Designing T-Max Films: TMX speed; In response to David Williams' request

[David R Williams]

All good points, so perhaps I should obsess less over TMX's slightly lower apparent sharpness and get on with shooting!

 

[Craig]

It wouldn't be the worst option in the world to use TMY for everything either.

 

[GregY]

It wouldn't be the worst option in the world to use TMY for everything either.

I could if i had to....

 

[Lachlan Young]

All good points, so perhaps I should obsess less over TMX's slightly lower apparent sharpness and get on with shooting!

If you make bigger enlargements, TMX will outperform the others in terms of grain and detail transmission. The problem is that people tend to confuse very fine (and sharp) grain with lower sharpness. TMY-II has somewhat more heightened low-frequency sharpness, but that will trade-off against detail transmission at very large enlargements.

 

[Milpool]

It wouldn't be the worst option in the world to use TMY for everything either.

Not a bad suggestion. TMY-2 is really a peerless film. ISO 400 yet only marginally grainier than TMX, and has a nice long straight characteristic curve. Very versatile for all formats. Just the sheet film price...

 

[ags2mikon]

I recently shot a roll on 120 TMX with a 2001 expiration that had been refridgerated and it was as good as fresh TMX. I can't get Ilford 2 years past date. I guess that keeps me shooting more.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The lack of crisp edge acutance can be a benefit when using TMX for smooth complexion portraiture; but it's a liability in landscape or analogous photography where one generally wants crisp edges. I handle the latter issue with a dev tweak which gives a little more grain growth, analogous to the grain of Delta 100, but somewhat finer than that, and certainly finer than TMY400.

You might ask, why not just use D100 to begin with? Well, it's the distinctly longer straight line of TMX 100 which I need, deeper down into the shadows. That not only gives me better deep shadow gradation than D100 is capable of, but for all practical purposes at full box speed of 100. I have to rate D100 at 50 to even approximate that.

 

[David R Williams]

The lack of crisp edge acutance can be a benefit when using TMX for smooth complexion portraiture; but it's a liability in landscape or analogous photography where one generally wants crisp edges. I handle the latter issue with a dev tweak which gives a little more grain growth, analogous to the grain of Delta 100, but somewhat finer than that, and certainly finer than TMY400.

You might ask, why not just use D100 to begin with? Well, it's the distinctly longer straight line of TMX 100 which I need, deeper down into the shadows. That not only gives me better deep shadow gradation than D100 is capable of, but for all practical purposes at full box speed of 100. I have to rate D100 at 50 to even approximate that.

Ok, I'm intrigued - what's your dev tweak, Drew???

I'd understood that you were using PMK for both TMY-2 and TMX, so I'm interested in how you've adapted TMX to provide higher edge crispness.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's a simple tweak, and I've posted it numerous times. Others knew of it prior to me. It's simply Perceptol used at 1:3 dilution rather than the typical 1:1, which allows for longer development time leading to more grain growth. The effect is quite different from regular dilution. But it does the same whether buying the A&B powder packets from Ilford or a home brew of the same. In the latter case, always use real sodium chloride rather than table salt, which contains adulterants.

Because this Perceptol dilution is semi-compensating, you get highlight control reminiscent of pyro - not quite as strong, but reasonably effective, at least in this day and age of highly cooperative VC papers. PMK pyro does wonderful things for TMX in terms of highlight gradation, but can't improve the weak edge effect by itself. I had to resort to supplemental unsharp masking, with its slight "halo" around edges. Now I still sometimes mask TMax films, but for a different reason, mainly to expand microtonality in the print. Developed some TMX masks yesterday in fact.

 

[David R Williams]

Thanks - I've read about Perceptol 1:3 from Barry Thornton's publications and have tried it as a possible edge enhancer, but will give it another shot.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thanks - I've read about Perceptol 1:3 from Barry Thornton's publications and have tried it as a possible edge enhancer, but will give it another shot.

A few years back Ilford developers were hard to come by in my neck of the woods. I couldn't buy Perceptol or ID-11 anywhere and resorted to making my own. I still make my own Perceptol and it works as well as anything I have bought over the counter. 5g. Metol, 100g Sod. Sulfite and 30 to 33g of pickling salt and you have homemade Perceptol or Microdol film developer.

 

[ags2mikon]

Can someone explain to me how sodium chloride enhances edge effects? I was under the impression that it was a strong silver solvent and would do the opposite.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Can someone explain to me how sodium chloride enhances edge effects? I was under the impression that it was a strong silver solvent and would do the opposite.

It doesn't! We're not talking about "full strength" Perceptol here, but diluted 1+3 or even 1+4. It's not so much the Sodium Chloride doing the grain softening in Perceptol, but the high Sodium Sulfite content that softens the grain more. When you dilute the stock developer it also dilutes the high Sodium Sulfite content, which in turn enhances the sharpness/edge effects.

 

[retina_restoration]

If you make bigger enlargements, TMX will outperform the others in terms of grain and detail transmission. The problem is that people tend to confuse very fine (and sharp) grain with lower sharpness. TMY-II has somewhat more heightened low-frequency sharpness, but that will trade-off against detail transmission at very large enlargements.

Yes!

 

[MattKing]

Grain helps with the mostly subjective phenomena of apparent sharpness because it contributes some edges.
Acutance - observable edge contrast - is a major component of what we perceive as sharpness.
Resolution contributes to perceived sharpness, but they are not the same.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I tried 1:4 Perceptol a few days ago, with 2 min more dev time compared to 1:3 (19 min vs
17 min @20C for TMX "normal"). So far, the result looks great in 6X7 film fashion; but I'll have to wait till tomorrow or Sat (post-Thanksgiving) to assess the result in actual 16X20 enlargements.

A couple of these have been unsharp masked as well, which will provide another interesting comparison of higher dilution grain results. A high resolution enlarging lens is involved.

 

[Milpool]

Perceptol 1+3 is unlikely to promote a meaningful increase in edge effects. Presumably the idea behind this is (loosely) based on dilute metol-only / low sulfite developers enhancing edge effects, but it's not quite as simple as diluting Perceptol 1+3. It would really need to be further diluted, not to mention alkalinity is an important factor (and based on the research I've seen, the pH of Perceptol is less than ideal for enhancing edge effects with metol although to be fair that research pre-dated tabular and/or core/shell iodide etc.). The attributes of a developer that generally promote edge effects also tend to increase granularity.

We should also be clear on what we mean by edge effects (total edge contrast), which are not the same as traditional acutance (edge gradient).

As Lachlan pointed out MTF tells a more modern story, but the bottom line is TMX is a plenty sharp film.

Can someone explain to me how sodium chloride enhances edge effects? I was under the impression that it was a strong silver solvent and would do the opposite.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You're talking hypothetically, Milpool. I'm basing my experience on many many actual frames and prints - decades worth of TMax experience in multiple formats, all the way from 35mm to 8x10. The lack of good edge effect on TMax bothered me like hell from the very beginning, with the exception of portraiture.

I'm not going to get nitpicky over the exact nomenclature, merely the fact that the higher 1:3 dilution really works. A more contrasty overall print will have seemingly more dramatic transitions, but not necessarily when viewed close-up, where actual edge effect either comes into conspicuous play or not. And that fact is, if one wants a more edgy look like TMY400 provides, yet in TMX100 instead, some kind of trick is needed.

So far, I don't see any improvement in that respect going from 1:3 Perceptol to 1:4, under magnification at least. I'll know more accurately in a day or two based on visual print results. Even under the best of easel grain magnifiers, TMX 100 grain is pretty darn small to detect to begin with. (The effect of pyro staining developers is easier to detect in advance using blue light.)

 

[flavio81]

100 was much faster than Panatomic-X EI 32. With 100 speed t-grains the grain was finer than Panatomic X and the MTF was better. (...) Panatomic-X is missed but in a side by side comparison I still feel that TMX is a better film

Dear friend, you are of course correct, but... Have you put your bulletproof vest on? Also put the radiation suit on. And the gas masks as well. I don't want you to get hurt.

TMY-2 really is peak B&W technology

Indeed, so much truth in these words!

I'm so glad to be living on a time where TMY-2 (current TMax 400 for the uninitiated) is still made and available fresh.

I was a Fuji fanboy thinking they were the ones who made the best B/W films ever, with Acros 100. TMax 400 made me think it twice.

Now, i wish somebody would have compared Ilford XP2 against Kodak's various B/W C41 films. XP2 is really wonderful stuff, and perhaps XP2 is also the peak of B&W technology as well (it can be developed as a regular B/W film with great results!)

 

[DREW WILEY]

I thought chromogenic XP2 was the least versatile, most characterless film I ever encountered. Soft-edged is an understatement in its case. I also wonder how long those dyes will hold up. But to each his own. I at least tried it ... kinda like the brief Tech Pan rage in pictorial photography - another mismatch - but in the opposite direction, contrast-wise.

 

[Milpool]

Acros is/was pretty awesome too.

Lachlan could comment in more detail regarding the chromogenic B&W films but my two cents is they are way underrated (for lack of a better word).

Dear friend, you are of course correct, but... Have you put your bulletproof vest on? Also put the radiation suit on. And the gas masks as well. I don't want you to get hurt.



Indeed, so much truth in these words!

I'm so glad to be living on a time where TMY-2 (current TMax 400 for the uninitiated) is still made and available fresh.

I was a Fuji fanboy thinking they were the ones who made the best B/W films ever, with Acros 100. TMax 400 made me think it twice.

Now, i wish somebody would have compared Ilford XP2 against Kodak's various B/W C41 films. XP2 is really wonderful stuff, and perhaps XP2 is also the peak of B&W technology as well (it can be developed as a regular B/W film with great results!)

 

[John Wiegerink]

I tried 1:4 Perceptol a few days ago, with 2 min more dev time compared to 1:3 (19 min vs
17 min @20C for TMX "normal"). So far, the result looks great in 6X7 film fashion; but I'll have to wait till tomorrow or Sat (post-Thanksgiving) to assess the result in actual 16X20 enlargements.

A couple of these have been unsharp masked as well, which will provide another interesting comparison of higher dilution grain results. A high resolution enlarging lens is involved.

Drew,
That's interesting and good to hear. I've never tried it at the 1:4 dilution ratio and wonder just how much volume of developer one would need to develop a roll of 120 film? When I develop a roll of 120 using 1:3 I always use my large two reel developing tank for the one roll and add a second empty reel, then fill the tank to near full. I always want to make sure I have enough volume so as not to exhaust the developing agent too quickly so it can finish its job to completely.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I just use a single-roll Jobo hand inversion drum for 120 film. It requires slightly less than 500 ml. I make 1 liter of Perceptol stock at the time, and divvy it into four 250ml glass bottles. Half a bottle (125ml) plus 375 ml of water gives me 500 ml of one shot working solution. 500 ml is also an appropriate amount for my oversized stainless 4x5 film trays.
But my 8x10 oversized stainless film tray needs a full liter of working solution.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I just use a single-roll Jobo hand inversion drum for 120 film. It requires slightly less than 500 ml. I make 1 liter of Perceptol stock at the time, and divvy it into four 250ml glass bottles. Half a bottle (125ml) plus 375 ml of water gives me 500 ml of one shot working solution. 500 ml is also an appropriate amount for my oversized stainless 4x5 film trays.
But my 8x10 oversized stainless film tray needs a full liter of working solution.

Yes, that's my ratio for 1:3 also. I just started shooting Tmax and TMY2 again since the price for 120 roll film is much more inline with Ilfords pricing. I'm going to try 1:4 Perceptol with Tmax and see what happens. I also want to try slightly diluted DK-50 with Tmax. I think Tmax and DK-50 might be good too. I have always liked DK-50 with slower 120 format films like PanF.

 

[DREW WILEY]

DK50 was called the poor man's HC-110, and in fact preceded HC-110 in certain graphics applications. I doubt you'll get the same effect without added salt. But might as well try just as long as they're not valuable shots.

Pan-F has such a miserably exaggerated S-curve, with such a brief straight line, that I only got a modicum of cooperation from it using a modified version of PMK pyro. It's really suited more for lower contrast scenes having a dynamic range equivalent to what's best for color transparencies too. But I have gotten lovely Pan F shots in misty conditions, and coastal fog, and mountain falling snow. TMax is just so so so much more versatile.... Speaking of fog, it's starting to lift, along with its chill, so I need to think about heading outdoors soon.