I found late this video. Can someone tell me, do i have to expose for the shadows? If i do not have a dslr.

First time ❤

Wonderful video. Thank you RS. Canada

Great video. Educational. Thank you RS. Canada

Absolutely great video! ! !

Sir, i learned alot from you so far, regards from Austria

One of the best educational video out there! Thanks!

name of the books ?

I don't subscribe to this "visual centre" concept. Never have.

First time

No pic on

Loved this! Mr. Loud was my high school art teacher in 1980. Very cool, talented man.

Thanks, much appreciated.

For those who are doing this at home, would it be ok to directly hang the film to dry after fixing and rinsing with water?

Thankyou for this

At which f stop do you ise for proof?

What happens when you shoot at box speed and overdeveloped?

In your opinion how did Ansel Adams achieve such smooth tonality and detail. I understand how the zone system and contrast control but finest of detail, sharpness is still a mystery. Which developer compounds and formulas should I consider. Thanks in advance

what focal length is the lens

great info

At last, a very clear demonstration. Thank you Will much appreciated. Looking forward to your next video!

Jimmy Buffet would of known how to agitate.

I'm right there with you! I needed a handler myself but that was the 80's-90's.

Classic HC110 is much more syrupy that Rodinal. Kodak hasn't made chemicals for a while but several other companies have licensed the name and formulas. The latest version is very different in viscosity and keeping properties.

Excellent!

Thank you for such a comprehensive and excellent series for a newbie like me! When focusing, is there a placeholder sheet of paper in the easel to keep the distance from the lens to the target paper consistent? Or is that not important considering depth of field is increased sufficiently by stopping down the lens after focusing?

I've always rated my film at half the box speed, exposed for the shadows stopped down a stop or 2, and developed normally. It's always been a working formula for me with few exceptions.

I used the Adams Zone System for 20 years for my B&W and also worked as a lab technician at National Geographic. Adams Zone System was based around two constraints: 1) always printing on #2 paper, and 2) rendering Zone 0 max. print black voids with just the film base, no silver density, which meant exposing Zone 1 (solid black no texture) areas of the scene with a density on the negatives slightly above the film base. Correctly rendering the highlights on the print required: 1) knowing the brightness range in EV (f/stops) between Zone 1 and Zone 9 areas in the scene, and; 2) for each scene EV range encountered the negative development time need to render the separation between Zone 9 and Zone 10 values on the scene so there is visual separation and the perception of 3D between Zone 9 solid white and Zone 10 specular highlights within the Zone 9 objects; e.g. photo of a white car hood where hood surface in direct sun is Zone 9 and the reflection of the sun on it is Zone 10. What you need to wrap your head around, and what the “bigger picture” lesson Adams taught was that to create the illusion of 3D reality on a 2D black and white print things we perceive as the darkest black objects must be rendered on the print as a slightly lighter shade of gray and that to preserve the illusion of 3D in the highlights the paper base must be reserved for the specular highlights on perceived white objects necessitating that they be rendered as light tone of gray on the print. Spot meters didn’t yet exist when Adams developed his system to know precisely what the range between Zone 1 and 9 areas of the scene so he used a cross lit subject wearing black and white clothing as the starting baseline for adjusting film speed for ideal Zone 1 negative density above film base and gray tone on print just above max black printed using the film base. The metering was done off an 18% gray card held in the direct sun. That typically didn’t provide enough exposure in the shadows so you’d need to adjust setting on the meter lower; e.g. 320 for 400 tri-x. When developing negatives the shadow densities completely develop very quickly. What changes with increasing development time is the density on the negative in the highlights. Adams, Weston and other photographers before around 1930 used orthochromatic film which is not sensitive to red light and they learned to develop their sheet film negatives for proper highlight density to fit the single grade #2 paper visually under safelights in the darkroom. This was no longer possible with Panchromatic film which must be developed in total darkness, why Adams developed his method of tailoring and keying develop time to the contrast of the scene lighting via a few systematic tests. After you determined the adjusted ISO to render the shadows optimally you put the same subject in the black and white clothing in the sunny crosslight and then shot 3-5 sheets of film, developing each for a slightly different time then printing them for film base = Zone 0 black. The correct development time for that lighting became obvious by looking at the highlights on the print and picking the one which preserved the Zone 9 / 10 visual separation which creates the illusion of 3D in a 2D rendering. You then repeated the same development time test on partly cloudy, overcast, open shade and conditions like snow and beach scenes with higher contrast than the first baseline direct sun test. Without a spot meter to precisely measure scene range there was an element of educated guessing what the range actually was. Fortunately I learned the Zone System in 1970 with a 1° Honeywell Spot Meter and modified the procedures as follows: Determining ISO for ideal Zone 0 / 1 negative exposure and print values: Instead of of metering off the 18% card meter the area in the scene I wanted Zone 1 (black object rendered dark gray on print) then reduced the nominal ISO by about 3 stops (Setting meter dial for 50 for ISO 400 film). What that did was shift the meter calibration point assumption from 18% to that of the reflectance of the darkest non-void shadows in the scene I wanted rendered with slight density above base on the film. Matching Development Time to Scene Contrast: After metering the Zone 1 scene area for exposure, directly measure the brightest non specular solid white object. I carried white and black terry cloth rags to use as test targets when there were no Zone 1 or Zone 9 tones in the scene to measure. Then it was just a mater of the same testing to find the development time for each EV range for ideal Zone 9 / 10 rendering on the prints. That spot metering method also worked with Polycontrast paper. The starting baseline was finding the development time which rendered cross-lit direct sun perfectly on #2 filter prints and then always using that development time regardless of scene Zone 1-9 EV range. The Zone 1-9 EV range is used to know in advance when shooting what Polycontrast filter will be needed for a full range print. I used a color enlarger head for exposing my Polycontrast so I could precisely dial in the yellow and magenta CC values need for any EV range scene (which I determined with testing). The other approach used by commercial labs is to use an enlarging meter which can directly measure the EV range between shadows and highlights on the negative under the enlarger to determine the Polycontrast filtration needed.

thks

Hello Professor Agar, what tripod do you recommend students buy when they are starting out?

Good to see you both again, in a good health.

very interesting. considering going back to film/darkroom photography now that I am mostly retired.

What I always do for HC-110 is mix it with a little less water at first (700-800ml for 1L), then wash out my measuring cup with that solution to get the sticky rest out and then add water to full volume. I also immidiately divided the last 1L bottle I got into 4 brown glass bottles of 250ml each. That was over 2 years ago and it still works as new, which it didn't in the last 1L plastic bottle. Nice developer, but rumors say it's gone for good.

I development a roll following your instructions and the pictures are perfect. Thank you very much!

Excellent tutorial that really helps us understand the developing process and how it can be manipulated to achieve specific desired results. Thankyou

I love these guys!!! Lol ❤❤❤❤

Pathetic! 🤯

you need to upload more often i like these videos

thank you teacher!!!

Finally back!!! I have enjoyed all your videos so very much! Retirement?!? I am sure you will love it but man I would love the chance to continue learning from you. Let me know if you ever host a course of workshop, I would attend in a heartbeat. Take care and things for all the KZbin education!

It doesn't look centered, but it does look a lot better than centered.

I love the picture of "Bat Boy" from the tabloids on the wall.

Yeah well I call this lecture developing your editing skills wrong. I'm pretty sure you just damaged my speakers and certainly my ears.

I missed this video. Great to have you back guys ❤

Happy retirement. 47 years. That's longer than I've been alive and I'm old. Hahaha. Great video!

Love your work and videos, proffessor.

What a great survey of these still very useful cameras! I still have the Argus C3 (our family's camera for slides and my first camera that began my lifelong career). I also had a similar Nikon S rangefinder camera that, unfortunately was stolen while I was in the service. I still have (and use) the Sekonic L-398 meter and used to have a Weston Master III meter. Thanks for sharing all of this history, Professor.

Thank you for sharing this, Professor. It's good to see you back in action on KZbin. Enjoy retirement. My wife and I plan to visit Japan very soon to visit our son. This video is inspiring. Cheers, John

I am just getting back into B+W film photography after a 30 year break. I have been quite impressed by the videos I've seen on Stand Development. Would you recommend using it as a standard approach for me to start off with, or should I go back to 'normal development' as I did back in the day?

You're such a weird, interesting and inspiring couple :-). I like the photography part more than the shoes, although I must admit they are fancy (and unpractical when shooting...) Not in an Imelda Marcos way, though ;-) Greetings from Sweden.