, washed and dried if a permanent photo was required

I found from time to time, but not often, I would produce what I believed was a perfect negative, sharp with a full range of midtones without blown out whites, good shadow detail but without any objectionable grain in an 8x10 print. Hard to get with 400 ISO speed 35mm film.

At first I believed it was a result of a good subject with a nice range of midtones and subdued contrast, ideal for skin tones with Tri-X. But a lot of subject had these attributes yet my negatives were not always excellent. I came to think bad negatives were because of often poor location conditions with which newspaper photographers worked.

Over time I became more consistent in my darkroom habits and bad negatives became rare. I am more careful with time/temperature and agitaion, using the D-76 1:1 and dumping it. D-76 has become the only film developer I use. (I have switched from Tri-X to Ilford HP-5 as it is very similar to Tri-X, more easily available and cheaper)* 

I am far from the best photographer in the world but I have become pleased with this film/developer combination as I believe it reflects my aspirations as a photographer.

Since I am no longer a newspaper but an enthusiast photographer I now have the  luxury of choosing my subjects carefully. I recommended rejecting subjects which are overly contrasty or may not photograph well (bright white skies) and being aware that camera exposure and film developing are at the heart of successful black and white film photography.

Another benefit of consistency in film choice and development is that it no longer becomes an issue. The photographer can then focus on subject selection and camera work and goals without much thought to what is now referred to as post. 

*As I have stated before here at Mama Mamiya we are only concerned with the use of the Mamiya TLR camera system with Ilford HP5 (exposed at recommended ISO 400) as our favorite film. Our developer is Kodak D-76 diluted 1:1 and dumped after every roll. We use stainless steel tanks and reels. We use the recommended developing time and agitation by gentle tank rotation every minute. I only get 16 rolls out of a gallon of D-76. A lot less than the old newspaper days but our negative are a hell of a lot more consistent.