First Time using Kodak TMX 100

Brentwood Kebab!

A
Brentwood Kebab!

  • 0
  • 0
  • 26
Summer Lady

A
Summer Lady

  • 0
  • 0
  • 31
DINO Acting Up !

A
DINO Acting Up !

  • 0
  • 0
  • 23
What Have They Seen?

A
What Have They Seen?

  • 0
  • 0
  • 32
Lady With Attitude !

A
Lady With Attitude !

  • 0
  • 0
  • 34

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,758
Messages
2,780,506
Members
99,700
Latest member
Harryyang
Recent bookmarks
0

sruddy

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
338
Location
CA
Format
Multi Format
So far I have mainly used ilFord FP4 plus and a little Kodak Tri-X. The TMX seems to have way less tonal range or I’m doing something wrong. The negatives below were shot with a Canon F-1 using the cameras meter. Then developed in my Super Sidekick machine at 3:30 time using HC-110 dilution B developer. fYI the machine runs developer at 75 degrees. Seems like shadow detail is not great and at the same time highlights are clipped, see tree shot. The negs print using 1.5 - 2.5 contrast filters so that part seems ok.


B05C9D53-1678-40A8-AE1E-091EE262EF53.jpeg


282D8C3D-71C5-41CE-AA4E-BE34E5CBA286.jpeg





Tree 1.5 CF Wife 2.5 CF

683C867E-36B8-4055-9BFB-BB0BE8DEA9B9.jpeg
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,936
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
sruddy, well the MDC(Massive Development Chart) seems to suggest between 6 -7 mins at your dilution at 20C so that becomes about 4 mins minimum at 25C ( your temp) so it would look as if 3:30 is too little and when you get to very short times then any deviation from the recommended time can be critical but I have no idea about what a Super Sidekick machine does. It might keep the process accurately to 3;30 but certainly I'd be inclined to increase the time and unless you machine ensure absolute accuracy on dev time I'd be inclined to move to another dilution that allows a longer dev

The tree picture seems to lack some shadow detail as you say but the wife's pic seems more balanced How do you meter the scene and with what meter? Whatever the meter is, have other similar scenes taken with this camera and another type of film such as FP4+ had better shadow detail and more detail in the highlights

Thanks

pentaxuser
 
OP
OP

sruddy

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
338
Location
CA
Format
Multi Format
I'm using the camera's meter. Looks like some frames print with too much contrast already. The tree is an example, as it has blown highlights and poor shadow detail, wouldn't longer development make it worse?
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,359
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
It needs more development time.
 

miha

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
2,961
Location
Slovenia
Format
Multi Format
Kodak themselves recommend 4 min in small tanks or 4:30 in large tanks (I'm not sure which category your Super Sidekick falls in) at 75 degrees and at the same time say: Development times shorter than 5 minutes may produce unsatisfactory uniformity.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,359
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
I'm confused, won't more development time make the negs have more contrast? I'm printing using 1.5-2.5 filters now.

From the photographs of the negatives, the negatives appear to be thin which would mean more development time which would increase the contrast too. However if you are happy with printing the negatives and you have enough shadow detail, then the development is good as you are doing it.
 
OP
OP

sruddy

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
338
Location
CA
Format
Multi Format
From the photographs of the negatives, the negatives appear to be thin which would mean more development time which would increase the contrast too. However if you are happy with printing the negatives and you have enough shadow detail, then the development is good as you are doing it.

I thought they looked a bit thin too, not much, but maybe a bit. I'm worried about losing anymore highlights, they seem very close to being right but I would like a bit more shadow detail in the scenes that were captured in midday sun.
 

radiant

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
2,135
Location
Europe
Format
Hybrid
From the photographs of the negatives, the negatives appear to be thin which would mean more development time which would increase the contrast too.

For me the shadows look like to be on toe or destroyed. So underexposure is the reason, I would say.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,523
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Next time bracket so you can see the impact of exposure differences. In the meantime, is there enough detail in the shadows on the neg to burn them in a bit more? For scenes like that one often has to either split the difference or accept some loss on one end or the other. But it might be easily salvaged when printing.
 

Duceman

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
660
Location
Home
Format
Multi Format
I'm confused, won't more development time make the negs have more contrast? I'm printing using 1.5-2.5 filters now.

The development temperature is a bit on the high side, resulting in too little development time (and possibly less-than-optimal results). I'd suggest bringing down the temp to 20C/68F and develop at whatever time it is suggested for that temp/developer combo.
 

madNbad

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Messages
1,402
Location
Portland, Oregon
Format
35mm RF
I’ve been finishing off the last of my TMax stock before switching to a mix of Double X and Tri-X. Over the last few years the go to has been HC-118 Dilution B for six minutes at 20 C. It works well but then I tried Dilution E (1-47) for ten minutes at 20 C and found better shadow detail.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,936
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
sruddy, you didn't say if you suffered the same kind of lack of shadow detail and some almost detail-less highlights with the same kind of scene and same camera when using FP4+ or Tri-X This might help us help you.

It might be time to try and establish your own personal speed for TMax 100. It may not be box speed in your case. Brian has given a very good and quick way to do this by bracketing but if you wish to try to establish you own film speed with your own camera and TMax 100 then have a look at these two videos by someone called John Finch of Pictorial Planet fame





I hope these are useful to you

pentaxuser
 

gone

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
Is this a camera that you know exposes correctly? This sort of thing can get confusing very easily w/o a system, and that's where I start, making sure the camera exposes correctly. If it does, then you know it's a development issue. The MDC gets us in the ballpark, I also like to read every online review of the film that I can find, just to see what works for others.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,359
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Are you exposing at box speed?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,880
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
If you give film too little exposure, you end up with not enough detail in the shadows.
If you give film not enough exposure, and you give film not enough development, you end up with not enough detail in the shadows, and not enough contrast in the highlights.
If you give film not enough exposure, and you give film not enough development, and try to compensate by increasing contrast at the printing or post processing stage, you may end up with mid-tones and highlights that look okay, but the shadows will be deep and dark, and the final result may therefore look too contrasty.
Give the film some more exposure and some more development and I expect you will be much happier.
I wouldn't worry a lot about slightly short development times with the Phototherm Sidekick, because I expect that it and the continuous agitation it employs will take care of any uniformity issues.
EDIT: That being said, perhaps consider trying a more dilute version of HC-110 such as dilution E or Jason Brunner's 1 + 49, with the associated increase in development time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,649
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
So far I have mainly used ilFord FP4 plus and a little Kodak Tri-X. The TMX seems to have way less tonal range or I’m doing something wrong. The negatives below were shot with a Canon F-1 using the cameras meter. Then developed in my Super Sidekick machine at 3:30 time using HC-110 dilution B developer. fYI the machine runs developer at 75 degrees. Seems like shadow detail is not great and at the same time highlights are clipped, see tree shot. The negs print using 1.5 - 2.5 contrast filters so that part seems ok.


View attachment 300506

View attachment 300510




Tree 1.5 CF Wife 2.5 CF

View attachment 300508
don't count his film out yet.developed in the Jobo in D76(1+1) for 11 min, it has a great tonal range and I often use it for skin tones because of that. that said, it's not a very sharp film.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,678
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
Tmax 100 is one of the more difficult films to master, looking at the Kodak Data Sheet Tmax builds contrast fast, relative short characteristic curve. The high contrast scene of the tree and foliage the high lights on the tree back seems blown out to me, while the interior shot with woman in kitchen a lower contrast scene looks to me pretty good. The old saying expose for the shadows develop for the highlight. Without going in on full blown zone, set up a scene for a ring around shoot. Use your wife a a model, include black and white fabric with texture, an 18% gray card, a zone scale if you find one large enough to see in the frame. Shoot in open shade, start with ISO 25, meter with average meter, shoot, the cover the lens and shoot an empty frame, shoot 50, repeat with empty frame until you end at 400, shoot the remainder of the roll bracketing each shot. Develop with your standard developer using Kodak recommended times adjusted for your processor. Then do a proof sheet, at this point look for shadow detail, the texture in the black fabric. Pick the best ISO as work working ISO, then look a the highlights, if blow out, decrease development, if too thin increase development time, I would increase or decrease by 20% to start. Your developing times are really short, it might hard to decrease time to tame the highlights. In the end you want a negative with an average zone III shadow details, zone VII textured highlights. Unlike sheet film where each sheet can be developed to match visualized or preferred highlight, rolls film, a good average and fix in the darkroom or in post, meaning fix the highlight by changing paper grades or split printing and burning in.
 

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
It’s definitely too little time. This is slightly flat. Which is not thin. Thin is too little exposure and normal development.

The highlights are not clipped.
In fact it’s very hard to clip highlights with film.

TMax is an extremely capable film that is unfortunately talked to death by people with little experience and knowledge.
It is exactly the tonality that is special compared to Delta or TMY. Apart from the resolution of course.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP

sruddy

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
338
Location
CA
Format
Multi Format
Based on some replies, studying the contact sheet, and a bit of common sense. I think some of the frames were just underexposed. I'm going to print all my picks tonight and report back on how the better exposed frames turn out.

The tree is still perplexing. I just looked at the neg and the blown out trunks have lots of detail. I'm going to try again with longer exposure and maybe a lower filter. I'm interested to know how good I can get in this situation without any dodging or burning.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,928
Format
8x10 Format
First of all, TMax has distinctly MORE tonal range than either TP4 or Tri-X, especially down in the shadows. But it does need to be more carefully exposed and developed. I'm pretty skeptical of your relatively high temp very brief development method. But I suspect that the film was underexposed to begin with. I don't personally like TTL metering for TMax films, but more precise spot metering. It's not a forgiving film in terms of casual exposure. So in your case, you're probably going to need to practice quite a bit more to really understand this film.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,928
Format
8x10 Format
Hard to say over the web, Bill. But the posted negs themselves look distinctly underexposed and overdeveloped to me.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,523
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
So what filter were you using for the “tree” frame?
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom