Accidental pushing of TMax 100 - which developer?

[Lukas Meekers]

Hi all
This is my first post on this forum so please feel free to tell me if I'm in the wrong place or anything.
I've been shooting film for about a year now (after a pause of about a decade or so), mostly with a passed down Minolta SRT-101.
The last roll I've shot was TMax 100. However, halfway through the roll I realized I'd forgotten to set the light meter to 100 ASA, leaving it on 400 instead (I'm still a bit of a newbie obviously). After realising this, I decided to leave it at 400 and push the entire roll when developing, so I'd still end up with a roll of usable images.
I've pushed some film before so I'm familiar with the process, but I have a question concerning the developer. I currently have a bottle of Rodinal (actually Adonal) and a liter of D76 (with which I've already processed three rolls of TriX). I realise neither of these developers is an ideal choice for pushing (nor is TMax 100 really, iirc) but I'd like to know if either of these two would still be the better choice. Since I'm not planning to do any pushing in the near future I'd rather not buy an entire bottle of XTol or something.
I'd appreciate any one taking the time to reply, so thank you in advance!
Regards
Lukas

 

[grain elevator]

D76 should be the better choice of the two, Rodinal looses sensitivity.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Good choice on leaving the meter set at 400 after a partial roll -- pushing two stops isn't a huge big deal. Extend your development time about 50% (or find a time listed on frex the Massive Dev Chart for TMX at 400) and proceed (looks like 8.25 in stock or 26 minutes in 1+2 -- don't see one for the more common 1+1, but it ought to be close to 13 minutes). Especially when pushing, if you choose to use 1+2, be sure to have at least 100 ml of stock solution, i.e. use 300 ml or more of diluted working solution, to avoid exhaustion problems.

 

[Lukas Meekers]

Hi - thanks for your replies. I didn't know which one to choose because normally I'd use Rodinal for 100 speed and D76 for 400 - neither is really great for pushing (or so I've read).
In any case 8.25 is the time Kodak themselves recommend for pushing TMax 100 to 400 so I guess I'll go with that. Thanks again for your time!

 

[Auer]

 

[Lukas Meekers]

View attachment 270595

Hi Auer - thanks for your reply. I'd found the development times already, I was just wondering whether to use the rodinal or the d76 for pushing tmax 100 since neither is really meant for it.

 

[Paul Howell]

As recommended by others I would go with D76. The times are relatively short with less fog.

 

[Auer]

Hi Auer - thanks for your reply. I'd found the development times already, I was just wondering whether to use the rodinal or the d76 for pushing tmax 100 since neither is really meant for it.

Kodak has no issues with D76 pushing Tmax, I dont know where you got the information that it's not "meant for it".
I push with D76 AND RO9 with good results.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
Not only did you find the right website, you also started your thread in the right sub-forum!
The advice above is correct.
To refine it slightly, I'll ask about the circumstances of the photos themselves.
What was the lighting like (particularly how direct and contrasty it was), what sort of subjects did you photograph, and what sort of Subject Luminance Range were you dealing with?
I ask, because the main result of a push development isn't really an increase in film sensitivity, it is an increase in contrast. A "push" causes more change in the lighter highlights than it does in the lower shadows which, being two stops under-exposed, may not have much detail in them.
Depending on your answers, you might receive the advice to develop normally, or possibly use less of an increase in development.

 

[Helge]

Keeping the above advice in mind. Think about the contrast of your photos. TMax 100 builds up contrast quite quickly with pushing. If you remember that your subjects contrast was high, you might want try getting some semi stand compensation going in the developing.
Almost any popular developer can be used in semistand.
It's not foolproof though, so if the photos mean an awful lot to you, and you can live with high contrast, just push them straight.

 

[Lukas Meekers]

Kodak has no issues with D76 pushing Tmax, I dont know where you got the information that it's not "meant for it".
I push with D76 AND RO9 with good results.

Hi Auer - must have read it in some developer comparison somewhere, but I can't seem to find it again. It could very well be I've misread or misremembered it (in which case sorry for bothering you!). Anyway there's a lot of 'you should ..' and 'you shouldn't ...' out there on the internet which turn out to be just nonsense. making it all the more difficult for people starting out to know what's what.
In any case, thanks for the encouragement to just use d76. I'll take that route!

Keeping the above advice in mind. Think about the contrast of your photos. TMax 100 builds up contrast quite quickly with pushing. If you remember that your subjects contrast was high, you might want try getting some semi stand compensation going in the developing.
Almost any popular developer can be used in semistand.
It's not foolproof though, so if the photos mean an awful lot to you, and you can live with high contrast, just push them straight.

Hi - thanks for the advice. Most if not all of the pictures on the roll were taken in cloudy/overcast conditions, so not very contrasty. I think a straight push with d76 will probably turn out alright. The pictures mostly document a day out with family so it's not like my life depends on them, but when you've shot a roll you obviously want them to turn out the best they could.

Welcome to Photrio.
Not only did you find the right website, you also started your thread in the right sub-forum!
The advice above is correct.
To refine it slightly, I'll ask about the circumstances of the photos themselves.
What was the lighting like (particularly how direct and contrasty it was), what sort of subjects did you photograph, and what sort of Subject Luminance Range were you dealing with?
I ask, because the main result of a push development isn't really an increase in film sensitivity, it is an increase in contrast. A "push" causes more change in the lighter highlights than it does in the lower shadows which, being two stops under-exposed, may not have much detail in them.
Depending on your answers, you might receive the advice to develop normally, or possibly use less of an increase in development.

Hi - thanks! This seems like a very nice and informative forum. I'm already very pleased with all the helpful comments I've received today. I hope I'll be able to help other people out as well eventually (still have a lot to learn). As I said above none of the scenes are overly contrasty, so I think a straight push shouldn't be a problem. I'm aware a push doesn't magically turn a 100 speed film into a 200 or 400 speed film, but iirc there weren't any really deep shadows/bright highlights in the scenes. The first half was shot while visiting an abbey in my region on an overcast day, the rest of the roll while cycling around town on an equally cloudy day. Should be alright, I hope. Thanks again for the warm welcome and all of the advice!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello.
Your two best options are FX-39 and TMaxDev.
Anyway, EI400 is way too much for TMX. That film's real speed is 64-80, so you can get 100 in Xtol, and 125-160 in speed enhancing developers. No more.
Up from there image falls down.
Of course those underexposed images can be scanned: that's another field.
Have a nice day.

 

[Lukas Meekers]

Hello.
Your two best options are FX-39 and TMaxDev.
Anyway, EI400 is way too much for TMX. That film's real speed is 64-80, so you can get 100 in Xtol, and 125-160 in speed enhancing developers. No more.
Up from there image falls down.
Of course those underexposed images can be scanned: that's another field.
Have a nice day.

Hi - thanks for your reply. As I said in my original post, I'm aware Tmax 100 isn't ideal for pushing and neither is Rodinal or D76. I did have to push however since I accidentally underexposed half of the roll (and underexposed the rest of it on purpoose after realising). The photos on the roll weren't really that important so not necessarily worth the hassle or investment of purchasing an entire bottle of (speed enhancing) developer.

In any case I went with D76 (developed the roll tonight, 8.25 at 20° as per Kodak's data sheets) and the negatives do seem to have come out well. Thanks to all of you for your feedback!

 

[Pioneer]

I push TMAX 100 regularly. I D-23, FX-37 or HC110b. I haven't used any D-76 for a long time but it will work as well.

You picked a good film to accidentally push. TMAX pushes pretty well if you follow the times shown on the Kodak datasheet.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It makes little difference developer-wise. If you shot it at 400 instead of 100, you lost gradation in two stops of any deep shadow value unless it was a low contrast scene to begin with. TMax films have a steep toe that quickly drops off. You're not going to recover anything that's not there to begin with. Whether that makes a big difference or not depends on the specific contrast range of your image. But as a rule of thumb, all you are realistically "pushing" is the shadow values right over a cliff. Yes, you can increase development to try to restore the balance of the film curve back to something resembling normal contrast. But your spacecraft potentially lost its tails section to a black hole, regardless. The processing charts don't tell you anything about how to recover that. You can't.

Not even a cowboy bar in Elko can sell you a secret elixir that turns TMX100 into TMY400. But I'm not into shoot from the hip Old West style film shootouts, even though some of my own ancestors were among the real Elko pioneers. My mother's uncle was one of the first circuit preachers in the famous little Victorian church in Lamoille. Dern pretty country out thar.

 

[Bill Burk]

This is a case where everyone is right even though we are saying what seems to be the opposite things.

I’ve tested the film and have a time-CI curve for D-76 straight and 1:1. So either 1:1 or straight is appropriate for your problem. (I would lean towards 12 minutes D-76 straight at 20-degrees C)

The toe drops hard so you will be depending on the midtones and highlights to make the picture come to life.

Maria Muldaur busted my chops so I’m not printing the pictures I shot at her concert. And knowing what I know now, I won’t be pushing that film again unless it’s the last roll I have on me

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello.
Your two best options are FX-39 and TMaxDev.
Anyway, EI400 is way too much for TMX. That film's real speed is 64-80, so you can get 100 in Xtol, and 125-160 in speed enhancing developers. No more.
Up from there image falls down.
Of course those underexposed images can be scanned: that's another field.
Have a nice day.

These two developers were designed for getting the highest possible speed from TMax films precisely.
You can get -for overcast scenes- great tone from TMX at EI200. Most developers can't do that. So EI400 for those two developers mean a milder push than for the rest of developers: that small amount of better shadow detail is what you want as your priority in this case: if your light was soft enough, you could even get some good negatives for wet printing...
TMaxDev is one of the best developers I've used... As you have a wild push in hands, you should use it at the stronger recommended dilution, not at the higher, softer one. Getting a bottle of TMaxDev is great: it lasts for years even for an open bottle with air inside... FX-39 can't do that.
Good luck!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nothing significantly changes. An overcast scene is generally a low contrast scenario. TMax RS developer would give a little more boost to the bottom of the toe, launching it a bit sooner onto the straight line section of the curve. But that feature would be of value only if you indeed need to squeeze as much juice out the lemon as possible in terms of shadow gradation. That particular developer is no longer made, and was specified for sheet film. I don't have any experience with non-RS regular TMax Developer, intended for roll films. But with respect to the sheet film version, once it's diluted down 1:1, the curve isn't a lot different from HC-110 B results.

I tend to dance quite a bit with the bottom of the TMax curve due to the extreme light I often encounter in the mountains or in deep woods under open sun. But that's reliant on careful spot metering. I can't imagine tangling with these high contrast shadow issues based on averaging or TTL metering, although one eventually learns through sheer trial and error experience. I happen to enjoy the challenge.

 

[Pioneer]

Not even a cowboy bar in Elko can sell you a secret elixir that turns TMX100 into TMY400. But I'm not into shoot from the hip Old West style film shootouts, even though some of my own ancestors were among the real Elko pioneers. My mother's uncle was one of the first circuit preachers in the famous little Victorian church in Lamoille. Dern pretty country out thar.

Why Drew. How kind of you to remind us once again of your distinguished ancestor from Elko, but I thought that we were discussing how to recover an over exposed roll of film. I expect that most of us are probably aware that a certain amount of shadow detail is lost forever in those negatives.

I do however have to say that I was not aware that I was recommending certain secret elixirs from a cowboy bar in Elko, though I am sure there are probably a few elixirs available that are probably best used to develop film than to drink. As I am sure that you are in fact aware, FX-37 is the home-brewed version of the commercially produced FX-39, which were both intended by Crowley specifically for use with TMX style films. Since it has helped for me in the past I thought that it might be helpful in this situation. The other two developers are long time standbys that have been relatively successful in the past as well.

Finally, I sensed a little bit of a dig at my on-line user name. That's fair. Knock yourself out. I am probably more of a pioneer's son than a true pioneer myself. Just remember, there were many places in this country where pioneers settled and helped develop the country they settled in. Elko is certainly not the only one.

One thing I think that we both agree on, this is certainly beautiful country and I am very happy to have been a small member of this community for the past 30+ years.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well Dan, if we have to endure smoke again like last summer, the Ruby mountains will be on my list of alternative places to go. I did a bit of a tour up in there a few years ago in August. Spectacular thunderstorms. I recall shooting with TMax at LIberty Lake for sake of the high contrast. Would love to get into Seitz Lake sometime; even if it's just a pond, the adjacent peaks look gorgeous from the backside. But with the exception of Lamoille Canyon access, the Rubies are a bit odd in being surrounded and blocked by so much private property below. Would love to get into Echo Lake too. Oh gosh, I've got way too more bucket list places to go than I have realistic years left on me lugging a big pack. But returning to the legit conversation of film photography, I have a collection of little albumen and cyanotype prints of the matching little Victorian church in Big Pine, CA, when the town was first under construction. Apparently the same blueprint; and only two examples are still extant. Amazing how they got even stained glass windows across the West back then. I don't think they were shooting TMax back then. But they certainly were shooting one another, especially in Silver City where the same relative had a congregation of six to eight scruffy miners in a boomtown said to have had 200 bars and brothels at that time, and an average of two murders a day. Pretty violent - they must have gotten into arguments over film developers, or perhaps had been drinking them.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, your thread title would be much more accurate if it referred to an "accidental 2 stop under-exposure", rather than an "accidental push". An accidental push is simply more development, and has nothing to do with exposure.

 

[Pioneer]

Drew, I certainly have that same bucket list issue. I've only made it into the Sierras a couple of times and I am jealous of your more ready access. There are many, many places I would love to get to with so little time. I think the last time you were out this way I was just starting to try out my little 11x14 camera.

But back to the original problem, I'm sure not everyone agrees but one of my first thoughts whenever I have an accidental under exposure is to try some stand developing with either HC110 or Rodinal. But honestly, with TMAX, I think this under exposure can be resolved with much more traditional methods as has been discussed by everyone who has answered this question.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I understand what happens. I've sometimes taken advantage of that steep drop-off of TMax and deliberately underexposed it a stop, then increased dev, in order to obtain bold graphic black shadows combined with extra midtone expansion, kinda like the Brett Weston print look. But I prefer TMY400 for that kind of purpose due to its better edge acutance. That kind of effect is the exception rather than the rule for me. It is interesting to see how people are trying to salvage another stop out of TMX 100 using special developers; but with the 100-speed film, my typical priority is to squeeze a little more edge definition from it, a slightly different story. With TMY400, I get everything I want with staining pyro developers; but with the 100-speed product, I too tended to throw some boomerangs to see what happens, and now have something I can rely on. TMX100 is a very important film for me in medium format work due to the greater degree of enlargement when printing. With sheet film, there are more realistic film choices, since grain is generally a non-issue.

 

[Bill Burk]

Here's my graph of 100 TMAX where you can see there isn't a gradual toe, it drops straight down.

If you strike 100 TMAX with -2.6 log MCS of light, you will not get any measurable density above B+F no matter how long you develop it. That's "no shadow detail" in plain terms.

If you shot the film at 400, then the light meter reading would have placed exposure at -1.7 log MCS

If you shot the film normally the meter reading at -1.1 log MCS would give density of around 0.7 and if you wanted to get 0.7 from a shot taken at 400, then an appropriate development time might be 24 minutes D-76 straight.

 

[Pioneer]

Great information Bill. Thanks.