Kodak TMAX 400-2 delicate highlights?

Harry Lime · Aug 6, 2009

I've been shooting some of the new Kodak Tmax 400-2 lately and have noticed that the highlights appear to be quite delicate. Has anyone else noticed this?

I'm shooting the film at 400asa and metering pretty accurate by hand. The film is developed in Barry Thornton's 2-bath for 4 minutes. You would think that the 2-bath developer would handle the highlights very well, but it appears that they are clipping a little. Maybe I need to reduce the development time to 3 minutes.

On my Nikon 9000ED scanner the highlights are revealed to be quite delicate and have a tendency to blow quite easily and quickly. In comparison Tri-X 400 is a lot, lot more robust in this area. You really have to do something very wrong to screw up the upper zones with TX.

But what is very impressive is just how fine grained Tmax 400-2 is. It looks like a grainy 100asa film and I'm pretty sure it would look even better in a developer with more solvent action. The tonality is also quite pleasant.

So, how are you shooting this film? Are you rating it at 200asa? Keeping the development fairly mellow to keep the contrast under control? Have you found the film to be unforgiving of metering errors (+/- 1 stop)?

thanks

Sirius Glass · Aug 6, 2009

TMY-2 versus Tri-X is basically smoother grain versus exposure latitude range. Therefore expect that TMY-2 will have a tendency to blow out high lights.

Use the right tool for the right situation.

I rather have the exposure latitude so I use Tri-X and then minimize the grain with XTOL or Pyro Rollo.

Steve

bobwysiwyg · Aug 6, 2009

I guess I don't have that "critical photographer's eye" yet. I like the pic, highlights and all.

Nicholas Lindan · Aug 6, 2009

The term 'blown highlights' doesn't really say what is going on. It can be either:

1) The film has hit it's shoulder and the contrast in the highlights has gone to zero.
2) The film has not hit the shoulder, there is lots of contrast in the highlights, but they are beyond the toe of the paper.
3) A deadly combination of 1 & 2 - the film has shouldered off at such a density that the paper has toed-out.

There are often complaints of 'blown highlights' with TMax films and with the old Technical Pan. In both cases the highlights are there in the negative in all their glory, but the density range of the negative can not be captured on paper. Careful burning and a bit of paper flashing will reveal the highlight detail again. Another option is to is to print the highlights down and then bleach them back to recover the 'sparkle' - while this gets the highlights off the toe of the paper curve it has the disadvantage of lowering the contrast in the midtones as paper contrast has to be lowered to fit the expanded negative tonal scale.

One good option is to use a contrast mask to build density only in the shadow areas - allowing you to print down the negative to get the highlight detail. However, shadow detail is lost as the masking lowers the shadow contrast, but the unsharp masking effect in the shadows can often preserve the illusion of shadow detail.

The only real solution is to control the contrast in the original scene by avoiding bright sun and using reflectors or flash to fill in the shadows.

The next best solution is to use N-1 development with slight ovexposure to produce a less contrasty negative - you still have the problem of less contrast in the midtones but as the negative is now more printable it is easier to manipulate the shadows and highlights when printing to recover the midtone contrast.

cmo · Aug 7, 2009

This question actually belongs into hybridphoto.com, for one reason:

"On my Nikon 9000ED scanner the highlights are revealed to be quite delicate and have a tendency to blow quite easily and quickly."

This is typical for the Nikon scanners and traditional b/w films. With those machines it is quite easy to kill all highlight details from Tri-X too. You did a good job with your developer if you kept the highlights on those scanners. As I only heard about your developer I cannot say I can judge its usability for the newest Tmax. But I can say that this film in my standard developer XTol 1:1 looks like a not-so-grainy 100 ASA film, is sharp as a blade and is my new standard film that replaces Tri-X and Tmax 100 for me. As I do not have a Nikon scanner I do not know whether you could tame the highlights at 400 ASA with diluted XTol, but at 200 I am pretty sure you will get what you want.

Harry Lime · Aug 7, 2009

Nicholas Lindan said:
The term 'blown highlights' doesn't really say what is going on. It can be either:

1) The film has hit it's shoulder and the contrast in the highlights has gone to zero.

I'm looking at this situation or something close to it.

I'm not printing these wet, but even when I bias the exposure of the scanner towards the highlights there's not a lot of information there.

2F/2F · Aug 7, 2009

FWIW, IMO the picture is fine as is...and I would not call those blown out high tones; just "highlights"...but it is your picture, and should be how you want it to be, of course.

It all has to do with how the luminance range at the scene falls into place onto your film's characteristic curve for the way you develop it...and then with how this curve falls into place onto your printing methods/parameters. The film in question is particularly straight-lined and particularly sensitive to development. If you shoot a contrasty composition on a contrasty film (which you have done here), with untested development (which it sounds like is the case here), without further manipulation you are going to have a contrasty picture. In short, expose, develop to more carefully match the negs you need to get the prints you want. You need to work backward from your printing parameters, to your film parameters, to the luminance range that is present within the composition at the scene of exposure. You need to know how the image will be rendered with your particular printing methods in order to idealize the neg.

I second the idea of making a silver mask for the neg if you want to be able to print down the highlights some more while keeping the lower tones about where they are.

As someone said, if you want to talk about how scanners might be manipulated to get the most from the neg, Hybrid Photo is the spot.

Harry Lime · Aug 7, 2009

cmo said:
This question actually belongs into hybridphoto.com, for one reason:

"On my Nikon 9000ED scanner the highlights are revealed to be quite delicate and have a tendency to blow quite easily and quickly."

It's more of an exposure and development question. The scanner is merely being used to examine the results of the first two steps of the process, where the actual problem is occurring.

This is typical for the Nikon scanners and traditional b/w films. With those machines it is quite easy to kill all highlight details from Tri-X too. You did a good job with your developer if you kept the highlights on those scanners.

I'm going to have to disagree with that. I've had Nikon scanners for almost 10 years and they are quite capable, in particular the 9000ED. When properly operated they have no problems with highlight or shadow detail and can even handle Kodachrome, which is notoriously difficult to scan. Tri-X has been my standard film for more than a decade and the Nikons deal with it without a problem.

But I think are right about rating TMAX-2 a little slower, to buffer the highlights. I'll give it a try at 320 or even 200asa.

I've been spoiled by the very forgiving nature of Tri-X and need to be a little more conservative, when exposing and developing TMAX. I'll also develop for lower contrast, to see if that helps.

Harry Lime · Aug 7, 2009

2F/2F said:
It all has to do with how the luminance range at the scene falls into place onto your film's characteristic curve for the way you develop it...and then with how this curve falls into place onto your printing methods/parameters. The film in question is particularly straight-lined and particularly sensitive to development. If you shoot a contrasty composition on a contrasty film (which you have done here), without further manipulation you are going to have a contrasty picture.

I think you are right. Tmax-2 is a lot more linear than Tri-X and therefore I assume that the transition to it clipping or crushing in the highlights or shadows is a lot more abrupt, than with something with Tri-X, which has this epic roll-off in the shoulder and toe; therefore easing out very gently.

cmo · Aug 7, 2009

Harry Lime said:
I've had Nikon scanners for almost 10 years and they are quite capable, in particular the 9000ED. When properly operated they have no problems with highlight or shadow detail and can even handle Kodachrome, which is notoriously difficult to scan.

Many people are quite happy with the Coolscans, but they do have a limited "Dmax" compared to a wet print or an Imacon/Hasselblad/Heidelberg Tango scanners.

I am very interested to see your results. The new Tmax 400 is a much better film than its predecessor, especially when it comes to the tonal range. Developing exposure and development methods to fit it to different workflows and situations is still to be done. Predisposition of this material is so good that it will pay out.

tony lockerbie · Aug 7, 2009

I've found that this film works well in Pyrocat HD, 1:1:100, 15mins @21c. For my purposes an iso of 400 seems about right with this combination. Great film, but Tri-X does beat it in certain circumstances.

2F/2F · Aug 7, 2009

tony lockerbie said:
Great film, but Tri-X does beat it in certain circumstances.

Yup. It helps to get to know many films and how they will capture a scene using various exposure and development techniqies, so you can pick the combo that will most be able to give you what you want for each pic.

I like T-Max 400 a lot. I am just starting to shoot it again since the introduction of TMY-2 piqued my curiosity. It is great for shooting in flat light. I wish it was about two or three stops faster. I can't really tell the difference between it and its predecessor, but I do know that I like it a lot for some things.

Harry Lime · Aug 7, 2009

cmo said:
Many people are quite happy with the Coolscans, but they do have a limited "Dmax" compared to a wet print or an Imacon/Hasselblad/Heidelberg Tango scanners.

I think the dust cover for the Tango costs more than the Nikon.... ;-)

I still print wet, but in the internet age a scanner is a must. Maybe later this year I'll look for a clean used Imacon/Hasselblad.

I am very interested to see your results. The new Tmax 400 is a much better film than its predecessor, especially when it comes to the tonal range. Developing exposure and development methods to fit it to different workflows and situations is still to be done. Predisposition of this material is so good that it will pay out.

I totally agree. I did not like the old Tmax 400, but I am quite charmed by this latest incarnation. And that's coming from a diehard Tri-X shooter.

The fineness of the grain is astonishing for a 400asa film and it's smoothness greatly improves the tonality of the film. I look at prints and scans from this film that were originated in 135 format and they have a look and feel to them that I would normally associate with a slightly larger format.

TMAX-2 is not going to be able to replace Tri-X for my work (documentary, street photography), because it does not appear to be as forgiving at 400asa and I really need the speed. But there are many occasions where it would be the superior choice and I look forward to using it.

I'm going to try a few rolls in Divided D76, which produces noticeably finer grain than Thornton's 2-bath.

Unfortunately XTOL and I have a somewhat unhappy past, so I'm going to pass on it for the moment.

cmo · Aug 7, 2009

Harry Lime said:
I think the dust cover for the Tango costs more than the Nikon.... ;-)

Used ones in Europe are sold for 4000 - 10000 Euros. You might be right.

Harry Lime said:
I still print wet, but in the internet age a scanner is a must.

If you print wet, why not use a flatbed scanner? Even the cheap ones are great at capturing prints.

Harry Lime said:
Unfortunately XTOL and I have a somewhat unhappy past, so I'm going to pass on it for the moment.

I don't know whether it is still available, but Paterson FX-50 is supposed to be very similar, but a liquid 2-component developer.

Keith Tapscott. · Aug 7, 2009

cmo said:
I don't know whether it is still available, but Paterson FX-50 iis supposed to be very similar, but a liquid 2-component developer.

.
Paterson FX-50 is no longer made and had a notorious reputation for losing activity soon after opening the bottles.

PVia · Aug 7, 2009

I shot a few 120 rolls at the Grand Canyon a few months ago, a lot of contrast during the day so averaged out the dev time, shot at 200.

The photographs made in flatter light w/o direct sun are definitely easier to print, but the ones with bright sunlight shining on parts of the subject landscape need some flashing.

I agree with 2F regarding great results in flatter/ish light...at least for roll film.

Sirius Glass · Aug 7, 2009

A staining developer like pyro may help hold the highlights with TMAX 400-2.

Steve

Marc . · Aug 7, 2009

Harry Lime said:
I've been shooting some of the new Kodak Tmax 400-2 lately and have noticed that the highlights appear to be quite delicate. Has anyone else noticed this?

I'm shooting the film at 400asa and metering pretty accurate by hand. The film is developed in Barry Thornton's 2-bath for 4 minutes. You would think that the 2-bath developer would handle the highlights very well, but it appears that they are clipping a little. Maybe I need to reduce the development time to 3 minutes.

...

So, how are you shooting this film? Are you rating it at 200asa? Keeping the development fairly mellow to keep the contrast under control? Have you found the film to be unforgiving of metering errors (+/- 1 stop)?

thanks

Hello,

I have tested TMY-2 and other films with Thornton's two bath developer ( see : (there was a url link here which no longer exists) ) with a 'BTZS/Sensitometry' method, and found (for 7 stops Subject Brightness Range and a film Dmax of 1.27) a speed of 350 ISO for 2x 3 minutes development at 24*C/75*F. All this is fine for wet printing and for scanning.

If developed 2x 4 min (still at 24°C and 350 ISO), you can only record 5.5 stops for the same Dmax, meaning that from 2x 3 min to 2x 4 min highlights density builds up quickly.
You are concerned by hitting the shoulder, but at these develoment times highlights have not hit the shoulder, they become more and more dense.

I suggest you lower your development time before trying everything else, this will produce a less contrasty negative with more useable highlights and also keep grain even smaller.
If you want a latitude comparable to Tri-X, expose at 320 and develop 2x 2.5 min at 24°C (and if you work at 20°C try the same time, 2 bath developers are tolerant).

Marc

aldevo · Aug 7, 2009

Nicholas Lindan said:
The term 'blown highlights' doesn't really say what is going on. It can be either:

1) The film has hit it's shoulder and the contrast in the highlights has gone to zero.
2) The film has not hit the shoulder, there is lots of contrast in the highlights, but they are beyond the toe of the paper.
3) A deadly combination of 1 & 2 - the film has shouldered off at such a density that the paper has toed-out.

I think you missed #4...

4) The film's grain structure promotes excessive light scatter during enlarging, thereby losing texture in the highlights.

TMY has, traditionally, been notorious for losing detail in the highlights even when densitometer readings of negatives and paper curves suggests it's there to be had.

I don't know how TMY-2 stacks up against the earlier TMY in this respect. But, yes, I have always found highlights to be nearly devoid of texture with TMY in 135 whether scanned or enlarged - even when they are well within the Dmax of the scanner and very obviously not blown out on the paper print.

Harry Lime · Aug 7, 2009

Thanks Marc, I'll try those settings.

Marc . · Aug 7, 2009

Tell us how your pictures turn out !

Marc

Mahler_one · Aug 7, 2009

Nicholas Lindan said:
The term 'blown highlights' doesn't really say what is going on. It can be either:

1) The film has hit it's shoulder and the contrast in the highlights has gone to zero.
2) The film has not hit the shoulder, there is lots of contrast in the highlights, but they are beyond the toe of the paper.
3) A deadly combination of 1 & 2 - the film has shouldered off at such a density that the paper has toed-out.

There are often complaints of 'blown highlights' with TMax films and with the old Technical Pan. In both cases the highlights are there in the negative in all their glory, but the density range of the negative can not be captured on paper. Careful burning and a bit of paper flashing will reveal the highlight detail again. Another option is to is to print the highlights down and then bleach them back to recover the 'sparkle' - while this gets the highlights off the toe of the paper curve it has the disadvantage of lowering the contrast in the midtones as paper contrast has to be lowered to fit the expanded negative tonal scale.

One good option is to use a contrast mask to build density only in the shadow areas - allowing you to print down the negative to get the highlight detail. However, shadow detail is lost as the masking lowers the shadow contrast, but the unsharp masking effect in the shadows can often preserve the illusion of shadow detail.

The only real solution is to control the contrast in the original scene by avoiding bright sun and using reflectors or flash to fill in the shadows.

The next best solution is to use N-1 development with slight ovexposure to produce a less contrasty negative - you still have the problem of less contrast in the midtones but as the negative is now more printable it is easier to manipulate the shadows and highlights when printing to recover the midtone contrast.

Great comments Nick! Constructive, and lots of teaching. Thanks!

Yet another option could be, as has been stated, to use other tools. Thus, in higher contrast situations, use HP5 film.

Mahler_one · Aug 7, 2009

Incidentally, I agree with others in that the photograph illustrated looks fine to me. Well done.

c6h6o3 · Aug 7, 2009

The characteristic curve for TMY has virtually no shoulder right out to a density of over 3. It's pretty tough to blow highlights in the negative. You just exceed the contrast range of your paper (or scanner).

Nice photograph, btw.

Marcus S · Aug 8, 2009

For TMY 2, I have used Finol (Moersch) with excellent results. I rate the films at iso 320.
A beautiful tonal range with excellent detail in the highlights and shadows.

Kodak TMAX 400-2 delicate highlights?

Harry Lime

Attachments

Sirius Glass

bobwysiwyg

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

cmo

Harry Lime

2F/2F

Harry Lime

Harry Lime

cmo

tony lockerbie

2F/2F

Harry Lime

cmo

Keith Tapscott.

PVia

Sirius Glass

Marc .

aldevo

Harry Lime

Marc .

Mahler_one

Mahler_one

c6h6o3

Marcus S

Kodak TMAX 400-2 delicate highlights?

Attachments

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency