While researching the FA-1027 film developer, I came across a very interesting account of its performance. Here are a few quotes from the Photographers’ Formulary documentation supplied with the developer:
The documentation goes on and on in some detail along the same lines. I find the description confusing. It reads a bit like a word salad, devoid of useful information. I have found similar prose in photography textbooks and magazines over the years.
Accounts of film performance abound throughout photography textbooks, magazines, websites, forum posts, and marketing materials. They range from highly structured, principled, quantitative frameworks (e.g., the Zone System), all the way to loose collections of vague qualitative terms. As most things in photography, it is not a question of right or wrong; rather, it is about choosing an approach that can help one achieve one’s artistic vision. Just because the above account of FA-1027 fails to convey a meaningful message to me, doesn’t mean it is wrong or unhelpful to others.
I think it’s important to talk about how to improve our understanding of film performance, especially now that film prices keep going up, making trial and error methodologies prohibitively expensive. Personally, I find quantitative frameworks particularly useful because of their descriptive and predictive power. However, I also enjoy reading insightful prose describing one’s subjective experiences with films, exposure, and developers. For example, Barry Thornton’s adventures in crafting his own developers included in his book “Edge of Darkness” (Amphoto Books, 2001) offer an account that attempts to bridge quantitative and qualitative analyses. His carefully and consistently chosen common descriptive terms, such as “liquid,” “hot,” even “bulletproof,” make sense to me. Sure, it would have been nice to see a few plots but I do think I understand Thornton’s account.
What type of description of film (and developer) performance do you find most useful in your work? Could you give an example of an account that you enjoyed reading and learning from?
“My HP-5 negatives developed in FA-1027 resemble the clear, crisply defined Tri-X / HC-110 negatives I was so used to; without the high contrast effect. Prints made from FA-1027 negatives show broad distinct breaks of tone in all areas. There is none of the D-76-like high value compression, and no loss of density in Zones VI and below as with HC-110 (the HC in HC-110 stands for high contrast).”
“Negatives are optimum: high in local contrast, low in overall contrast, with very high acutance. Plus and minus development with FA-1027 will also yield superior negatives. The same distinct breaks of tone are in evidence, with the contrast either raised or lowered. With other developers, you'll get an overall gain or loss in density with only a slight contrast change.”
“FA-1027 produces a very fine negative with Ilford HP-5 film, for example. There is a very distinct high value separation in Zones VI and above. In Zones V and below, there is just as impressive a separation, without the dumping of those values into murky darkness; as is the case with the Tri-X/HC-110 effect. “
The documentation goes on and on in some detail along the same lines. I find the description confusing. It reads a bit like a word salad, devoid of useful information. I have found similar prose in photography textbooks and magazines over the years.
Accounts of film performance abound throughout photography textbooks, magazines, websites, forum posts, and marketing materials. They range from highly structured, principled, quantitative frameworks (e.g., the Zone System), all the way to loose collections of vague qualitative terms. As most things in photography, it is not a question of right or wrong; rather, it is about choosing an approach that can help one achieve one’s artistic vision. Just because the above account of FA-1027 fails to convey a meaningful message to me, doesn’t mean it is wrong or unhelpful to others.
I think it’s important to talk about how to improve our understanding of film performance, especially now that film prices keep going up, making trial and error methodologies prohibitively expensive. Personally, I find quantitative frameworks particularly useful because of their descriptive and predictive power. However, I also enjoy reading insightful prose describing one’s subjective experiences with films, exposure, and developers. For example, Barry Thornton’s adventures in crafting his own developers included in his book “Edge of Darkness” (Amphoto Books, 2001) offer an account that attempts to bridge quantitative and qualitative analyses. His carefully and consistently chosen common descriptive terms, such as “liquid,” “hot,” even “bulletproof,” make sense to me. Sure, it would have been nice to see a few plots but I do think I understand Thornton’s account.
What type of description of film (and developer) performance do you find most useful in your work? Could you give an example of an account that you enjoyed reading and learning from?
Last edited by a moderator: