Exposing Tri-X and T-Max, how flexibile are they?

moodlover · Jul 10, 2015

Hello all, I'm wondering what the differences between the two are in terms of contrast, latitude, and grain? About exposure, how do I avoid crushed blacks and blown out highlights? I really want to maintain as much detail as I can across the whole range of tones.

I read a few websites that say you have to be very accurate for black and white film. Now someone on this forum told me that was wrong, and that these films have more latitude than color film does (my fav is Portra 160, I shoot all portraits). So I'm quite confused which to believe. I do have a Sekon L-308 light meter but I'm finding that when I meter for Caucasian skin (dome pointed towards camera under chin), it's always 1-1.5 stops underexposed. As in, it seems to be exposing their skin in zone 5, when it should be more in zones 7 or 8. Is this normal? Is my incident meter supposed to give me an average middle grey style reading like this?

Anyways, I do still make a lot of mistakes on exposure, hence me wondering how to improve my technique and make some killer b&w portraits. Thanks!

jimjm · Jul 10, 2015

Most B/W films are extremely forgiving of under/overexposure. I routinely shoot Tri-X at 200 or 320 ISO as I find I am able to get better prints from a slightly denser negative. Overexposing 1 or 2 stops will give you better shadow detail, without risking blown highlights. Obviously, some scenes are beyond the brightness range of these films, so you'd need to keep this in mind and expose for what's most important, shadows or highlights.

Most color negative films also have good latitude. It's with color slide film that you have to be very accurate. I frequently shoot Tri-X or TMax in 35mm and 120 without a meter, just using the Sunny-16 rule and adjusting as needed.

I find Tri-X to have a more classic grainy look (especially in 35mm), but not unpleasant. TMax has a different grain structure and has a more contrasty, clinical look to me.
Here's a scan of a darkroom print made from a TMax100 neg: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
and one from a Tri-X negative: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If you're using the dome on your meter, you're taking a incident reading from your light source, not a reflected reading from the subject's skin. You want to remove the dome and point the meter at the subject's face. I've been doing more 4x5 portraiture lately, and for average Caucasian skin I usually take a reflected reading and overexpose 1 stop.

It takes some practice, but you'll become more proficient. There is a lot of mis-information on the internet, especially from folks who have never shot film and just make assumptions. Get a few good books like Ansel Adams' "The Negative" or David Vestal's "The Craft of Photography". These will give you a solid understanding on film exposure.

Xmas · Jul 10, 2015

Set meter ISO to 200 dome on nose like cine lights person.
Or if it is a landscape meter reflected reading for zone 1 shadow ISO set to 400.
The Tmax needs a PQ developer like Kodak's Tmax or Ilfords Microphen.
And you will need to shoot a film in a standard environment to judge what paper grade you would need to develope for ie what time you need to develope to stay on grade 2 with your enlarger.
If you are going to scan you will not be able to resolve highlights that an enlarger can.

Wet printing can be steep learning curve.

If you want to be lazy and scan then BW400CN or Ilford XP2+ only needs your c41 mini lab or home kit and has more dynamic range than your colour film, but set ISO to 200 for quality.

These last two films can still be wet printed though XP2 is way easier to wet print, BW400CN was cancelled but you should still be able to get it.

Gerald C Koch · Jul 10, 2015

Typically the latitude of B&W films is from 2-1/2 stops over- to 1 stop under-exposure. Very slow films ISO 25 or less are not tolerant of poor exposure. Microfilms used for pictorial purpose have little or no latitude. When exposed within their latitude negatives of a particular film are essentially identical in terms of quality.

moodlover · Jul 10, 2015

jimjm said:
I find Tri-X to have a more classic grainy look (especially in 35mm), but not unpleasant. TMax has a different grain structure and has a more contrasty, clinical look to me.
Here's a scan of a darkroom print made from a TMax100 neg: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
and one from a Tri-X negative: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Thanks for these, though it says I don't have access to view them. Any chance you could upload them somewhere else that can be viewed publicly?

If you're using the dome on your meter, you're taking a incident reading from your light source, not a reflected reading from the subject's skin. You want to remove the dome and point the meter at the subject's face. I've been doing more 4x5 portraiture lately, and for average Caucasian skin I usually take a reflected reading and overexpose 1 stop.

Since a reflected reading is giving you middle gray, you are adding 1 stop to get correct exposure to make the skin render as it's real tone. Shouldn't you add another extra stop again (+2 now) for shadow detail and quality?

Sirius Glass · Jul 10, 2015

I always shoot box speed and find that most of today's print films, color and black & white, are good for plus or minus three f/stops. Slide films not so much, they really need to be on spot with the exposure.

jimjm · Jul 10, 2015

Here's the TMax shot:

and Tri-X

Since I've already got my meter set at 320 or 200 for ISO 400 film, I am effectively giving 1.5 to 2 stops over the film's box speed.

Depending on your lighting set-up and your aesthetic, you'll soon figure out what works best for you. Since most B/W film is so flexible, it's OK to bend the rules to get the look you're after, but sticking to the manufacturer's recommendations is a good idea at first if you want the optimal results.

Sirius Glass · Jul 10, 2015

jimjm said:
Here's the TMax shot:

So TMax causes the camera to tilt and montages. I like to keep the image lined up with the edge of the negative and I do not like montages, so I will avoid TMax and the future and stick to Tri-X and HP5+. Thanks for the heads up.

moodlover · Jul 10, 2015

Thanks for the pictures! At first glance I can't tell too much of a difference between them in sunlight. They almost look very similar, with the T-Max having finer grain if I'm not mistaken. Contrast could be higher on the T-Max as well but that could just be because of the large white sky clashing with the dark shadow.

Also, if you're metering at 200 for ISO 400 film, isn't that only 1 stop over the box speed?

Sirius Glass · Jul 10, 2015

moodlover said:
Thanks for the pictures! At first glance I can't tell too much of a difference between them in sunlight. They almost look very similar, with the T-Max having finer grain if I'm not mistaken. Contrast could be higher on the T-Max as well but that could just be because of the large white sky clashing with the dark shadow.

Also, if you're metering at 200 for ISO 400 film, isn't that only 1 stop over the box speed?

TMax is tabular grain and Tri-X is traditional grain. Tabular grain is smaller but I greatly prefer the traditional grain.

Xmas · Jul 10, 2015

moodlover said:
Thanks for the pictures! At first glance I can't tell too much of a difference between them in sunlight. They almost look very similar, with the T-Max having finer grain if I'm not mistaken. Contrast could be higher on the T-Max as well but that could just be because of the large white sky clashing with the dark shadow.

Also, if you're metering at 200 for ISO 400 film, isn't that only 1 stop over the box speed?

Yes slight arithmetic error.

Sirius Glass · Jul 10, 2015

moodlover said:
Also, if you're metering at 200 for ISO 400 film, isn't that only 1 stop over the box speed?

One stop under box speed. The difference will not gain you anything but move you away from the center of the exposure range.

jimjm · Jul 10, 2015

Yeah, you'd need to do side-to-side comparison shots of the same subject to really see the differences. The grain on TMax is pretty tight - I have trouble seeing it in the focusing magnifier when I'm making a darkroom print, especially for 120 and larger film. The TMax shot was on a slightly overcast day, so none of the shadows were too harsh. I printed this on Grade 3 to give a bit more punch and contrast, but still keeping shadow detail. The straight Grade 2 print is flatter, but has tons of highlight and shadow detail.

The Tri-X shot was on a very bright day, with the sun being just out of frame to the right. No exposure meter, I just used Sunny-16, which would have been 1/250 at f16 in this case. I opened up 1 stop to f11 so as not to lose too much in the shadows.

As a general practice, when shooting Tri-X I set my meter to 200 and leave it there. Effectively, everything is being overexposed by one stop, but this gives me denser negs that are easier to print (for me). If I'm using TMax100, I'll set the meter to 64 or 50. For portraits, I take a reading from the subject's face and then open up one more stop, regardless of the film I'm using.

jimjm · Jul 10, 2015

Xmas said:
Yes slight arithmetic error.

I meant when I open up one more stop for Caucasian skin, that's a total of 1.5 to 2 stops over the film's box speed.

MattKing · Jul 10, 2015

They are quite flexible.

What sort of light are you metering with your incident dome? Unless you are measuring something different than the light that actually hits your subject's faces, an incident reading should give accurate exposure for Caucasian skin. As well as just about anything else. If your subject is extremely dark or extremely light, it should be accurately rendered using a normal incident reading. You may sometimes want to render something inaccurately in order to emphasize that part of your subject, but that is a different matter.

If you are getting consistent under-exposure with incident metering at box speed, there is either something wrong with your meter, or something wrong with how you are using it (which may include a problem with which light you are actually measuring).

As for the differences between the films, it is difficult to fairly represent them on an internet site. Current Tri-X is quite low in grain, has excellent exposure latitude, and classic spectral response. Current T-Max 400 is incredibly low in grain, is capable of recording an amazing range of light intensities, and has a slightly more modern spectral response.

Both should give you the whole range of tones, unless your lighting and your subjects are extra-ordinary.

The Tri-X may be more tolerant of developing errors. That may be what people are referring to when they say it is more "flexible".

Hope this helps.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 10, 2015

TMax 400 is amazingly tolerant of exposure variations. It's amazingly flexible. You can shoot it at 800 and get decent results, and you can overexpose it like crazy - as long as you know how to process it to get what you want, you'll have fine negatives.

Tri-X is not as flexible as TMax 400, but you still have to screw up pretty royally to not get usable negatives, particularly in the overexposure department.

But, Tri-X is more forgiving with processing errors, while TMax reacts more readily to processing changes, requiring more precision than Tri-X.

Bill Burk · Jul 10, 2015

Welcome to APUG moodlover,

I shoot both 400 speed films at 250 because I want to have shadow detail. Others here have said about the same thing.

I don't know why your incident meter reading under subject's nose didn't come up with exactly the correct reading right off the bat.

But at least you are feeding back questions and wondering about the results. I think that's 99% of the work right there.

Pioneer · Jul 10, 2015

The most flexible black and white film I have ever shot is Kodak BW400CN. Ilford XP2 is basically just as nice. These are designed to be developed in C41 chemistry. I shoot them anywhere from EI100 thru EI1600 all on the same roll and then develop at 3.5 minutes in color chemistry. Works great!

Surprisingly, though you can under and over expose color films in like manner, you don't have quite the same flexibility. The color films will usually require some form of push or pull development time depending on how far over or under you expose. From my experience Portra films are probably easiest to work with though you can also get away with quite a bit of exposure change with the amateur oriented films like Superia or Kodak Gold without adjusting development times.

There are some straight black and white films that will easily handle that kind of under and over exposure, but they require changes in developing time. As a result I do not consider them to be as flexible. Some of my favorites are TriX400, TMY400 and Delta Pro 3200. But each one of these films require that you set your exposure index at the beginning of the roll and then stay with it all the way through.

EDIT - As noted, color slide film and black and white microfilm has very little exposure flexibility. You need to be much more exact when using these types of film.

Gerald C Koch · Jul 10, 2015

Check out page 6 on push processing TX. Kodak says that an EI = 800 there is a slight decrease in shadow detail. No other ill effects are noted.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

ClydeSelsor · Jul 10, 2015

Shooting tri-x at 200, do you develop as though it was shot at 400, or compensate with development time?

Bill Burk · Jul 11, 2015

ClydeSelsor,

To answer your question directly: When I adjust the film speed from 400 to 250 to get greater shadow exposure, this speed change is independent of development time.

I develop to Contrast Index. For example I aim for "Normal" as 0.62 CI. I will not change development time.

Whether my exposure places the picture up - or down - the curve relative to another setting, the exposure change does not change the contrast of the picture. I can make identical prints from two differently exposed negatives, even if they don't look the same on a contact sheet.

This is unrelated to "push" where you do need to increase the development time because you didn't give enough exposure for the main part of the picture and you want to bump it up with additional development time.

ClydeSelsor · Jul 11, 2015

Thanks Bill

Sirius Glass · Jul 11, 2015

ClydeSelsor welcome to APUG

RalphLambrecht · Jul 11, 2015

moodlover said:
Hello all, I'm wondering what the differences between the two are in terms of contrast, latitude, and grain? About exposure, how do I avoid crushed blacks and blown out highlights? I really want to maintain as much detail as I can across the whole range of tones.

I read a few websites that say you have to be very accurate for black and white film. Now someone on this forum told me that was wrong, and that these films have more latitude than color film does (my fav is Portra 160, I shoot all portraits). So I'm quite confused which to believe. I do have a Sekon L-308 light meter but I'm finding that when I meter for Caucasian skin (dome pointed towards camera under chin), it's always 1-1.5 stops underexposed. As in, it seems to be exposing their skin in zone 5, when it should be more in zones 7 or 8. Is this normal? Is my incident meter supposed to give me an average middle grey style reading like this?

Anyways, I do still make a lot of mistakes on exposure, hence me wondering how to improve my technique and make some killer b&w portraits. Thanks!

I can only speak to Tmax,which is sensitive to underexposure.Actually, I recommend to take 2/3 stops off the box speed to begin with.expose 100 as 64 and 400 as 250 to get good shadow detail.However, at the same time,over exposure is not a problem.I've seen good prints made from negatives that were overexposed by 6 stops!without much effort
Just remember: if in doubt,overexpose and underdevelop and You'll be fine
Y

markbarendt · Jul 11, 2015

moodlover said:
So I'm quite confused which to believe. I do have a Sekon L-308 light meter but I'm finding that when I meter for Caucasian skin (dome pointed towards camera under chin), it's always 1-1.5 stops underexposed. As in, it seems to be exposing their skin in zone 5, when it should be more in zones 7 or 8. Is this normal? Is my incident meter supposed to give me an average middle grey style reading like this?

What standard are you using to judge the film as underexposed?

Prints?

Other meters?

..... ?

Exposing Tri-X and T-Max, how flexibile are they?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency