• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

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


I didn't realize the Apo Nikkors were as good as the Apo-ELs only a little slower. I thought maybe they were slightly better corrected for separations and such but maybe that's just at the widest apertures. Yes if I remember correctly Burkett has a AF Durst.

My enlarging lens for 35mm negatives is an Apo Rodagon N but when I started out printing my first enlarging lens was a lowly 4-element EL Nikkor and although this might make people laugh I honestly don't see any difference. The 4-element EL Nikkor seems just as sharp to me although to be fair I'm talking black and white enlarging.
 
Posting examples over the web wouldn't be very helpful. The kind of sharpening and contrast manipulation inherent to that would basically obscure the actual print nuances under discussion.

Why just TMX100? - it's because that's an otherwise highly detailed film which has disappointing edge effect. Sure, you can do the same thing with other films, but in their case the effect can become exaggerated. For example, I tried 1:3 Perceptol with Acros, an exceptionally fine grained film with decent acutance; yet I got obnoxious blatant grain.
Looking at the developed film under the microscope, it was evident that two different kinds of emulsion grain were involved in this particular film, and one of them suddenly got way out of proportion.
 
Thanks, Drew. So the difference would be obvious to anyone who had 2 prints in their hands but it just wouldn't show up over the web

Sound like the web is so unreliable in terms of showing differences that one wonders why anyone bothers to use this forum or any forum to demonstrate difference to illustrate their point and that we'll just have to take your word for it. Pity

As far as Acros it sounds as if it's the two different kinds of emulsion that is the problem What might these be?

Is the same true of TMY 400, and Delta 100 ie. two different kinds of emulsion grains?

Is this an intrinsic problem with all except TMX 100 for which there is no solution i.e. ít is impossible to get anything better than exaggerated grain with them at 1+3? It is not just a question of finding the right development time or doing something else with development process?
pentaxuser
 
Andrew O'Neill said:
I did a video a couple years ago, comparing TMX and Panatomic-X. They were almost identical in their renderings, but TMX's resolution and grain were superior.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the confirmation.
 
Milpool - It's a matter of the grain edge effect looking right for the application, including the degree of enlargement. And that's not just a matter of more development time, which would otherwise heavily factor overall contrast too. There has been a great variety of black and white films. I treat each of them as their own problem, with their own range of best applications.

And other than giving an idea of subject matter or the overall appeal of an image, yes, I do wonder why anyone pretends to prove subtle distinctions of technique over the web. It's like trying to fell a tree with a dull fingernail file. Wrong instrument. Written text better suits the web, or general instructional imagery. But fine printmaking is all about nuances, and having actual prints in front of you to visually compare.
 

T-Max developer was designed using statistical design-of-experiments optimized to produce results similar to D-76. Think of it as "liquid D-76". As I recall T-MAX Developer is more stable than D-76 in powder and when mixed in water solutions. The excellent T-Max Developer results are consistent and predictable.

I never paid much attention to Xtol Developer. The objective of was to provide an environmentally friendly developer using citric acid as the prime developing agent. It was designed empirically. I didn't think it would be a rival to D-76 or T-Max Developer. I was wrong, it is still around and photographers like it. Early in its manufacturing life there were severe problems with the stability of the powder. I assume those issues have been resolved.

I personally favor the ease of use and performance of liquid T-Max Developer. With D-76 I wouldn't use all the developer so I had to toss some. I was also uneasy with using D-76 that was mixed a few weeks ago. I know the performance deteriorates with time. With D-76 I would eliminate air in the bottle by topping the liquid level with glass marbles. With T-Max there is no waste so the added cost was offset since I used all the T-Max Developer concentrate.
 
Panatomic-X was not quite as fine grained as Adox KB-14, which may be why it had a little more latitude than KB-14. I used tons of KB-14 in the late 1960s to early 70s, but I eventually gave up, mostly because of the latitude and tonal issues. I don't use any slow films anymore, because TMY-2 in FX-21 is as close to perfection as I have ever seen. It is much finer grained than other 400 speed films, and with FX-21 I can control the highlights better than with any other developer. TMY-2 is a very fine-grained film, and it therefore has some of the same limitations that slow films do.
 

I think this might be a tad over-simplistic.

It is certainly true that resolution limits and lack of common monitor calibration can wreak havoc trying to share information. This is further complicated that we view prints as reflective media, but monitors are a light emitting media AND scanners scan negatives rather differently than, say, a silver print might render them. This is why, when I share work, I typically share scan of the print, not the negative.

That said, it is entirely possible to show the effects under discussion here by posting highly magnified scans of a negative. @Andrew O'Neill does this routinely with his many varied film development experiments and has quite clearly demonstrated things like changes in grain viz the developer/scheme used on numerous occasions.

At best, though, we all work differently and well we'll get is a general sense of the differences. You have to do your own fiddling to see how these things for you. I am mighty fond of D-23 1+9+lye (thanks be to @Raghu Kuvempunagar for suggesting it) so now I want to toss some salt into the stew to see if it tastes better
 
Thanks for your insights!

You would probably find the article from the inventors/creators of Xtol to be interesting. I particularly like Xtol, I'd consider it D76+10% - it seems to do everything that bit better than D76. Finer grain, faster emulsion speed and better sharpness. Almost infinitely replentishable with itself too, it makes a versatile developer.

Article link:
 

Since most photographers aren't using top end enlarging lenses, wouldn't you have to modify the ratio and development formulas to meet the equipment they're using. Your formulas and ratios wouldn't work, would they?
 


I kept that issue, just for that article. I purged many of my magazines (I had almost every issue of that magazine), and kept only a few. That magazine sure got boring near the end, unless digital was your thing.
 


Thank you Craig very much for sharing this very interesting article!
 
I agree - don’t get me wrong - TMY-2 is exceedingly fine grained for a high speed film. In fact I’d say the only medium speed films that can top it in granularity are TMX and Acros, and not my much.

I can’t comment on slow films like KB-14, Agfa APX 25 etc. when it comes to exposure range. Other than the odd experiment here and there that was just too slow to be practical for me especially in large format. ISO 100 was pretty much my low end cutoff with the exception of Kodachrome 64 and occasionally Velvia.

 

That's what I had thought as well but not according to Drew it would seem However I need to wait until Drew answers

pentaxuser
 
There are some things that sharing over the internet is just not going to work very well. Take for example slight toning effects or differences of replacing KBr with Benzotriazole. But effects of image resolution quality and grain are done all the time. @Andrew O'Neill, the Naked photographer and others do it on youtube with all of their algorithms, and it is still easy to see. Oh well, for whatever it is worth I'll just to have take Drew's word for it.
 

pentaxuser said:
That's what I had thought as well but not according to Drew it would seem However I need to wait until Drew answers

pentaxuser
Click to expand...



One of the fallacies you often see is people declaring "If it cannot be measured scientifically, it's not real."

I spent an early part of my career doing industrial research on how hearing impaired people perceive things in a noisy environment. I learned many things doing that work, chief among them that really good, statistically meaningful outcomes are tough to achieve when measuring human sensory behavior. There is so much variability from person to person, that if you get statistically significant results, it's often right at the noise floor of the data. (That's what they mean when some advert talks about "found to be clinically significant".)

I bring this up because while we can measure things like how a developer affects grain edge sharpness, this doesn't necessarily translate to how people will perceive the overall image as being more- or less sharp. Each of us bring a unique pairing of sensing systems like eyes and optical nerves, and a brain that interprets the results. We'll all spot the same gross differences, but when you talk about things at the level of subtlety under discussion here, it is well possible, even probable, that we may- or may not see an improvement with, say, throwing salt into D-23. So I take Drew at his word and also admit the possibility that I may not get the same visible improvement. It's not that it doesn't work, it may be that my machinery may not work the same as Drew's

This is why I have spent many years, hours, and bunches of darkroom time to do my own experimentation, rather than relying solely on the claims of others. Certainly, input here is helpful, but in the end, only your own poking about will really tell you whether a given technique delivers what you want. And I plan to do just that when I have time - the same scene processed in D-23 with- and without salt. My spidey sense suggests that the differences may just be "clinically significant"...
 
Well, very little is on a level playing field by the time it reaches the web. All kinds of scanning and manipulation artifacts are potentially involved. And magnifying some tiny portion might not lend the general impression at all. And it's really difficult to make subtle contrast prints come across well over the web, where an almost etched quality might be present, but impossible to see unless the whole images has its contrast artificially boosted in order to see the effect on a substandard medium (the web). I learned that lesson long ago. It's not that I haven't tried it.

Same goes for subtle hues where color images are involved. The web is by design a blunt axe. Sure, everyone can make a box of Crayons look vivid and bright. That's why film ads and reviews always seem to have them; but highly nuanced color is another matter entirely. I learned that lesson too. Two-thirds of my work, both color and b&w, didn't adapt to the web well. And if you look at people who rather routinely print subtly, like Robert Adams, a print which looks magnificent on the wall comes out downright blaaah over the web. Enhance it, and it's not the same thing at all.
 

So back to the subject at hand ...

Would you please restate your formulation of what I am now calling "Microdrew-X" AND how you process with it. Are you doing conventional development and agitation, low agitation, high dilution?

My interest is in adapting my D-23 1+9+lye semistand which is already very, very sharp to try out D-23 1+9+lye+salt seminstand.
 
It's all conventional agitation, whether tray shuffle method with TMX sheet film every 30 sec, or hand drum inversion for roll film (basically, the Kodak inversion method every 30 sec). Makes no difference whether ordinary 1:1 dilution or 1:3. The only thing which differs is the longer time for higher dilution.

Identical procedure whether store-bought Perceptol or home-brew.

5g metol
100g sodium sulfite
30g sodium chloride
water to make 1 liter

Hard to say how lye and salt will interact. You might have to reduce the sodium hydroxide amount or the overall sodium level might come out too high.
 

Thanks!

You're just using regular old sea salt?
 
Heck no! Pure Sodium Chloride. Sea salt potentially has all kinds of trace ingredients, or not so "trace". Ordinary table salt contains iodine as well as quite a bit of titanium dioxide whitener. Some people allegedly use Kosher Salt, which is supposed to be pure. I don't gamble, and order sodium chloride as a chemical per se. It's cheap enough.
 

OK, noted, and thanks again. I have immortalized MicroDrew-X in my notes
 
chuckroast said:
Thanks!

You're just using regular old sea salt?
Click to expand...
I have used pickling or canning salt with no problems encountered, but you can play it safe and do what Drew does. I just haven't found a reason to switch from the pickling/canning salt. Just stay away from ordinary table salt. I know nothing about things like Himalayan pink salt or others variations.
 
Ok so a few things. First, that’s not Drew’s invention. It’s been around since the mid 20th century and is well known. Originally, Edgar Hyman, I think. It was an intended to be a home-mix substitute for Microdol. Perceptol is likely very similar but may not be exactly the same ratios.

Never mind the other things. I’m too tired.
 

Yes, I know, but I was being whimsical in light of Drew's willingness to share. Also MicroHyman-X just doesn't have the same ring ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register