You know it might be my X700 that gets fast or loses “last check” when it’s low on battery. Because just today the battery needed changing.
After that a roll of TMX at box speed came out perfect.
I still will give TMY @ 800 half a minute more though.
Increasing development time doesn't significantly increase film's sensitivity, it increases contrast.The official Kodak times for 400 and 800 for TMY are the same aren't they? I presume that after testing, Kodak decided that it was a film that could be exposed and developed for exactly the same time at both speeds This I think makes it unusual in the ranks of 400 speed film.
This might be true in principle.Increasing development time doesn't significantly increase film's sensitivity, it increases contrast.
That increase in contrast will have little effect on the deep shadows, a useful effect on the appearance of high shadows and mid-tones, and a potentially deleterious effect on highlights.
When Kodak recommends what they do, they are saying that any improvement on the high shadows and mid-tones is more than offset by the deleterious effect on the highlights. In short, it is the result of a balancing of priorities.
For most people, the appearance of highlights tends to have a much greater impact on the perception of quality of a print than the appearance of shadows. Thus their choice of priorities.
TMY has a useful response to one stop of under-exposure - better than a lot of films - so the choice of priorities make even more sense.
This assumes that the cumulative uncertainties lean toward under-exposure or under-development.This might be true in principle.
But, if you have a perfect storm of a meter being slightly off, the light being low contrast, tungsten or just wonky, and lastly your development being off, just slightly in temperature, dilution, agitation etc. then you might very well run out of margin/slack.
You’d save that by giving the film a bit more time, perhaps even without agitation.
Yes, with the result of a bit more contrast. But you said yes to that when you set your meter above box speed.
I actually get better results scanning slightly low density (due to less development) negatives than higher than optimum density (due to excess development) negatives.If scanning is a part of one's workflow, I'm with Helge on this one. It is easier to deal with excess of contrast digitally than with lack of density. When facing uncertainty (new emulsion, new chemistry/dilution) I err on the side of over-development.
Highlights is one of the, yeah, highlights of negative film.I actually get better results scanning slightly low density (due to less development) negatives than higher than optimum density (due to excess development) negatives.
And of course, the under-exposed shadows don't really differ, either way.
I've got that exact same graduated pitcher. I found it used on Ebay, invaluable! I like your bottles, where did you find those?The ADOX XT-3 5l pack arrived this morning, it's mixed and cooling a little, now I can finally try it out...
View attachment 285813
Good Morning Mshchem,I've got that exact same graduated pitcher. I found it used on Ebay, invaluable! I like your bottles, where did you find those?
That pitcher does look useful. I have a couple of 5000ml ones, but the full capacity is not really usable the the '5000ml' mark is just below the top of the pticher.I've got that exact same graduated pitcher. I found it used on Ebay, invaluable!
While were at it, I had those exact same instant read thermometers for yearsI've got that exact same graduated pitcher. I found it used on Ebay, invaluable! I like your bottles, where did you find those?
Good point. The two normally rated TMY rolls I sent through the batch has come out good. But perhaps that is not enough data to base a conclusion on.How are you evaluating the negatives?
Try TMY at box speed before deciding.
You make me feel so dirty! Next you'll be telling me to subscribe? ;-PThe other caution I usually mention is that the T-Max films (100 and 400) tend to have a slightly different visual appearance than the more traditional films, so I would be wary of depending on that method for evaluation, at least until one is used to how they appear when using a particular developer.
I don't trust anything until I have a chance to make a print!
But if you use other methods to present the result ....
I always support virtuous choicesYou make me feel so dirty! Next you'll be telling me to subscribe? ;-P
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?