For a long time, in my head, I have associated Classical with the idea of endless refinements of a given theme; and Modern with endless innovation.  Being a child of the sixties and seventies  I always found the former to be rather tedious: those eternal artistic representations of religious scenes, say, or drama shackled by the unities of time, place and action.  Meh.  Who needed these constrictions when you could throw away the rulebook and do whatever you wanted?

A couple of years ago when I started developing my own film the shortcomings of the Modern approach became clear pretty quickly.   I started by trying a few different developers and a few different films.  The result was chaos: this developer with that film; that developer with this film; add a few seconds here; shave a few seconds there; agitate a bit more; agitate a bit less; dilute a bit more, dilute a bit less.  A rulebook of some kind was definitely needed.  The problem then turned out to be not that there were no rulebooks but that there were too many rulebooks.  There seemed to be experts at every turn.  Everyone on the net has an opinion. Enough, I decided, was enough and I went back to the drawing board.

For authoritative voices, I decided, we need to step back in time to when there was less shouting. Some time ago I bought a copy of Henry Horenstein’s 1983 “Black and White Photography: A Basic Manual”; and more recently Andreas Feininger’s 1965 “The Complete Photographer”. Neither breaks the bank and both are full of sound practical advice for the tyro developer and printer. They can be a little outdated technically but they are authoritative in the good sense of definitive and helpful. This weaned me off internet advice.

Film is not dead yet, for sure.  Not only are plenty of products on the market but new ones are appearing frequently.  I decided that, despite all the siren voices from the margins, the thing to do was to go mainstream.  I’d always had perfectly acceptable results from Ilford products – and I particularly like the way they seem to handle the mid-tones in black and white (if I’m not imagining it).  They have the added advantage of manufacture only a few miles down the road from where I live.  And middle of the Ilford road are two traditional films: FP4+ for the summer months and HP5+ which needs less light, in winter.  At 35mm I found I wasn’t keen on the very grainy results from HP5+ so I tried Ilford’s more modern equivalent, Delta 400 and much preferred its smoother look.  That nailed down the film side.  The two middle of the road Ilford developers are ID-11 (recommended by Ilford for the traditional films) and DD-X for the Delta range.  I haven’t made my mind up about those: the ID-11 is cheaper but  you need a litre for two medium format films.   It comes in a powder form that you have to make up to a solution, so if you buy I any bulk you end up having to store several litres if your photographic output is modest like mine.  DD-X  comes as a concentrate which you dilute as you go so needs less space and fewer bottles to store.

General opinion seems to be however that that grainy old HP5 is not at all as grainy at medium format because the negative is bigger and therefore the tonal changes are smoother.  I’m not sure I buy that because any given square centimetre of negative with a given emulsion should presumably give the same results with any given developer regardless of the total size of the negative.  All the same I have bought some HP5 medium format to try out.

My aim is to get down to two films, one for winter one for summer, and if possible one developer.  What I am looking for is predictability rather than experimentation: a steady platform.  To my surprise therefore I find myself ditching the Modern and siding with the Classical: endless repetition within very narrow technical conventions.  Who’d have guessed?