How to achieve finer grain with TMAX 100?

Todd Foster said:

All the time. I mean, what sun are you using?

Todd F.

Click to expand...

I also find many scenes that have only three stops range of light, where everything in view is out in the open.

You might elaborate on your method because it makes sense and probably would make more sense with some added detail.

(I aim for between Grade 2 and 3 and I am not necessarily against a little grain, so I would be likely to develop a bit longer if I marked N+1.)

Hello. Today I printed a 35mm TMAX negative to 11"X14". It was probably overexposed by one stop (sunny 16 and all). Developed D76 1:1 per instructions. I don't see a "whole lot" of grain here. I can't imagine you'd see any with medium format.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22953190@N07/14913669209/in/photostream/lightbox/

Todd Foster,

Sounds like you have things under control, and I'm looking forward to more discussions with you. You do things a little different than I do, but sounds like we see eye to eye.

Michael R 1974,

I agree Zone System placements and compensation can be done at the printing stage. It's a twist on Zone System (that I can't utilize being a "graded paper" guy) but perfectly valid with Variable Grade.

There are some things brought out in this thread which will minimize grain. Developing less is one. Selenium toning negatives also increases contrast without increasing grain, so it could be part of a plan. So there are some tricks to try.

But even with typical exposure and processing I can't (speaking for myself) imagine needing finer grain than provided by Kodak TMAX 100.

I admire people who strive for the best negatives possible and who pursue those ideals - hopefully this thread will turn into a repository of those ideas.

I disagree that selenium toning decreases accutance. In my experience it increases accutance as well as straightens and lengthens the H&D curve. At least that was my experience with old Agfapan films of yesteryear.

markbarendt said:

Sure we can.

I don't think it's the tonality that's the issue, for me it's about the contrast rate across the mid-tone first then where the detail starts and stops and stops.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the same as tonality? Maybe we use different words for the same thing? Tonality, to me, is the shift in tone from one tone to another. That is tone contrast, anywhere along the tonal scale. At least in my head.

What I mean is that at some point you need to apply contrast to get to where you want to be tonally in the print. When you do that you accentuate grain, either by increasing contrast at the printing stage, or by giving your negative more development to begin with, which leads to increased grain simply because there is more of it to make up the density.

I get the very best grain when I nail everything perfectly so that the tonality and contrast of the negative is just right for the paper at normal contrast levels. But I don't obsess over it and focus on getting negatives that are useful tonally, that are sharp where they need to be, and reveals the light the way I want it to be seen.

The smallest cloud at the wrong time can make a great difference.

Bill Burke and Michael R,

Thanks, glad the low placement idea makes sense to you.

I don't want to add to the length of this thread, but just let me say that I just found a logical, zone system level reason why what I am suggesting has to work. It's simply that the contrast of both the normally exposed, high value on VIII, (neg density about 1.4) neg, and the neg with the high value on VI (neg density about 1.0) is the same because both exposures are entirely on the film straight line. Therefore they both will need the same paper contrast for their prints to be the same, but with less print exposure for the thinner, lower placement negative. Most important, the reduced grain of the lower placement is the only variable. Since there is some grain reduction with lower density exposures, there has to be a grain reduction in the print. I hope this is clear. If not, maybe it's better to personal message me so I don't bog this thread down with another repetition.

Whether this moderate grain reduction is helpful in a particular case, or if it fits the photographers desires is another matter. Some people want more grain, not less. And TMX is inherently so fine grained that the improvement is small, only visible at high enlargement ratios and in smooth toned areas, notoriously clouds.

Tell you what though, if I were still using 35mm black and white film, I would try this method with 3 exposures. One with the high zone on VIII, and then simply cutting the exposure by one stop and by two stops for 2 more frames. This with speed and development tested film so I knew Zone VIII was producing 1.4 density and Zone 1 was producing 0.16 density, both including film base plus fog. That means the film speed is right and the film development time is right. Then I'd develop those negs along with the normal exposed one. Find a paper grade that prints the standard neg well, and use that grade to print the two reduced exposure negs. Print them all at 11 X 14 enlarger height, adjusting print exposure so they all matched, compensating for the thinner, lowered placement neg densities.

Then, look at the grain, prints side by side. I'd expect to see some slight reduction in smooth toned areas like white cloud banks with the one stop higher neg, and a solid bit more in the two stop higher neg. Easy to do with roll film, negs are stripped together, developed together and there you are. But I'm not going to do this experiment because I'm all set up and tested for 4 X 5 and that's all I use. Someone trying to make 11 X 14 range landscapes with clouds from 35mm, or 16 X 20 from 120 film might find it very useful, I don't know.

Michael R, nice to hear someone mention Henry. Haven't looked at his book in decades, but you inspire me to check it again, now that I've learned at least something. And what about David Kachel? I have a binder full of his remarkable articles. Haven't looked at them in decades either. He invented and proved a raft of methods to reduce or increase contrast without affecting film speed. Post exposure stuff. Very, very specialized. The few of his methods I tried years ago worked perfectly, but I never had need to use them. I'll glance at these again too just in case.

Best, Todd F.

Apologies to all for my last, too long post. I'm working on my own personal writing, so I'm used to unlimited page length! Please just skim through what doesn't interest you. I have nothing more to add to this thread. Thanks,

Todd F.

I generally adjust development time to bring contrast range up to take full advantage of the paper's capability. I'm not saying I would always do that... but I always have. So the idea of a large amount of exposure latitude usually doesn't apply to what I do.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Isn't that the same as tonality? Maybe we use different words for the same thing? Tonality, to me, is the shift in tone from one tone to another. That is tone contrast, anywhere along the tonal scale. At least in my head.

What I mean is that at some point you need to apply contrast to get to where you want to be tonally in the print. When you do that you accentuate grain, either by increasing contrast at the printing stage, or by giving your negative more development to begin with, which leads to increased grain simply because there is more of it to make up the density.

I get the very best grain when I nail everything perfectly so that the tonality and contrast of the negative is just right for the paper at normal contrast levels. But I don't obsess over it and focus on getting negatives that are useful tonally, that are sharp where they need to be, and reveals the light the way I want it to be seen.

Click to expand...

I went back and re-read #63 and must say that we are indeed on the same page.

As my current signature says, "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin.

It is obvious to me that something must have been rolling round my head coloring my perception of what you said when I responded. I truly didn't read it well enough before I responded.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

The only sound method with respect to grain is to find the sweet spot between exposure and development, and then basically live with the grain the process gives us. It's such that if we try hard to eliminate one variable that we dislike, it's easy to introduce another that we dislike. Trial and error determines which consequences we can live with and which we can't.

Click to expand...

The idea you express with those words is nearly a mantra for me.

Old-N-Feeble said:

I generally adjust development time to bring contrast range up to take full advantage of the paper's capability. I'm not saying I would always do that... but I always have. So the idea of a large amount of exposure latitude usually doesn't apply to what I do.

Click to expand...

I'm not following your thought here.

If you have a film with an 8-stop straight line and a "normal contrast" scene that's say 6-7 stops wide then you have about 1-2 stops of exposure latitude.

If minimizing grain is added as a requirement, then sure, exposing very close to the minimum safe exposure level becomes important.

The exposure latitude is still there though.

markbarendt said:

I'm not following your thought here.

If you have a film with an 8-stop straight line and a "normal contrast" scene that's say 6-7 stops wide then you have about 1-2 stops of exposure latitude.

If minimizing grain is added as a requirement, then sure, exposing very close to the minimum safe exposure level becomes important.

The exposure latitude is still there though.

Click to expand...

I guess I'm accustomed to older films with shorter straight lines on their H&D curves and with pronounced toes and shoulders.

Hatchetman said:

T-Max developer gives finer grain than D-76. That much I do know.

Click to expand...

That has been my experience also. T-MAX in 100 or 400 developed in T-MAX developer is my favorite combination.