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

[Milpool]

No. I use the smaller f/9 Apo Nikkors. There's nothing "nifty" about the Apo EL's. The longer focal lengths were made in extremely limited numbers, and are too heavy for typical home darkroom enlargers. Burkett has his mounted on a large horizontal enlarger.
I know what he paid for it, as well as for the enlarger. The only real advantage over the Apo Nikkors is one stop faster max aperture. This might have been important for Burkett, since he was printing heavily masked transparencies on the slow Cibachrome medium.

I used a huge 360/5.6 regular El Nikkor on my 8x10 color enlarger for big Ciba work, which was plenty adequate. Now for sake of much faster speed RA4 paper, I use various Apo Nikkors instead for 8x10 film - a 240, 305 (mainly), and 360. I have a set clear up to 760mm, which I cannibalized for free from a retired 22 foot long print shop process camera, which probably cost over $200,000 when it was new.

I did have an opportunity once to buy a 210/5.6 Apo El at affordable pricing. But the MTF of those things is just so ridiculously high that they can potentially reveal every tiny blemish in a piece of enlarger carrier glass, or on the film base itself. There can simply be too much of a good thing. The f/9 Apo Nikkors I do use are already optically superior to any brand of official enlarging lens. But these don't come any shorter than 180mm.

So I also use high-end regular enlarging lenses - Apo Rodagon N's, 105 and 150. Plus regular Rodagon, El Nikkor. Sometimes it's nice to have a little less contrast, especially in color printing.

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[laser]

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.

Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[laser]

Can you comment on T Max developer? What are it's advantages or disadvantages compared to Xtol or D76?

With the passage of time, T Max developer seems to have passed from consciousness in the general photocommunity, perhaps it has been overshadowed by Xtol? I'd be curious where you see it fitting in the marketplace.

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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

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

 

[Craig]

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:

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

All my enlarging is done with top end lenses, including an arsenal of true apo ones; and everything about these enlargers is very well aligned. Strictly full glass sandwich precision carriers. Since that's been the case all along simply as standard procedure, it makes the results of specific development more apparent, especially with respect to microtonality and edge effect. And when needed, certain subtle qualities can be brought out even more through unsharp masking.

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?