EI for Tmax 400 in Xtol?

[haziz]

I will, eventually, do my own testing; but what do you use as a personal EI for new Tmax 400. (TMY2) in Xtol, either stock, or preferably 1:1?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For me, EI 250. Xtol stock or 1+1.

 

[removed account4]

i don't use xtol but my ei for tmy2 and EVERYTHING is 200

 

[LAG]

...what do you use as a personal EI for new Tmax 400...

EI 400

... Xtol, either stock, or preferably 1:1?

Xtol Full

(TMY2) in Xtol

(EI 320)

Yes, do your own test please!

Best

 

[markbarendt]

I will, eventually, do my own testing; but what do you use as a personal EI for new Tmax 400. (TMY2) in Xtol, either stock, or preferably 1:1?

25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 with normal development regardless of EI.

haziz, you aren't alone in wondering about this, I'm going to suggest different questions though.

Why would you trust my numbers instead of Kodak's? Kodak's numbers are a very good baseline based on a very large base of experience and use, with the variables all well accounted for, mine are well, mine. The variation in EI for me is driven by other considerations: at times I use a Holga and that means I don't have control of EI; at times, well a lot, I want to shoot with a large aperture in bright sun without a 1/8000th speed shutter; other times I'm shooting in really low light situations.

Is there a problem with your photographic prints (not your negatives) that you are trying to fix? What I'm trying to find here is why you would even want to use a non-standard EI. If your prints are coming out fine, if there's enough shadow detail, what's the point a different EI?

As to why would you want to use 1+1 vs 1+0? Economy of 1+1 is better, beyond that the differences are probably smaller than you can judge objectively right now.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Box speed. That is what is designed for. Testing validated that. XTOL gives a slight boost to the film speed, but so small it is not worth dithering about.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Most of what you need to know is in this artcle.

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Am I missing something here, is there something macho about doing your own testing? Is it a right of passage that separates the newbies from real photographers? As Mark points out Kodak is equipped to do these tests accurately whereas the average person has neither the equipment nor the knowledge to do them properly. So, if you were to do a test and it differed from Kodak's results it would only prove that there was something wrong with YOUR methods.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's just people trying to figure out what works for them. Since we don't have Kodak's laboratory to photograph with, but cameras with varying shutter quality, meters with various calibration issues, and metering technique of various skill level, it makes sense to test for real world scenarios with our own likes and equipment, so that we get what we want.
My personal EI for most 400 speed film is EI 250, and currently I process in ADOX FX-39, but used Xtol in the past along with other developers. Some developers require a bit less exposure than others.

 

[darkroommike]

TMax 400 is the only film I expose at box speed, it does not much like overexposure in my experience. Shot a lot of that stuff, processed in TMax developer when I worked for the local paper.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Am I missing something here, is there something macho about doing your own testing? Is it a right of passage that separates the newbies from real photographers? As Mark points out Kodak is equipped to do these tests accurately whereas the average person has neither the equipment nor the knowledge to do them properly. So, if you were to do a test and it differed from Kodak's results it would only prove that there was something wrong with YOUR methods.

No, you understand it. When people have equipment that is out of calibration or do not know how to meter correctly, rather than look at what went wrong, getting into endless cycles of meaningless testing is the macho thing to do.

 

[MattKing]

I think the testing process is most important for what it actually teaches the tester.

 

[LAG]

Am I missing something here, is there something macho about doing your own testing?...

Most of what you need to know is in this artcle.

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/

Bravo!

 

[bdial]

I use 400 with Xtol 1:1 or replenished. Works good for me, other's milage may vary.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I think the film speed test is nothing more than calibrating your equipment and materials for a set(etched in stone) starting point. The truth is this, there were many super-fine photographers way before Ansel, Phil Davis, Howard Bond who never even heard of film or paper testing. Edward Weston and Wynn Bullock were darn good and they didn't rely on all that fancy testing process and equipment. They learned from experience as to what their equipment and materials could do or couldn't do. They also knew what look they liked and learned how to repeat it. I think metering is the biggest sole problem in this whole EI thing. It's also why folks here balk at giving out their personal EI's or starting points. Not all meters are the same and not everybody meters the same. If we did everything the same as each other when it comes to metering, developing and printing we could just throw out a set EI just like the film manufactures do, but we ain't all the same. Thank God for that! I used to go through the metering process just the way Adams describes in his three book series, using my fancy spot meter and it worked just as described. Now, after doing this for a few years, I have abandon that method of metering. I will still spot meter on occasion, but almost never anymore. What and how do I meter? After reading "Beyond the Zone System" and thinking about what I read, I now use incident metering for almost everything. I find that if I use a good, sensitive meter in the incident mode and meter my scene smartly and not sloppy, I get just what I need. Reading the light falling on a subject is much more accurate than a reflected reading that might be influenced by stray light coming into the scene. Back lighted beach scenes and snow scenes are but two examples of problems a reflected light meter runs into. Now, if the user is smart enough to know what to do in those situation like that then he or she is fine. Incident metering is not foolproof either, but it's much less troublesome if done right. You can master this whole thing either way................testing or by just doing and learning. I will admit that one takes longer and cost more. Which one? I'll let you figure that out.

 

[Ai Print]

Because it is my most used black and white film and I want and need to use it at ISO 400 and above, I see no point in going lower than box speed when I could just use TMX100. So in 4x5 it is ISO 400 and in 35mm and 120 it is ISO 800 with a slight increase in development time.

Maybe folks get a more pleasing technical image quality out of futzing around with it at lower ISO ratings but I get a very versatile film by using it at 400 & 800, the impact of the light, subject matter and overall photo easily making minor nuances in technical image quality often unimportant if not obsolete since the goal is always to get the most powerful photograph I can make.

In fact I don't do anything but shoot any films at box speed and adjust the soup, I shoot far too much to be playing those kinds of mental gymnastics in metering / record keeping.

 

[LAG]

I think the testing process is most important for what it actually teaches the tester.

​

It doesn't actually teach the tester anything. The test itself is based on a misunderstanding of film speed and tone reproduction. You can't draw meaningful conclusions from test results unless you understand the nature of the test, and what it is/isn't telling you.

It does, even without understanding the nature of the test itself!

If you determine your EI ... based on printing experience

... based on negative exposed & developed experience!

And talking about understanding things ...

"Personal EIs" have to do with how you meter and/or how you test for an EI. They don't have much to do with film speed.

Metering is not the same as exposing. EI (personal or not) has to do with the "amount of exposure" in connection with the sensitive material (and its characteristics, that includes speed).​

1) ISO speed (what's on the box). This is the most logical place to start.

Not always what's on the box is the real ISO speed (...), as you already know.​

The truth is this, there were many super-fine photographers way before Ansel, Phil Davis, Howard Bond who never even heard of film or paper testing...

Oh my God!

I used to go through the metering process just the way Adams describes in his three book series, using my fancy spot meter and it worked just as described. Now, after doing this for a few years, I have abandon that method of metering. I will still spot meter on occasion, but almost never anymore. What and how do I meter? After reading "Beyond the Zone System" and thinking about what I read, I now use incident metering for almost everything. I find that if I use a good, sensitive meter in the incident mode and meter my scene smartly and not sloppy, I get just what I need. Reading the light falling on a subject is much more accurate than a reflected reading that might be influenced by stray light coming into the scene. Back lighted beach scenes and snow scenes are but two examples of problems a reflected light meter runs into. Now, if the user is smart enough to know what to do in those situation like that then he or she is fine. Incident metering is not foolproof either, but it's much less troublesome if done right. You can master this whole thing either way................testing or by just doing and learning. I will admit that one takes longer and cost more. Which one? I'll let you figure that out.

Nothing new. everything by the book. Now, what about development in all these words...? what's the importance of ...? what's the point of being a metering master (beyond the Universe), if after that precise and extraordinary control, then you ruin the film with the process?

 

[Sirius Glass]

It doesn't actually teach the tester anything. The test itself is based on a misunderstanding of film speed and tone reproduction. You can't draw meaningful conclusions from test results unless you understand the nature of the test, and what it is/isn't telling you.

If you determine your EI (which has mostly to do with metering) based on printing experience, that's one thing. Running an "EI test" is another.

He gets it! Most people waste their time testing end up deciding that they need to adjust a half stop. A half stop really does nothing. They would do better to learn not to aim the meter at the sky.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It isn't really anything more than 'expose for the shadows' and 'develop for the highlights'. Much of what a print looks like is down to taste and subjective ideas of what looks good.

I like lots of details in the shadows so that I can reveal them at printing time if I want to, which is why I guard myself against metering errors by giving almost a full stop more exposure than is recommended by the ISO rating of the film.
That gives me enough information in the shadows to work with, under most lighting scenarios.

This way I obtain negatives that I make prints from that are to my liking. That's the whole reason behind figuring out a personal EI, particularly since I shoot roll film.

 

[LAG]

... Most people waste their time testing end up deciding that they need to adjust a half stop. A half stop really does nothing. They would do better to learn not to aim the meter at the sky.

... Under exposing slide film by 1/4 to 1/2 f/stop will increase saturation. The danger is that, at least back then if one under exposed by 1 f/stop the slide would start getting too dark.

​

...

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality
Open your eyes, look up to the skies and seeeeeeee

 

[MattKing]

I agree, Thomas - IF:

1) You determine that EI based on how the negatives consistently come out and how they print, or
2) You just cut the EI in half to give yourself a bigger safety factor

If, on the other hand, you do the typical Zone System type of "EI test", then I disagree. These kinds of tests don't actually reveal new information.

I'm going to disagree with your disagreement with me .
Any EI test, no matter what type, is a learning experience. The lessons learned will vary from person to person, but in every case the tester will have paid close attention to one important factor - how film and developer respond to changes in exposure. It's that close attention that provides the most benefit, especially if it is combined with printing tests.
For many people, the exercise of a formal test helps them pay attention to something that it is good to be familiar with.

 

[pentaxuser]

My still limited experience with TMax400 and Xtol 1+1 is that it performs well at box speed of 400 and seems little different at 800 with the same development time as per Kodak's instructions. I say limited in that I have only used this combination about 7 times but each time there have been no issues

pentaxuser

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I disagree with your disagreement!

I agree with somebody's disagreement, but I won't tell whose...

 

[LAG]

I agree with somebody's disagreement, but I won't tell whose...

I agree with you

 

[John Wiegerink]

I can agree with that!