My Process

This is a common question when meeting new photographers both experienced and budding. I’ve decided to answer this question as thoroughly as possible here along with some of my thoughts around that thinking it will be useful to someone or perhaps just as an easy way to share with others when they ask. I intend to treat this as a bit of a living document as I continue to learn as a photographer and explore what my eye is drawn to in the world.

---

Process is what separates the hobbyist from the dedicated in any exercise. When you’ve experimented enough to develop a preferred flow, choosing to diverge from what you learned in books or from mentors is when you have found your own process. This is not to say that process should not be constantly evolving as it’s important not to let your dedication to methods become an unrelenting religious exercise. Experimentation is key to remaining fresh and to getting yourself out of a rut, but there is a method you develop over time to consistently achieve the results you want in your work.

Outlined below is the process I follow for 99% of my photography to achieve negatives that are easy to print in the style I enjoy. I’ve settled on this after nearly a decade of experimentation and I highly suggest that if you are here for advice you don’t take any of this as gospel, but instead cherry pick, experiment, and discover on your own. Of course after that I am going to tell you all of the gospel I follow, but I want you to know that I wasted far too much time trying to copy other photographers when truly just the act of shooting, developing, and printing as often as possible and reexamining the results was all I needed to find my preference. That would be my first bit of advice if you are reading this trying to find your way in photography: just shoot, develop, and ask questions of your failed prints.

Secondly, and perhaps even more important, comes from a wise teacher in my high school photography and darkroom class whom I sadly cannot even remember the name of now. He told us that creativity flourishes in restriction. There are so many technical aspects to photography that get in the way of actually engaging in the moment and making a good photograph. Paring down until you have a single camera, a single lens, a single film, a single development process, a single paper, and a singular printing style removes all of the minor variables. In the end all of the choices get in the way of your purpose in photography: a final, impactful image.

Lastly, I’ll say to try and avoid any groups of photographers you meet who jump to speaking about cameras and equipment instead of inspiring photographs and photographers. The obsession with equipment, sometimes referred to as Gear Acquisition Syndrome (GAS), is a dangerous pit to fall into. Not only will a new camera not make you a better photographer, but photographers that constantly need to chase the next camera body or lens often spend too much time in catalogues and on review sites and not enough time training their eye. If you’re going to burn your money on something photography related you’re better off purchasing a book from a photographer you respect so you can flip through the book on occassion and ask the important questions of what you can learn from their work.

Shooting

Shooting for me is about immersion. I like to observe and find humor in the things that are around me and not spend too much time futzing with the camera, settings, or technology. Purposefully I have chosen to make photography an analog disconnect from a largely digital existence elsewhere. For me the act of creating the final print in the darkroom brings me the most joy and for that simple reason I shoot film. While the process is not always economical, shooting from film and processesing all the way to final print maintains the connection and interest in photography that I lose when working digitally. I will write more on this later in a future post on why I continue to shoot film and how it has maintained my interest in photography.

The Tools

I shoot the majority of my work on my Leica M6 TTL though I also have a Leica M2 after an unfortunate drop with the M6 onto concrete caused the main circuit board to quit working. The poor design of the M6 TTL requires a functioning circuit board and battery to have the hot shoe function and since I occassionally pair with an off camera flash I needed an alternative. Although the M2 requires an adapter for the flash to work the fact is I had always wanted a Leica from the 1950s and could not afford a brand new MP or M-A so figured why not purchase an older model from a collector and put the dinosaur to use. Both function wonderfully after some work by DAG and honestly get me excited to go out and shoot once they’re in my hand. I shoot with rangefinders because of their ease of use, rapid focusing mechanism (pre-focus is faster then autofocus), and the small form factor lets me wrap them up on my wrist and almost always have one connected to my person without hassle. You would be hard pressed to find a photograph of me where I do not have one of these cameras around my neck or wrist. I have a number of other cameras, but the only one I use with any frequency outside of the 35mm Leicas is my Rolleiflex 3.5F and that’s once a month at best and usually as a diversion when I need a change to kickstart my regular work.

As for lenses I shoot about 90% of my work with the 28mm Leica Elmarit 2.8. I cannot recommend this lens enough to anyone looking to be immersed in wherever they are shooting. If you like to work close, among crowds, and photograph the social landscape as I do then there is no better lens you can place on your camera. This was my only lens until COVID-19 had us all standing further apart from one another. Due to the pandemic I introduced a 35mm Zeiss Distagon 2.8 which is an equally wonderful lens. The main difference I think of between these two lenses is the focal distance for a “whole average person” to fill the frame from top to bottom. With the 28mm lens that is around 1.75m (~6ft) where with the 35mm that is around 2.5m (~8ft) putting me in a decent, socially distanced position where I can still photograph the way I like.

Nearly all of my work is shot using Ilford HP5+ film. After years of experimentation I find that HP5+ provides not only easy to print negatives when developed right but also is easy to scan for when I do decide to digitize some images from negative instead of by scanning the final print. The film is extremely forgiving, easy to push, and can take a wide range of exposure mishaps and still churn out wonderful prints. I also love the classic grain structure and the look that it gives when pushed. The funniest part about settling on HP5+ is that it was the first film I ever loaded into a camera and after all the experimentation I came right back to this wonderful silver from Ilford.

The Method

When I set out my initial goal is always to judge the light. While I do occassionally carry a meter, at home I have gotten to know the light so well in Seattle that I tend to just set my camera and go though if I am traveling to any other city I try to always remember to have the meter on me. As a backup, if I’m not carrying my meter, I’m a big fan of Fred Parker’s “Ultimate Exposure Computer” article and suggest every photographer learn the lighting situations listed. For metering I always meter for the shadows to ensure I pack as much data onto my negative as possible. This is something discussed by Henry Wessel Jr., an incredible American photographer, as a way to ensure you have data on the negative to print. There are a lot of people that overcomplicate this statement in books that you will read, but they essentially mean take the darkest part of any scene you want to have texture in, meter there, then raise your exposure by 2 stops. Since black and white negative film has about a 5 stop range including texture this means that you will have a printable portion of your negative in most scenes outside of extremely high contrast light. Recognizing those high contrast moments and adjusting your settings to ensure you match a good exposure for your subject takes time and practice. That’s where I suggest using Fred Parker’s method instead of always relying on the meter.

After that is set I set my lens to its “whole average person” distance, as discussed above, then either pick a corner to stand on or begin to walk depending on the light. If a corner has beautiful light I may linger for hours, but the time of day means there is a lot of nice light around I prefer to stay in motion and get constantly changing scenery along with exercise. I find that my best frames come from prediction so I tend to look a half block to a full block ahead and begin observing. You rarely can react fast enough to a scene or social situation directly in front of you so you have to see what is coming ahead. There are any number of styles of street photography which I won’t discuss here, but this skill of prediction is essential to being ready to make an image in every single one of them.

The other essential skill is movement. When using a fixed focal length lens the only variable you have is in where you place your feet. Though where you place your feet isn’t always the hardest part but rather how you get to that spot and derive how to be there at the same time that a photograph becomes viable. This takes a bit of practice, but I usually try to cross potential photographs at a diagonal if I am in motion so I can make a frame and quickly get out of anyone’s way. I’m not trying to impede anyone’s movement, especially when I’m photographing so close. Approaching that way I find that most people don’t even recognize that you’ve been in front of them much less made a photograph.

Developing

Garry Winogrand had a great quote about waiting a few months before developing to disconnect yourself from the excitement of making the photograph. The visceral joy you get when selecting an image from the world and pressing the button can often times cloud your judgement. I follow a similar train of thought and work in groupings of 8 rolls since that’s what fits in the largest Patterson development tank that I use. Once I’ve hit 16 rolls I develop the first 8 and so on. I will write another article about how I catalog my negatives at another time.

As for the actual process I use Kodak HC-110 due to its ease of use and shelf life. I prefer the simplicity of mixing liquid concentrate versus a powder and found that HC-110 got near identical results to the standard D-76 that everyone starts using in their first photography classes. HC-110 also lasts a long time so when I go through periods where I cannot develop for awhile and the rolls stack up I don’t have to worry about my chemicals turning on me. In this same vein I also really enjoy the look and speed that Ilfotec DD-X but find its use cost prohibitive because of how much development I do. The same goes for Ilfotec HC which is an identical formula to HC-110, but usually costs about 150% on the dollar compared to a similar bottle of HC-110 in Seattle. From my point of view it’s nice to know that I have so many alternatives that provide similar results and a discount one that gets me right where I want to be. For specific times, I develop in HC-110 Dilution B (1:31) at 20C (68F) for 9 minutes, adjusting as needed for temperature. The slightly over factory time adds additional some additional grain and contrast that I like in my final print without a perceptible shift in negative quality. I’m thankful to Andre Wagner for mentioning in an interview that he does something similar with his Tri-X and D-76 and after trying that out found I spent less time burning a piece of paper to confirm that I did want to increase the contrast filters on my enlarger.

Further along in the process I follow the standard times for Ilford’s Ilfostop and Rapid Fixer, then use the Ilford rinse method to save on water. Even though I live in the always damp Pacific Northwest now, I grew up in the Las Vegas desert and can still hear the pleas from teachers to conserve water. Using the Ilford method I have never had an issue with getting the chemicals rinsed from my negatives after thousands of rolls. My only change is that I use Kodak Photo-Flo instead of the Ilford wetting agent once again due to price and availability. They are identical and interchangeable so I see no reason to spend the extra money.

Finally after all is done I hang my negatives to dry for 24 hours before I cut and catalog them in PrintFile archival sleeves. While moving sheets into archival sleeves I always use cotton gloves and brush any dust away before slipping them into their sleeves to ensure nothing scratches the back of the negatives. Since my darkroom is in a basement there is a lot of dust floating around and the particles are constantly trying to work their way in and ruin my prints. I will write another article down the road on my system for storing negatives, contact sheets, and the hybrid approach I use so that I can review contact sheets on my phone while commuting.

Printing

Ansel Adams is quoted as saying that “the negative is the score and the print the final performance.” Now I don’t care much for landscape photography and find the Zone System to overcomplicate making photographic work, but Adams had a great point in that printing is the unique intepretation of a negative. No two prints will ever be the same and every approach, particularly those across spans of time, will result in a different print. Whether it’s your printing skills that become better or your overall view of the world, every time you approach a negative to print it will change.

The Tools

I print almost everything on Ilford Multigrade FB Glossy paper as 99% of negatives you print will look good with a few tweaks on that paper and consistency in how a grouping of images look is important. Rarely is an image so strong on its own that it should exist outside of a set. I print using the standard instructions for Ilford’s Multigrade Paper developer, Ilfostop, and Rapid Fixer chemicals then wash in Eco Pro Hypowash following the manufacturer’s instructions.

While many darkroom printers choose to tone their prints between the fixer and washing stages, I find that over an all day printing session that the toners will give me a headache. For that reason I wait a few days and rewet my prints when I have a enough, then archivally tone them in Selenium toner. I use a high dilution to get only the subtlest of shifts in the shadows with the primary intent being to preserve the paper as long as possible.

I use a Rollei 6x7 C XL color enlarger with a dichroic head. I prefer this dichroic enlarger as I was constantly having to replace multigrade filter sets before as I would lose or scratch them and an in-line filter is just another thing to create imperfections on your print. The dichroic color head uses a mirrored box to project light that then does the color filter shift for you with a number of dials.

My favorite easel for final prints is the Saunders 11x14 4-blade easel which is no longer available except via eBay. I have used the Beseler 4-blade in the past and find that easel just as good though possibly not as well made. I haven’t had the opportunity to drop one onto concrete because I accidentally caught it with my apron strings as many times as my Saunders. I also use a couple of speed easels for smaller sized prints where I don’t try and achieve that thin black border around final images but am fine with sprocket holes.

The Method

As for the actual printing I follow the simple standard chemical procedure above for any negative I want to print then let myself run with the creative part on each interpretation. I mark my prints with the date of printing and count made for tracking these interpretations with something along the lines of “2020Q1 Print 1 of 3”. That way if someone has one of my prints and wants to correlate its specific interpretation to a time in my life they can do so. I don’t take copious notes for prints, but rather loose ones to remind me of potential road blocks I would run into on a re-print that may waste paper. Some photographers choose to keep detailed notes of times, enlarger position, filters used, and masking sheets made, but I find that I would rather approach each negative relatively fresh outside of maybe a note like “watch out for those clouds”, “remember the hand in the lower right is important”, or “holy crap that block by Bryant Park is the brightest thing I’ve ever seen”.

I start each print by determing what I think is the most important part of the image then determining an exposure for that with a test strip. Sometimes I’ll find at this portion that I need to consider split-grade printing due to the contrast of the negative. I know some darkroom printers swear by split-grade for every situation, but I don’t get too far into the gritty details of each print in that way. I don’t have the perfectionist streak that makes me want to ensure my highlights have the most perfect texture representation along with my shadows. When following my methods above, rarely is the content of a photograph so good and the exposure so poor that I need that level of manipulation to achieve a print I enjoy.

Once I’ve determined a correct exposure I’ll make a 5x7 and dial in any dodging and burning necessary to achieve what I want from the negative in that interpretation. I make a 5x7 so that when arranging groupings of images together later I can easily manipulate all the physical images in one place for the purpose of building out an impactful sequence. I used to do this all on RC paper instead of FB, but came to find that although you save money with RC paper you should always try and print every step of the way with the paper you want for your final print.

After my 5x7 is correct I will move to print an 11x14. I find that from 5x7 to 11x14 there is almost always somewhere in the range of a 1-stop difference. This lets me raise the enlarger, change either the time or f-stop, and print with what I learned on the 5x7 almost identically every time. Filter settings have a slight influence on this, but that is something that through repetition I’ve learned to interpret a few seconds in any direction intuitively.

You might have noticed that I made no mention of cropping anywhere above. I never crop a negative as I believe in doing that in the shooting portion with my feet. Call it puritanical or lazy, but I want to see the image as it was when I framed it. For that purpose I also always print a thin, black line around the outside of my images within a white border. I like the look that a thicker, 1-2” white border with a pencil thin black line gives a black and white photograph. The look to me is classic and makes the image pop for the viewer.

Summary Without Commentary