is this a normal behavior of pushing tmax 100 to 800 ?

anorphirith · Jul 27, 2017

I just scanned my film, I was expecting more contrast but not like this, it just looks drastically underexposed, the lab says they pushed it 3 stops (shot with an M7 in automatic shutter)

I was expecting something more like this
Dead Link Removed

bdial · Jul 27, 2017

It is drastically underexposed, by right around 3 stops.

The big difference I see in yours vs the photos in the link is that the lighting in your shots is much harder than the sample you linked. Underexposing in hard light then adding contrast (due extending the development i.e. "pushing") would tend to yield results like what you've posted.

The fundamental problem is that a film's speed is not really adjustable, pushing doesn't provide more density in the negative across the entire tonal range. Shadow areas which may be at the film's threshold of sensitivity, need sufficient light to record anything, and pushing it in processing doesn't change that. What pushing does is lift the middle and highlight tones a bit.

bvy · Jul 27, 2017

What made you want to shoot T-Max 100 at 800?

MattKing · Jul 27, 2017

bdial said:
The fundamental problem is that a film's speed is not really adjustable, pushing doesn't provide more density in the negative across the entire tonal range. Shadow areas which may be at the film's threshold of sensitivity, need sufficient light to record anything, and pushing it in processing doesn't change that. What pushing does is lift the middle and highlight tones a bit.

+1
Your results look how I would expect them to look.
The darker areas/shadows are dark and featureless due to the underexposure.
The highlights are too bright, due to the increase in contrast which is the only real result of a "push" development.
There may as well have been a contribution from your metering. The light on your subject is harsh and contrasty. You might have had dark and relatively featureless shadows even if you had set your meter for ISO 100 and developed normally - although the rest of the tones would have most likely been much better.
I would guess as well that you scanned your negatives. Scanning software may have accentuated the problem further. The latter problem may be fixable with manual overrides.

trendland · Jul 28, 2017

anorphirith said:
I just scanned my film, I was expecting more contrast but not like this, it just looks drastically underexposed, the lab says they pushed it 3 stops (shot with an M7 in automatic shutter)

I was expecting something more like this
Dead Link Removed

No thats not normal - just in short.
On the same side you would never push
PanF to ISO 200 but it is sometimes normal with Fp4 !!!
If you do so with Delta 100 you could also take this film with settings to E.I
ISO 3200 and never care about Delta3200

...
Let me mention a problem from practice
with Ilford Films : E.I. 1600 ???
What film to this spezial light situation?
Yeah - Fuji Across.........but with Ilford
Films?
Have a use with Delta 3200 and pull this film?
Or should one use Delta 400 and push it
2 full stops?
It should be clear to have a look on the contrasty szene you shot - before you make a decision.

But Delta 100 with E.I. 800 makes No sense to me.
I can also imagine the result is not bad -
but it should be better with Delta400.

with regards

Gerald C Koch · Jul 28, 2017

Why are you pushing an ISO 100 film to an EI of 800? Did you accidently under-expose the film? If not then it was a poor idea.

pentaxuser · Jul 28, 2017

I note that in the link to which you refer which you were favourably comparing to your own apparently poorer attempt at a 3 stop push the author in the link concedes that work was done in photoshop. It might be instructive to see how the link article's negs compared to your own. Maybe a straight examination of your negs and the article's negs would show little or no difference.

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass · Jul 28, 2017

I agree with the above comments that that you got what would be expected. One cannot really raise the film speed.

DREW WILEY · Jul 28, 2017

TMax has a steep contrasty toe, so I doubt PS is capable of recovering something that simply isn't there. Of course, it depends on exactly how the specific shot was metered. TMX will resolve shadow detail easily down into Zone I if carefully metered. But three stops off is simply a Black Hole.

anorphirith · Jul 30, 2017

thanks for the reply guys,
I figured out what happened:
On the entire roll, not all the shots came out like these ones.
These came out that way because of the spot metering of the leica M7, in a high contrast scene ie: where light beams come through the leaves of the forest,
what I should have done is metered the light and the shadows then exposed right in between. or just avoid shooting in such high contrast
my other photos that came out of that reel were nowhere as bad as the ones in the video. Since they were shot in a scene with a more consistent contrast.

RattyMouse · Jul 30, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
I agree with the above comments that that you got what would be expected. One cannot really raise the film speed.

Yet people treat pushing film as if somehow speed were increased.

Why is that?

Pioneer · Jul 30, 2017

I want to see what happens!

Who knows, I might like it.

EDIT - I shoot Portra 400 at EI3200. Shadows are history but that may not matter.

DREW WILEY · Jul 30, 2017

TMax films need careful metering, esp for the shadows. Delta films are very different with a long toe - poor in high contrast scenes, but with "something" in the shadows - generally mush, but potentially recoverable by retweaking the curve in PS. I'd rather do it right the first time. Even if I'm just out snapshooting with a Nikon, I always use a true handheld spotmeter for TMax. If I want to wing it depending on the so-called latitude of the film, or use TTL metering, I choose Delta 3200 instead. It's a wonderful rainy day film, but worthless out in the redwoods when the sun comes out (versus fog) and a 12-stop range is routine.

Ko.Fe. · Jul 30, 2017

I'm not sure if it is M7 metering. I still think it is bad behavior to push 100 film at 800 and very good film behaves accordingly.

ic-racer · Jul 30, 2017

anorphirith said:
it just looks drastically underexposed,

Three stops under exposed.

GarageBoy · Jul 31, 2017

You have to understand what is going on when you're pushing.
With "normal" exposure and development, you're placing the midtones on the straight part of the curve, the shadows in the toe, highlights in the shoulder.

When you push, you're underexposing, putting your midtones in where the toe is, are creating more contrast by developing it longer. In your examples, a good part of your image was shadow, and thus, not recorded at sufficient density to be overdeveloped

Gerald C Koch · Aug 1, 2017

Whenever possible it is batter to use a faster film rather than push a slow one.

Sirius Glass · Aug 1, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
Whenever possible it is batter to use a faster film rather than push a slow one.

Bingo, that is the correct answer.

DREW WILEY · Aug 1, 2017

Even the vocabulary is wrong. "Puushing" is a lab term primarily related to automated color film development. What you have here is simply a case of serious underexposure which no kind of dev can cure. Sometimes I deliberately underexpose and overdevelop TMax films to blacken out shadows and expand midtone and highlight gradation. But that requires careful metering too. Try that with a long- toe film and you just get blaaaah shadows, not crisp graphic blacks. It's nice that we still have such a wide selection of b&w films available, but TMax products are more high-performance than forgiving.

is this a normal behavior of pushing tmax 100 to 800 ?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency