Kodak T-Max 400 Speed

[Nathan King]

Recently, I switched from Ilford HP5 to Kodak T-Max 400 in 35mm to reduce grain in my prints. I have noticed that I am getting about two-thirds of a stop less speed out of the T-Max. I develop in Ilfotec DDX for eight minutes at 68 degrees. Is there anything I can do to make the T-Max faster short of push processing?

 

[Ian Grant]

That's fairly normal if you want a similar tonal range. I used to shoot Tmax 400 @ 200 EI and process in Rodinal or Xtol.

Ian

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

What's the "real world" issue you're having as a result of this? How is this affecting the results of what you desire in terms of total range, shadow detail, highlight blockage, etc.? If you added 30 seconds of development or meter for 250-320 or so does this sacrifice things too much?

 

[Rudeofus]

This chart claims you need to develop TMAX 400 in DD-X for 8.5 minutes at 24°C. This would translate to 12 minutes and 40 seconds at the more common 20°C.

Is there a chance that your negs are simply underdeveloped, and as a result show less speed?

 

[Bill Burk]

400 TMAX in D-76 1:1 at 68-degrees F is my standard...

I would check your contrast, you might not be developing to the same contrast (TMAX-400 might be developing more slowly).

I develop about 13 minutes for 0.62

I like to use the film with EI 250 but as far as I know I get a real 400 speed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I develop it in PMK pyro and shoot it at full 400 box speed, and get superb shadow gradation.

 

[Colin Corneau]

You could simply accept that this film is 2/3's a stop slower than your usual and meter/shoot accordingly.

For what it's worth, I'd recommend simply tacking on a minute or so developing time -- for such a marvelously fine-grained film, I have a very hard time beleiving you'd see any actual visual difference. I say that because it's pretty much my standard 35mm film now, too and I develop in the wonderful DD-X.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Increase the developing time.

 

[David Allen]

What you are encountering is simply a product of the difference between the testing methodology set out in the ISO standards and real world practice.

Although a huge generalisation, I have found that (through tests made with students on my courses) that T-Grain films are in real world use slower than films formulated with older more 'conventional' technology. For example, my last student works with Tri-X. When we did the tests to identify his personal EI with his Rolleiflex (developed in BTTB developer), we determined a personal EI of 400 as ideal and an EI of 800 as useable when shadow detail was not of the primary concern. Andrés generally likes how Tri-X works in his workflow (he shoots analogue but his medium is the internet) but we also tried my preferred film Delta 400. This we found to require a personal EI of 200 and he did not like the grain pattern.

So, you will just have to accept that (for a huge gain in lower overall graininess) the T-Grain films generally do not deliver the speed of older more conventionally formulated films.

This for me is worth a lot but, if ultimate film speed is of paramount interest to how you prefer to work, then you will need to stick with the more conventionally formulated emulsions.

Best,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[DREW WILEY]

Once again this seems to involve a basic misunderstanding. You expose for the shadows, then develop for the desired maximum density of
the neg, controlling the highlights relative to your printing expectations. "Pushing" means overdeveloping in order to fudge the latter, but
based on the presumption that you irrecoverably underexposed the former. In other words, you first establish your correct personal ASA
by determining what speed is necessary to get printable shadow value in the neg, in your own definition of acceptable shadow value. You
can do this by bracketing a series of test exposures over a range of ASA settings. Then, afterwards, you experiment with how long you needto develop your negs to get a versatile degree of overall density, esp in relation to highlight printing quality.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hope that didn't confuse you. A properly exposed black and white neg is is never "pushed". That is a lab term for trying to salvage something
otherwise goofed in the first place.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I did the same and got great shadow detail and tonal range that way.After two decades of film speed testing,I suggest box speed -2/3stopand manufacturer's proposeddevelopment as a starting point for all films.For more info, only a full film test will dobut,the above gets you very close without any testing.

 

[Nathan King]

What's the "real world" issue you're having as a result of this? How is this affecting the results of what you desire in terms of total range, shadow detail, highlight blockage, etc.?

I am seeing noticeably less shadow detail at equivalent exposures. Small areas of the negative are completely down to base density.

This chart claims you need to develop TMAX 400 in DD-X for 8.5 minutes at 24°C. This would translate to 12 minutes and 40 seconds at the more common 20°C.

Is there a chance that your negs are simply underdeveloped, and as a result show less speed?

I should have mentioned that I am using the 1+4 dilution. The chart shows exactly eight minutes at 20 degrees celsius. On my diffusion enlarger, frames taken outside on a sunny day print wonderfully at grade 2. I tried developing for nine minutes; however, even images taken in very diffuse lighting had too much contrast to print easily.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I'm fairly sure that some of these film speed "issues" are related to metering technique. I have no problem with Kodak TMY-2 @ 400 processed in XTOL, employing spot metering.

Tom

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Nathan, were these fairly contrasty scenes?

 

[Nathan King]

Nathan, were these fairly contrasty scenes?

Yes. Flat scenes are fine. The HP5 seemed to hold shadows better in contrasty scenes. I have a spot meter, but don't use it for 35mm since I am after speed with the smaller format.

 

[Bill Burk]

...The chart shows exactly eight minutes at 20 degrees celsius. On my diffusion enlarger, frames taken outside on a sunny day print wonderfully at grade 2. I tried developing for nine minutes; however, even images taken in very diffuse lighting had too much contrast to print easily.

I don't doubt from your description that you are working with a good feel for what you are doing.

But this does not make sense to me: One minute is not a significant difference in development time (8 to 9 minutes). I don't see on the surface how it could take you from one extreme to another; "easy to print sunlit scene on Grade 2" in 8 minutes... to "Hard to print a scene under diffuse light" in 9 minutes.

 

[Bill Burk]

Nathan,

I have a pair of negatives that I consider the upper and lower limits of what I want to print. My "thin" negative is an indoor scene barely exposed enough to hold the details, prints Grade 3 straight, while my denser negative is bright sunlit day, prints Grade 2 with some dodge/burn.

I hope you find these two negatives for yourself - but I think what you found so far is inconclusive... I just don't want you to feel like you have to stay at 8 minutes because it's dangerous. It's not. I think you had a contrasty scene and "that scene" was well served by an 8 minute development time.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Although this might not be attractive to you because it doesn't actually get you to shoot the film at 400 speed I have had great success in very contrasty situations by pulling back the ASA down to maybe 250 for 400 speed film and then pulling back on the development time by about 10 to 15, maybe even up to 20% if it's an incredibly contrasty situation like a bright sunny day in the summertime at the beach. Try this and see what you think. I have found it to give me excellent shadow detail while holding the highlights down very nicely and really turning a very contrasty scene into something well tamed on the film.

 

[Xmas]

Recently, I switched from Ilford HP5 to Kodak T-Max 400 in 35mm to reduce grain in my prints. I have noticed that I am getting about two-thirds of a stop less speed out of the T-Max. I develop in Ilfotec DDX for eight minutes at 68 degrees. Is there anything I can do to make the T-Max faster short of push processing?

Noop HP5+ has a soft toe it depends how you print and look at shadows meter at 250ISO for Tmax
You could try Delta 400, Tx, and DoubleX but ...

 

[Rudeofus]

I am seeing noticeably less shadow detail at equivalent exposures. Small areas of the negative are completely down to base density.

I should have mentioned that I am using the 1+4 dilution. The chart shows exactly eight minutes at 20 degrees celsius. On my diffusion enlarger, frames taken outside on a sunny day print wonderfully at grade 2. I tried developing for nine minutes; however, even images taken in very diffuse lighting had too much contrast to print easily.

What you may see here is the difference between the official definition of ISO speed and real world shooting. The official definition considers everything below density 0.1 as non-existent, and film manufacturers may well take advantage of this loop hole. There is a good chance that TMAX 400 gives you the required four full exposure steps of shadow detail above that D=0.1 point, but that the characteristic curve drops like a rock below that point. Ilford's HP5+ may well have a lot more range below that D=0.1 point, and you may have become used to using that range. I have not done any tests with HP5+ yet, but heard frequent reports about spectacular pushing results with HP5+ and Tri-X which support this proposition.

In your case there isn't much that you can do. Shoot TMAX 400 at ISO 200-250 and see whether that works for you. You could also try Delta 400 and see whether it fits your shooting style better. Delta 400 is said to be a bit less finicky, but it does come with slightly larger grain.

 

[Ian Grant]

Kodak had the ISO tests changed before Tmax 100 & 400n were released, they couldn't reach the box speed with the older official method.

I used to shoot Tmax100 @ 50EI & APX100 @100EI both developed for the same times in Rodinal or Xtol and with similar results in terms of fine grain, tonality and sharpness. At 200 EI Tmax 400 wasn't far behind, the datasheets recommended shooting at half box speed for best tonality (better shadow details).

Ian

 

[Rudeofus]

Kodak had the ISO tests changed before Tmax 100 & 400n were released, they couldn't reach the box speed with the older official method.

I used to shoot Tmax100 @ 50EI & APX100 @100EI both developed for the same times in Rodinal or Xtol and with similar results in terms of fine grain, tonality and sharpness. At 200 EI Tmax 400 wasn't far behind, the datasheets recommended shooting at half box speed for best tonality (better shadow details).

I am quite confident, that Kodak could have come up with an emulsion that would have reached higher speed if they would have felt so inclined. Likewise I am confident that Rodinal is not the best developer to determine full emulsion speed. On the other side I am quite surprised that Xtol didn't give you better speed than Rodinal. I wonder which speed you got with TMAX 400 and Adox Borax MQ ...

 

[ic-racer]

Of the combinations that I tested, I get the best compromise between speed and grain from T-max 400 by development in T-max developer.

 

[Bill Burk]

I am seeing noticeably less shadow detail at equivalent exposures. Small areas of the negative are completely down to base density.

This is what tells me you know what you are doing.

If you are developing to the same contrast (sensitometrically speaking - and I'd be happy to delve into how to do this), and feel that you need 2/3 stop more exposure to achieve the same look between two films... Then I'd say it's a fair comparison and you should give 2/3 stop more exposure when using TMAX 400... I find this film shows its best character to me when the exposure is all on the straight line.

But if you are underdeveloping, you aren't giving the film a chance to show its true speed. I'd like to make sure you rule out that possibility.