Differences between Tmax 400 and Tri-x characteristic curves?

[Acticus]

I'm new to B&W developing (35mm), and I'm trying to decide what my everyday film and developer will be. I have a lot of digital experience, and I do understand the fundamentals of film photography, exposure and processing. I'm digitizing with a Sony mirrorless camera.

I see that in Kodak's literature that Tmax 400's characteristic curve has essentially no shoulder. Tri-x has a bit of a shoulder. What does this mean for practical photography? I've read that Tmax has greater contrast in the highlights. What does that look like? Can anyone point me to an image that demonstrates high contrast in the highlights? And what would the converse look like, highlights using a film with a defined shoulder? Is that Tri-x's look? What other differences would you say there are between the two films?

So far, I've shot Tri-x, developed in Rodinal, Tmax 100 and 400 in HC-110. Tmax 100 is too grainless for my taste. I like some grain. Tmax 100 is almost like shooting digital. That's not the look I'm after. I'm not sure how much grain I like....I'm trying to figure that out now. I'm shooting with a Nikon FM2n, together with a medium 1 stop yellow filter. Yellow because I thought that would make my street portraits look a little nicer, more flattering skin tones for those subjects who care about skin tones (a year ago I would have written "for the ladies.") So, with the 1/4000 top shutter speed, together with the yellow filter, I can shoot at wider apertures in most all situations.

So I guess the biggest question is what are the real practical differences between Tri-x and Tmax 400, especially as it pertains to the characteristic curve, and also, what's the best method for exposure? I'm using the center-weighted meter of the Nikon, so there will be no precise spot meter measurements.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Hello there

Before saying anything else, I have to say that characteristic curves depend not only on the film itself, but also the developer used, dilution, development time and agitation intervals. All these factors may affect curve shape. Now, one more detail about characteristic curve interpretation is that the contrast isn't constant across it. Drawing a tangent on any specific point will tell you about the contrast at this specific point (meaning exposure level). So, the more upswept the curve, the higher the contrast and vice versa. Having a shoulder means a reduced contrast at these exposure levels, so highlights are not as contrasty as the midtones before them. Is this a bad thing? Well, it is a matter of taste. A more pronounced shoulder can make highlights look "muddy", meaning that there's not much differentiation between light tones that are rather close in exposure levels, so detail doesn't "pop", there's no "sparkle", or brilliance. If you don't particularly care about it, then it's not a problem at all. In fact, it could make printing from such a negative a fair bit easier by compressing the highlights and preventing them from looking blown out (totally white). Now, if you want to have examples of shoulder, or lack of it, simply use the curve tool in any image processing software, it is IMHO the easiest way to get a good approximation of the effect. Just shoot a few photographs with your camera and experiment. While you are at it, try also the exact opposite of the shoulder, the upswept curve at the highlights.

Now, with all these said and done, since you have a hybrid workflow, much of it has not much value. It is just too easy to shape your curve as you please. If I were you, I'd be more interested in granularity and resolution, maybe even spectral sensitivity, but not that much in curve shape. And since you mentioned exposure, just make sure you give your negatives enough of it. It's much easier to get something out of thin negatives in digital post processing, but it will still look sub optimal.

Hope this helpes.

 

[Bormental]

You are digitizing with a digital camera, so you'll have to invert and adjust gamma & curves to your liking anyway. (straight inversion leads to a bleak low-contrast image). When you do that, you'll inevitably bend the look to your liking so the difference between these two will not be that great, but you will probably find that the straight curve of TMY is easier as a starting point. Moreover, as I gain more confidence with B/W chemistry, I am beginning to learn that the characteristic curve you see in the data sheet is not what you're getting. That curve is what data sheet writers / emulsion designers had in mind for a specific developer + time + agitation. What I am saying is that you'll be bending that curve at least twice: during development and also during digitizing & post-processing.

I think I have a similar meter in my Nikon and I try my best to use it as spot, i.e. in the examples below I just pointed it down to take a shadow reading.

I found these two photos for you to take a look at. They're shot at the same time of the day, same light, on the same week, almost in the same location (my commute). Obviously this is not a test scene, but as close as I could find. Developed in the same developer "by the book", i.e. using datasheet numbers from Kodak.

Tri-X

T-Max 400

Sorry for the sepia tint, I was in the middle of a "phase"

 

[Acticus]

You are digitizing with a digital camera, so you'll have to invert and adjust gamma & curves to your liking anyway. (straight inversion leads to a bleak low-contrast image). When you do that, you'll inevitably bend the look to your liking so the difference between these two will not be that great, but you will probably find that the straight curve of TMY is easier as a starting point. Moreover, as I gain more confidence with B/W chemistry, I am beginning to learn that the characteristic curve you see in the data sheet is not what you're getting. That curve is what data sheet writers / emulsion designers had in mind for a specific developer + time + agitation. What I am saying is that you'll be bending that curve at least twice: during development and also during digitizing & post-processing.

I think I have a similar meter in my Nikon and I try my best to use it as spot, i.e. in the examples below I just pointed it down to take a shadow reading.

I found these two photos for you to take a look at. They're shot at the same time of the day, same light, on the same week, almost in the same location (my commute). Obviously this is not a test scene, but as close as I could find. Developed in the same developer "by the book", i.e. using datasheet numbers from Kodak.

Tri-X
View attachment 251826

T-Max 400
View attachment 251827

Sorry for the sepia tint, I was in the middle of a "phase"

Ah, ok, I understand your point that my digital workflow makes it almost a moot point, but why do you think Tmax is a better starting point? Also, regarding your images, can you describe the differences as you see them? Regarding pointing the camera down, I have done that too, but then what? You meter down and then decrease exposure two stops? Finally, suppose I wanted to start wet printing? How would you answer my OP? Thanks, I found your reply helpful.

 

[Acticus]

Hello there

Before saying anything else, I have to say that characteristic curves depend not only on the film itself, but also the developer used, dilution, development time and agitation intervals. All these factors may affect curve shape. Now, one more detail about characteristic curve interpretation is that the contrast isn't constant across it. Drawing a tangent on any specific point will tell you about the contrast at this specific point (meaning exposure level). So, the more upswept the curve, the higher the contrast and vice versa. Having a shoulder means a reduced contrast at these exposure levels, so highlights are not as contrasty as the midtones before them. Is this a bad thing? Well, it is a matter of taste. A more pronounced shoulder can make highlights look "muddy", meaning that there's not much differentiation between light tones that are rather close in exposure levels, so detail doesn't "pop", there's no "sparkle", or brilliance. If you don't particularly care about it, then it's not a problem at all. In fact, it could make printing from such a negative a fair bit easier by compressing the highlights and preventing them from looking blown out (totally white). Now, if you want to have examples of shoulder, or lack of it, simply use the curve tool in any image processing software, it is IMHO the easiest way to get a good approximation of the effect. Just shoot a few photographs with your camera and experiment. While you are at it, try also the exact opposite of the shoulder, the upswept curve at the highlights.

Now, with all these said and done, since you have a hybrid workflow, much of it has not much value. It is just too easy to shape your curve as you please. If I were you, I'd be more interested in granularity and resolution, maybe even spectral sensitivity, but not that much in curve shape. And since you mentioned exposure, just make sure you give your negatives enough of it. It's much easier to get something out of thin negatives in digital post processing, but it will still look sub optimal.

Hope this helpes.

It helps alot! I'm a little disappointed in that because of my digital workflow, it makes things seem to be too easy. There's no tinkering to do! I see so many posts in these forums, very analytical posts about how to do the best photography, and I find those posts interesting. But it seems for all practical purposes, you're saying it doesn't matter all that much. Question. What about compensating for contrast in the subject? For instance, in contrasty light, over expose and under develop, and the converse in flat lighting? Is that something to do in a digital workflow, and if so, is one film better than the other? Thanks!

 

[Bormental]

Ah, ok, I understand your point that my digital workflow makes it almost a moot point, but why do you think Tmax is a better starting point? Also, regarding your images, can you describe the differences as you see them? Regarding pointing the camera down, I have done that too, but then what? You meter down and then decrease exposure two stops? Finally, suppose I wanted to start wet printing? How would you answer my OP? Thanks, I found your reply helpful.

TMax is not necessarily a better starting point, it's just often easier (fewer corrections) to start with a flatter image. Just a personal preference, nothing else. The images above, despite my best efforts to find something for you, are not easy to compare. The overall "look" seems identical to me. Looking at patterns across these two rolls, I think TMax preserves highlights a bit better, but that could be me just being less/more lazy with corrections. I did not spend much time per image, as these were junk/experimental rolls anyway, I moved on to Ilford films fairly quickly.

Regarding exposure, no - I just exposed for the shadows. Both shots were overexposed in the highlights on purpose. I do not wet print, that's the next level!

 

[Anon Ymous]

@Acticus Heh, if you find it too easy, which it basically is, by all means try wet printing. I don't mean to discourage, or scare you, far from it. It is a very rewarding experience, which you will probably enjoy and the result, the actual print, is something tangible, beautiful and has the hand crafted quality that the hybrid workflow can't provide. It's not too tough, although it can become if you try to make the most out of your negatives, or the negative itself isn't very good to begin with. If you have the space and money, go on and buy yourself an enlarger and all the other darkroom gear needed. If you find out it's not for you, then you can probably sell it and take your money back. One thing is definitely true: that wet printing will show all of the problems your negatives may have and also show more clearly the differences between films.

Now, since you mentioned subject contrast, it still doesn't matter that much in a hybrid workflow. It even doesn't matter that much in a purely analog workflow, although it's more useful there. Of course, there will be those that disagree, but we're talking about 135 film, right? No sheet film to be processed individually, all shots get the same treatment. It is important to record all the detail you wish in the negative, so adequate exposure is a must. After this, just give your film an "average" contrast in development, not too low, nor too high. It won't matter if you're off a bit (low or high). This whole expansion - contraction thing was more useful back in the days of graded paper. Nowadays we have excellent multigrade papers and contrast can be adjusted to a great extent, and far more easily, in the printing stage. If you also use more advanced techniques like split grade printing, then you have almost endless possibilities, as long as you recorded the information on the negative in the first place.

 

[Lachlan Young]

what are the real practical differences between Tri-x and Tmax 400, especially as it pertains to the characteristic curve, and also, what's the best method for exposure? I'm using the center-weighted meter of the Nikon, so there will be no precise spot meter measurements.

Tri-X 400's characteristic shoulder can make highlights in images made under contrastier conditions harder to burn in/ print with good separation (because the film curve is compressing them). You can try to straighten out the curve by overexposure & reduced processing time - but that will affect your midtone gradient. What T-Max 400 attempts to do is keep highlight linearity so when you burn/ fog/ mask etc those highlights in, they'll still have excellent separation without having to cut process time with its attendant midtone gradient consequences. On the other hand Tri-X's 'look' is a result of its curve, sharpness behaviour, visible granularity etc - and those are all visually significantly different from T-Max 400. This applies both in scanning and optical darkroom printing. In fact I would go so far as to say that if you aren't seeing those differences between the two films in a scan, there is something wrong with your scanning process. Attempts at correction in post-production of Tri-X's shoulder often look odd, no matter if in the darkroom or on the computer - but you may be able to dig a little more out of the extremes of toe & shoulder by way of the linearity of digital sensors (paper has a toe & shoulder that interacts with the film's shoulder and toe respectively).

Easy way to get a starting point for controllable results: set your meter to half box speed, knock maybe 20% (adjust up/down in 5% increments) off the recommended time for processing for box speed, iterate from there.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If one was to scan to do digital printing, which film would give more latitude?

 

[Lachlan Young]

If one was to scan to do digital printing, which film would give more latitude?

Don't think in terms of latitude, think in terms of characteristic curve - 'latitude' is more a question of exposure and process especially in BW - and how much idiot-proofing the emulsion set has. TXP320 (ie sheet Tri-X) has a rather different curve than TX400.

 

[138S]

I see that in Kodak's literature that Tmax 400's characteristic curve has essentially no shoulder. Tri-x has a bit of a shoulder. What does this mean for practical photography?

If you are to scan then this is mostly irrelevant, as you bend the curve like you want. If you are to print in the darkroom then extreme highlights in TMY reach higher densities that can be more difficult to print.

In both cases a compensating development may lower densities in the highlights, relatively to the the mids.

I've read that Tmax has greater contrast in the highlights. What does that look like? Can anyone point me to an image that demonstrates high contrast in the highlights?

It happens that the highlights tend to clip to white in the print, a bit like in digital, but information is there and texture can be pulled like if it was TX. In the Hybrid case you simply bend the curve, in the darkroom there are several techniques for it.

Is that Tri-x's look? What other differences would you say there are between the two films?

Main difference is grain, TMY has little grain, TX has a particular grain structure, it delivers much more grain in the shadows than in the mids and highlights which helps a dramatic rendition. For example you see dark clouds in a storm with a lot of grain.

Regarding sensitometry (the curve) you control what you do with exposure, development and post-processing. And regarding spectral sensitivity what counts is how you filter.

TX is long toe, so -2 to -3 underexposed areas are more compressed, with TX you may want to expose a bit more to ensure detail in the shadows.

grain I like...

Try also D-76 and Xtol. Xtol delivers finer grain while increasing sharpness, looks contradictory but it is. If you use diluted developer then solvent effect is slightly lower. Xtol may be better for TX in 35mm, with HC-110 and Rodinal you get a more coarse grain. But thisis about taste.

Yellow because I thought that would make my street portraits look a little nicer,

Make a filter bracketing to find what fits your taste. Shot the same model with different filters in the shadow and with direct sunlight. It depends on many factors: face shape, skin tone, illumination, personal taste...

 

[138S]

If one was to scan to do digital printing, which film would give more latitude?

It depends on processing, a N- processing extends latitude. TMax may deliver 20 stops latitude with an special processing...

If using developments recommended in the datasheet TX has more range before reaching insanely high densities for the darkroom, but if you are to scan you can recover extreme highlights in both cases. Both have an insane latitude in the highlights, how many overexposure stops do you want? six? eight? no problem... just you may do a compensating or contracting development to make the post-processing easier

 

[Acticus]

If you are to scan then this is mostly irrelevant, as you bend the curve like you want. If you are to print in the darkroom then extreme highlights in TMY reach higher densities that can be more difficult to print.

In both cases a compensating development may lower densities in the highlights, relatively to the the mids.




It happens that the highlights tend to clip to white in the print, a bit like in digital, but information is there and texture can be pulled like if it was TX. In the Hybrid case you simply bend the curve, in the darkroom there are several techniques for it.




Main difference is grain, TMY has little grain, TX has a particular grain structure, it delivers much more grain in the shadows than in the mids and highlights which helps a dramatic rendition. For example you see dark clouds in a storm with a lot of grain.

Regarding sensitometry (the curve) you control what you do with exposure, development and post-processing. And regarding spectral sensitivity what counts is how you filter.

TX is long toe, so -2 to -3 underexposed areas are more compressed, with TX you may want to expose a bit more to ensure detail in the shadows.




Try also D-76 and Xtol. Xtol delivers finer grain while increasing sharpness, looks contradictory but it is. If you use diluted developer then solvent effect is slightly lower. Xtol may be better for TX in 35mm, with HC-110 and Rodinal you get a more coarse grain. But thisis about taste.




Make a filter bracketing to find what fits your taste. Shot the same model with different filters in the shadow and with direct sunlight. It depends on many factors: face shape, skin tone, illumination, personal taste...

Thanks. I've done tmax 400 in HC-110. Not much grain there at all. I'm going to try Rodinal tonight to see how that looks. Is it true that Rodinal and HC-110 don't deliver full film speed? If so, can you recommend a developer that has little or no solvent action and give full film speed?

 

[Acticus]

@Acticus Heh, if you find it too easy, which it basically is, by all means try wet printing. I don't mean to discourage, or scare you, far from it. It is a very rewarding experience, which you will probably enjoy and the result, the actual print, is something tangible, beautiful and has the hand crafted quality that the hybrid workflow can't provide. It's not too tough, although it can become if you try to make the most out of your negatives, or the negative itself isn't very good to begin with. If you have the space and money, go on and buy yourself an enlarger and all the other darkroom gear needed. If you find out it's not for you, then you can probably sell it and take your money back. One thing is definitely true: that wet printing will show all of the problems your negatives may have and also show more clearly the differences between films.

Now, since you mentioned subject contrast, it still doesn't matter that much in a hybrid workflow. It even doesn't matter that much in a purely analog workflow, although it's more useful there. Of course, there will be those that disagree, but we're talking about 135 film, right? No sheet film to be processed individually, all shots get the same treatment. It is important to record all the detail you wish in the negative, so adequate exposure is a must. After this, just give your film an "average" contrast in development, not too low, nor too high. It won't matter if you're off a bit (low or high). This whole expansion - contraction thing was more useful back in the days of graded paper. Nowadays we have excellent multigrade papers and contrast can be adjusted to a great extent, and far more easily, in the printing stage. If you also use more advanced techniques like split grade printing, then you have almost endless possibilities, as long as you recorded the information on the negative in the first place.

Oh man. Now you've even made it even simpler. No contrast adjustment needed in development? I may have to find a new, more complicated hobby. : ) Regarding printing, I don't have any way to set up a darkroom yet. Maybe in the future. Thanks again for your comments!

 

[Acticus]

Tri-X 400's characteristic shoulder can make highlights in images made under contrastier conditions harder to burn in/ print with good separation (because the film curve is compressing them). You can try to straighten out the curve by overexposure & reduced processing time - but that will affect your midtone gradient. What T-Max 400 attempts to do is keep highlight linearity so when you burn/ fog/ mask etc those highlights in, they'll still have excellent separation without having to cut process time with its attendant midtone gradient consequences. On the other hand Tri-X's 'look' is a result of its curve, sharpness behaviour, visible granularity etc - and those are all visually significantly different from T-Max 400. This applies both in scanning and optical darkroom printing. In fact I would go so far as to say that if you aren't seeing those differences between the two films in a scan, there is something wrong with your scanning process. Attempts at correction in post-production of Tri-X's shoulder often look odd, no matter if in the darkroom or on the computer - but you may be able to dig a little more out of the extremes of toe & shoulder by way of the linearity of digital sensors (paper has a toe & shoulder that interacts with the film's shoulder and toe respectively).

Easy way to get a starting point for controllable results: set your meter to half box speed, knock maybe 20% (adjust up/down in 5% increments) off the recommended time for processing for box speed, iterate from there.

That starting point, is that for Tri-x, or for Tmax 400 as well? It seems that from a few have said here, Tmax might be the easier film to work with? I find that curious, as a number of posts I have read in other places say that the tmax films require careful exposure or some other sort of coddling in order to get good negs. And those same posts say that Tri-x is almost foolproof! I can understand how that straight highlight curve would make things easier with Tmax. Just give adequate exposure to the shadows, and there will be plenty of room for the highlights to fall into place. Don't be too generous with shadow exposure, otherwise you may increase grain for the midtones and highlights, as they are becoming too dense, assuming that the developing time is a constant. Is that correct?

Ok, so it seems for digital workflow, tmax and Tri-x are almost foolproof, as long as you give adequate exposure. Correct? Is there reason to be more precise in exposure of these films if one has a digital workflow? Any benefit to be realized? You mention overexposing slightly and cutting development a bit. I in fact did that recently. The environment was bright and sunny, with detail in large shadow areas that I wanted to record well. Film was tmax 400, with HC-110. I metered for the shadows, simply used the settings the FM2 recommended for the shadows, and later cut development time about 12%. The processed negative was noticeably less contrasty, with the bright skies more transparent. It "scanned" easily. So suppose I had kept regular development. And suppose I had even given the scene more exposure. Would I have still been able to digitize? These digital cameras have tremendous dynamic range. I simply expose by using the histogram, expose to the right.

 

[Bormental]

@Acticus so much in your later questions depend on one's preferences... I will repeat someone's suggestion to burn a few rolls of each film, bracketing on exposure and development time, you will develop your own opinion/preference. For example, I hated grain when I started, but then I discovered that grain itself can have character. IMO these preferences are impossible to develop by reading comments. Also, photrio is not a good place to look at samples because the site limitations do not allow for uploading full-size scans (what you actually want to see is RAW files from digital scans, not JPEGs).

 

[MattKing]

Whatever approach you use - whether you darkroom print or scan to digital and post process - you will have the opportunity to further manipulate the image after you have developed the negative.
But you probably should aim for a negative that is closer to what you are looking for, rather than having to frequently employ the most aggressive manipulation techniques.
I mostly do darkroom printing, and between your two specified alternatives my preference is for T-Max 400, but that is a reflection of the types of images I gravitate toward.
With a lot of work, you can make either one look like the other.
I'm particularly attuned to the appearance of the mid-tones - in general most people are - and the long straight section on the T-Max 400 curve gives me more to work with.
With respect to the need to expose accurately, both films reward accurate exposure. If you miss with your exposure, that means more of the exposure will either be in or near the shoulder or toe of the curve. Your results will look different with each film. Arguably Tri-X looks more like classic Tri-X if you miss with the exposure, while T-Max 400 looks less changed - due to the longer straight section of the curve.
As far as adjusting development time, if your roll was shot in either consistently high or consistently low contrast conditions, it makes total sense to expose and develop the film in a manner that responds to that. It is important though to understand that contrast here is not equivalent to brightness range - contrast is a description of the qualities of the illumination. High contrast images have sharply defined shadows and relatively harsh transitions between adjacent tones. Low contrast images have softer shadows and gentler transitions between adjacent tones.
I suggest you try both and see if you find yourself gravitating to a particular look.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Oh man. Now you've even made it even simpler. No contrast adjustment needed in development? ...

Basically, yes. That said, if you fancy some experimentation, you could do what @Lachlan Young proposed for high contrast situations:

Tri-X 400's characteristic shoulder can make highlights in images made under contrastier conditions harder to burn in/ print with good separation (because the film curve is compressing them). You can try to straighten out the curve by overexposure & reduced processing time - but that will affect your midtone gradient...
Easy way to get a starting point for controllable results: set your meter to half box speed, knock maybe 20% (adjust up/down in 5% increments) off the recommended time for processing for box speed, iterate from there.

He has some valid points and you will get some nice, low contrast negatives, full of detail, with more straightened shoulder. These negatives will print and scan beautifully in my experience and have finer grain than normally processed ones as far as I can tell. This fine grain advantage may be lost though if you need to bump the contrast higher than expected.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Than has a shorter toe then tri-x. Therefore more shadow contrast.

 

[Lachlan Young]

That starting point, is that for Tri-x, or for Tmax 400 as well? It seems that from a few have said here, Tmax might be the easier film to work with? I find that curious, as a number of posts I have read in other places say that the tmax films require careful exposure or some other sort of coddling in order to get good negs. And those same posts say that Tri-x is almost foolproof! I can understand how that straight highlight curve would make things easier with Tmax. Just give adequate exposure to the shadows, and there will be plenty of room for the highlights to fall into place. Don't be too generous with shadow exposure, otherwise you may increase grain for the midtones and highlights, as they are becoming too dense, assuming that the developing time is a constant. Is that correct?

Unfortunately, T-Max's reputation has been screwed around with by people who didn't understand the behaviour of T-Max 100 with certain developers & process times. Those who still attack it for technical reasons are usually those for whom the 101-level basics of exposure and process controls are utterly alien. Tri-X's baked-in behaviour usually means it's harder for them to get too dense highlights (though with normal - as opposed to lith/ line films, there's not really such a thing as a blocked highlight, only underpowered enlargers or scanners with poor Dmax). There are graphic arts reasons why you might want heightened highlight contrast from T-Max 100, but T-Max 400 (especially in its current version) behaves well in the usual D-76/ID-11 or Xtol. Be sensible with your exposure and you'll get 10+ stops of straight line without any need for process conniptions. How you fit that into the 7-stops of Grade 2 paper is rather less difficult than you would think.

Ok, so it seems for digital workflow, tmax and Tri-x are almost foolproof, as long as you give adequate exposure. Correct? Is there reason to be more precise in exposure of these films if one has a digital workflow? Any benefit to be realized?

You'll get slightly better smoother tonality - remember that the ISO standard is relative to aiming to place 7-stops of information on the straight line of the film in such a way as it can print on Grade 2 paper without manipulation. Pulling back processing slightly will reduce highlight density, make tonality a little smoother & can improve sharpness via printing on a higher grade & the negative being overall less dense - and adding more exposure will place you more definitively on the straight line of the curve. What's good for the darkroom is good for the scanner, especially if you have a decent system Dmax.

You mention overexposing slightly and cutting development a bit. I in fact did that recently. The environment was bright and sunny, with detail in large shadow areas that I wanted to record well. Film was tmax 400, with HC-110. I metered for the shadows, simply used the settings the FM2 recommended for the shadows, and later cut development time about 12%. The processed negative was noticeably less contrasty, with the bright skies more transparent. It "scanned" easily. So suppose I had kept regular development. And suppose I had even given the scene more exposure. Would I have still been able to digitize? These digital cameras have tremendous dynamic range. I simply expose by using the histogram, expose to the right.

Essentially you would have had a steeper gradient through the midtones & denser highlights. You would be amazed at how dense a highlight you can blast through - not least because the absolute Dmax of regular film really isn't that high!

Than has a shorter toe then tri-x. Therefore more shadow contrast.

400TX and 400TMY-II aren't that dissimilar in toe length - 320TXP is a different matter.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you are to scan then this is mostly irrelevant, as you bend the curve like you want. If you are to print in the darkroom then extreme highlights in TMY reach higher densities that can be more difficult to print.

In both cases a compensating development may lower densities in the highlights, relatively to the the mids.

You sound like you're reciting someone else's comments on T-Max here without any experience based knowledge. 400TMY-II really does not have runaway highlight contrast at all if you follow the most basic means of process control - and neither does 100TMX in most developers unless you go to high Contrast Indices - and there are good reasons for wanting that behaviour if you are using 100TMX for specific graphic arts purposes as a technical film. Compensating development is in general a bad idea - all it does is make your life far too hard at the printing stage by messing up tonal relationships that are usually better dealt with by slightly lowering the midtone gradient & pushing the exposure definitively off the toe. In that context a long straight line helps preserve highlight separation - and printing them in in the darkroom really isn't hard - as opposed to 400TX where they can get muddy.

it delivers much more grain in the shadows than in the mids and highlights which helps a dramatic rendition. For example you see dark clouds in a storm with a lot of grain.

The most visible granularity in a film is in its mid-tones - it is an immutable fact of emulsion design. Where those mid tones appear relative to where you perceive they should be is a different question and relates much more to your exposure and processing choices.

TX is long toe, so -2 to -3 underexposed areas are more compressed, with TX you may want to expose a bit more to ensure detail in the shadows.

You're talking about 320TXP, the OP wanted to know about 400TX which is definitely short toe.

 

[138S]

If so, can you recommend a developer that has little or no solvent action and give full film speed?

First, you can use a solvent developer more diluted to decrease the solvent effect.

T-Max developer is an "speed gain" developer and it delivers a powerful and nice grain.

Another one is BERGGER BERSPEED, like T-Max Developer it is also a high-energy developer.

Microphen is also an speed booster developer, in theory it retains a relatively a fine grain for the speed increase, but what it has is a good speed vs fine grain balance, more speed tends to more grain.

With TMY if you may want to make grain evident, you may use a high energy developer. For TX instead you may want to make grain finer, ar least in some situations, in that case Xtol is a powerful tool.


Let me suggest the excellent book Film Development Cookbook (2nd Ed), but first read The Darkroom Cookbook (3rd Ed. or so). You will get a lot of fun while learning solid concepts.

I'm going to try Rodinal tonight to see how that looks. Is it true that Rodinal and HC-110 don't deliver full film speed?

Read here about HC-110: http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

Both Rodinal and HC-110 are considered low fog developers, and this has some cost in speed terms. You may loss some 1/3 stop or 1/2 stop, depending on film and on your reference.

Also speed boosting developers deliver a moderate speed increase, that usually do not surpasse 1 stop, 1/2 stop can be easy to obtain.

 

[138S]

You sound like you're reciting someone else's comments on T-Max here without any experience based knowledge. 400TMY-II really does not have runaway highlight contrast at all if you follow the most basic means of process control

Guy, with ISO Normal development TMY is totally linear in the highlights, even at +6 overexposure, and this delivers difficult to print strong highlights as soon you want to ensure exposure for the relatively deep shadows.

Of course with any film you can control process to make highlights printable, but this is more difficult with a linear film.

TMY density skyrockets naturally, isn't it?



(Each H unit in the Hor axis is 3+1/3 stops)

You're talking about 320TXP, the OP wanted to know about 400TX which is definitely short toe.

400TX is Mid Toe, not short toe, it is longer toe compared to linear TMY. Of course it depends a bit on processing...

Compensating development is in general a bad idea - all it does is make your life far too hard at the printing stage by messing up tonal relationships...

Not at all, Compensating development is a powerful tool when required, see works from Steve Sherman, he makes amazing prints from very compensated negatives. Of course compensation is "in general a bad idea" for those not skilled enough to know when and how to use it.

An Image from Sherman, after strong compensation (Manhattan Skyine at night):

https://www.powerofprocesstips.com/nyc-northeast/

 

[Lachlan Young]

Guy, with ISO Normal development TMY is totally linear in the highlights, even at +6 overexposure, and this delivers difficult to print strong highlights as soon you want to ensure exposure for the relatively deep shadows.

Of course with any film you can control process to make highlights printable, but this is more difficult with a linear film.

TMY density skyrockets naturally, isn't it?

As usual you're thinking those effects are a problem. They aren't - if you are using the film as intended.

Or you could just use D-76.

And then read pp.154-155 of Beyond the Zone System which clearly describes the effects these different curve shapes have.

But you wouldn't be making these comments if you had any significant real & useful experience of working with T-Max films and printing from them.

400TX is Mid Toe, not short toe, it is longer toe compared to linear TMY. Of course it depends a bit on processing...

Nope. TMY-II superimposed over 400TX in D-76. Both at manufacturers' times for 0.6ish CI. Scales corrected to match. The differences are pretty obvious as are the near identical toe characteristics

Not at all, Compensating development is a powerful tool when required, see works from Steve Sherman, he makes amazing prints from very compensated negatives. Of course compensation is "in general a bad idea" for those not skilled enough to know when and how to use it.

If you can't make a superb print from a small enlargement from 5x7 or a ULF contact print, you're doing something majorly wrong. And there's little real evidence that it's actually compensating development that's really happening rather than just gamma-infinity relative to dilution and agitation. The dynamics of development are much more complicated than the simplistic notions of the stand/ semi-stand brigade.

 

[138S]

But you wouldn't be making these comments if you had any significant real & useful experience of working with T-Max films and printing from them.

Lachlan, I use T-Max and TX since the mid 1980s, and teaching darkroom technique in a high school.

No-pe.

Yes-pe.

Why do you cut the Graph at 2.0D man ? The shoulder shows beyond that. I paint two hypotetic shoulders compared to linear behaviour:

If you can't make a superb print from a small enlargement from 5x7 or a ULF contact print, you're doing something majorly wrong. And there's little real evidence that it's actually compensating development that's really happening rather than just gamma-infinity relative to dilution and agitation. The dynamics of development are much more complicated than the simplistic notions of the stand/ semi-stand brigade.

Steve Sherman sent me his method and tutorials, after I analyzed for him some histograms to find technical conclusions about microcontrast effects in stand processing.

Personally, I'm pretty aware about the effects of minimal agitation, you state a pejorative "simplistic notions of the stand/ semi-stand brigade", you have to know that there was a lot of work in refining that technique, that it has very clear effects, and that an skilled photographer can take principal advatages from that technique in the situations it is suitable, of course not always by far. Sherman's gallery is self explanatory.

Sorry, but you show a deep ignorance about this matter.