Kodak TMAX 400-2 delicate highlights?

c6h6o3 said:

The characteristic curve for TMY has virtually no shoulder right out to a density of over 3.

Click to expand...

Yup - that's why people complain about highlights with TMax films - even though the highlight response of the film is excellent: "It can't be my printing technique or my scanner - it has to be this evil film."

It is possible to get TMax films to shoulder by using too dilute a developer - a really bad idea, BTW.

Nicholas Lindan said:

Yup - that's why people complain about highlights with TMax films - even though the highlight response of the film is excellent: "It can't be my printing technique or my scanner - it has to be this evil film."

It is possible to get TMax films to shoulder by using too dilute a developer - a really bad idea, BTW.

Click to expand...

I don't think the highlights in my negs are blown, because the film is 'evil'. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

I also don't blame witches for milk going sour. We're no longer in the middle ages, you know?

But obviously TMAX has to be handled in a certain way to get the most out of it. It is quite a different animal, compared to something like Tri-X. That's what the thread and my question is about.

Harry Lime said:

I don't think the highlights in my negs are blown, because the film is 'evil'. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

I also don't blame witches for milk going sour. We're no longer in the middle ages, you know?

But obviously TMAX has to be handled in a certain way to get the most out of it. It is quite a different animal, compared to something like Tri-X. That's what the thread and my question is about.

Click to expand...

Did you measure the luminance range at the scene? How many EVs difference were present? You would be asking for a lot from any film shot straight in that sort of contrast.

Tri-X has a very gentle, almost imperceptible shoulder as well. I can't imagine that the difference you're noticing is purely a function of the characteristic curve. There's got to be something else going on. Spectral sensitivity, perhaps?

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.
.
.
.

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

Click to expand...

I don't know how you'd get a B&W negative film to clip highlights. The old films would shoulder off. But that's compressing the highlights, not clipping. The newer films, like TMY-2, are flat and linear way out beyond reasonable darkroom densities. Way out toward densities in the 3 to 4 range. I read something a while back that Kodak measured a dynamic range of something like 20 stops in the lab -- well beyond what you could print in the darkroom. IOW, the film isn't capable of clipping the highlights. Or even of compressing the highlights.

On the opposite end from the highlights are the shadows. TMY-2 is a "short toe" film. This can make it somewhat less forgiving of metering errors than say Tri-X which is a "long toe" film. IOW, if you don't expose enough you loose your shadows. One could think of this as clipping, but in reality it's an exposure error.

I'm a LF (5x4) shooter. I've got a fair amount of experience with Tri-X (think decades) and somewhat less with TMY-2 (think years), but at this stage TMY-2 is my only B&W film. It's that good for my work.

I soup it in XTOL 1:3, process with a Jobo using a 3010 tank. Every once in a while I run the full Zone System calibration -- to find my personal EI for TMY-2, XTOL, and my process, and to find my "N" development time to give me the highlight density I'm after.

I find that with XTOL 1:3 and my process, my meter, my lenses, etc. I get an EI of 540. I normally shoot it at 400 however (makes it a "full stop" on my meter which for some reason appeals to me; I have no real reason why though). I've got enough experience with LF photography now that I seldom miss on exposure so the short toe nature of the film just improves my shadow detail -- less compressed than what I was getting with Tri-X.

So... I'm mystified by your highlight problem. I can't see how it's the film. It's probably not the developer or the process. I suspect the scanner, or the scanning process. Although I have to say that TMY-2 generally drum scans like a dream. I've scanned a fair amount of it now and get low graininess, high sharpness, and really nice tonality out of scans of my 5x4 TMY-2.

2F/2F said:

Did you measure the luminance range at the scene? How many EVs difference were present? You would be asking for a lot from any film shot straight in that sort of contrast.

Click to expand...

That is a tough scene for any film to handle. But my question was more general. Since I have started to shoot TMAX 400-2 I simply noticed that I end up with blocked up highlights more often, than with Tri-X 400.

Hey Bruce

As I mentioned earlier, I don't blame the film. But TMAX-2 does handle quite different than Tri-X, which has been my standard film for the past 10 years, so I'm trying to come up with a way to shoot it successfully.

After reviewing the responses here I'm pretty certain that the problem is that I am overdeveloping the film.

I rate TMAX-2 at 400 and tend to expose it within a half stop accuracy, which should be good enough (it's not slide-film after all). 4 minutes (plus pouring in/out) in Thornton's 2-bath seems to be too much, so I'm going to run a test and develop some rolls at 2 and 3 minutes.

I've done zero testing but I find Tmax400-2 to be easier to blow the highlights. Like you I do some form of compensation on every roll (even then I get fooled, mostly by exposure error). Now Tmax100 I don't seem to have as much trouble with highlights.

I expose the hell out of my TMY and use a very soft-working developer which gives me excellent control. My standard development time is around 15 minutes. Some of my negatives look like they were dragged through chimney soot, but they print beautifully. I find that any developer with a hydroquinone accelerator, such as D-76, throws the highlights out of control on TMY. You might want to stick with something like D-23. I can't comment on Thornton's developers as I've never used them and know nothing about their chemistry.

I used to think that TMY and XTOL where a great match and I got a nice sense of light with it. Now I often find the TMY2 gives me chalky whites and an ugly sense of light. However according to my early side by side tests between 1 and 2 there isn't much difference at all so I am scratching my head a bit.

dpurdy said:

I used to think that TMY and XTOL where a great match and I got a nice sense of light with it. Now I often find the TMY2 gives me chalky whites and an ugly sense of light. However according to my early side by side tests between 1 and 2 there isn't much difference at all so I am scratching my head a bit.

Click to expand...

What format are you shooting it in?

The film I am talking about is the 120. I feel very fortunate to have invested in a large supply of TMY1 8X10 film just before the change.
Dennis

TMY-2 @ ISO200 in Rodinal 1:50, 20 degrees C

For me, this is a wonderful combination with very nice highlight separation. But, with a different look than Tri-X to be sure. I find it to be very nice for portraits under overcast light.

Less development. It is that simple. frames is all you need to test.

Tri x prints and scans well at my standard times. Plus x will NOT. I can get it to print or scan to Perfection, but not both. I have bracketed development times by 30" over three min. There is no good time for both.

T M400-2 seems to print on #2 paper and scan MK 5400 at Kodak`s recommended times less 10%. But I have done only a roll or two. I use D76 exclusively.

To put it bluntly, I was once asked by a very experienced photographer what the term 'blown highlights' means. I had to explain it. It was pointed out to me that the preferred nomenclature is 'blocked up' highlights.
Something to consider... I'm envisioning a stick of dynamite going boom, or an extremely powerful fan sized like a jet airplane engine blowing really strong winds on the highlights... LOL
It really is an unfortunate term.

I agree with Nicholas. But keep in mind that when you control highlight density you still have to give your film enough exposure to reveal enough shadow density. Your choice of developer, agitation technique, and agitation interval can all help in taming the negative contrast to your liking.

The 100 speed exhibits more contrast and sometimes you'll get highlights that are difficult to print if you don't watch it.
For me, the perfect companion for these films is Xtol, although I'm sure most any developer can be made to work beautifully.
I use only Xtol and Tmax 400, and know exactly how to treat the film in every lighting scenario now, and 99% of the time I have negatives that print easily.
Most of the time I process the film longer than the manufacturer recommends, and I vary the time and agitation a lot based on the lighting conditions. Slowing agitation down is a powerful tool to taming much unwanted contrast and highlight density. As it lowers that highlight density, you also maintain nice mid-tone separation, as mid-tone development is a function of both time and agitation, while highlight density is more a function of agitation as the developer exhausts faster in that part of the range of tones.

Experiment more, alter time and agitation, eventually you'll have a recipe for how to get the highlights just where you want them.

- Thomas

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.

Click to expand...

I've read this thread with great interest.

Much of the focus has been on macro-gradation - i.e. the H&D curve - but I'm not sure the answer lies there.

The original poster asked about highlight texture and I interpret that to mean how local variations in density over very small areas of the negative translate to the printed highlights. Here, I think, micro-gradation would plays a greater role.

T-max films has unusual micro-contrast - very different than cubic grain films and somewhat different than the Ilford core shell films (i.e. Deltas). This micro-gradation is, in turn, linked to light scatter during enlargement and consequent loss of texture in the highlights.

I do not believe that any manipulation of the H&D curve through the development process will benefit highlight texture in TMY.

aldevo said:

T-max films has unusual micro-contrast - very different than cubic grain films and somewhat different than the Ilford core shell films (i.e. Deltas). This micro-gradation is, in turn, linked to light scatter during enlargement and consequent loss of texture in the highlights.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Callier Effect seems to manifest itself as non-linear changes in micro- and local contrast. That is, one of the effects seems to be a compression of tones in the highlights (high density parts of the negative). It "feels" sort of like the film shouldering off, but it's different somehow. I wish I had the resources to explore it more, and to look at how grain structure effects this (cubic grains vs. T-grains, etc.).

OTOH, surely someone has already done this research. Anyone have any pointers to information along this line?

Bruce Watson said:

Indeed. Callier Effect seems to manifest itself as non-linear changes in micro- and local contrast. That is, one of the effects seems to be a compression of tones in the highlights (high density parts of the negative). It "feels" sort of like the film shouldering off, but it's different somehow. I wish I had the resources to explore it more, and to look at how grain structure effects this (cubic grains vs. T-grains, etc.).

OTOH, surely someone has already done this research. Anyone have any pointers to information along this line?

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any such research being conducted since the introduction of T-grain films.

The little I have read on the topic of microcontrast is by Mees ("Theory of the Photographic Process") and obviously written long before the introduction of T-grain films. That research suggests that if TMY does have higher microcontrast it should actually hold detail better because the microcontrast should reduce light scattering in the negative.

And yet the web is full of assertions that high microcontrast produces the opposite effect in the enlarged print.

All I know is this:

I have put TMY 135 negatives developed in Pyrocat-MC and exposed at EI 160 on a light table and viewed them under a high quality 12x loupe. Using Phil Davis' "Poor Man's densitometer (i.e. placing news print under the negative to see if the print is still visible in areas of highlight density), it was evident that:

a) Areas of higher density seemed to lie within the exposure scale of a Grade 2 paper
b) Local variation in these areas of high density was evident in the negative.

And yet there was no evident highlight texture in a 5x print on Ilford MG IV using a No.2 filter. Nor using a No. 1.

I've not thought to repeat this test with 400TX because I have never had an issue with highlight texture when using this film - or, at least, the problem is no worse than I expect from 135 negatives in general.

Harry Lime said:

After reviewing the responses here I'm pretty certain that the problem is that I am overdeveloping the film.

I rate TMAX-2 at 400 and tend to expose it within a half stop accuracy, which should be good enough (it's not slide-film after all). 4 minutes (plus pouring in/out) in Thornton's 2-bath seems to be too much, so I'm going to run a test and develop some rolls at 2 and 3 minutes.

Click to expand...

Harry Lime,

Did you try this shorter development test in Thornton's 2 bath ?

Marc

Harry Lime,

You do not know that you are overdeveloping the film until you compare the luminance range from the actual scene of the composition to what you get on your print. You shot a high contrast composition, so expect a high contrast neg and a high contrast print. It is as simple as that. Sans testing don't change anything. You can't judge what you need to do based on a bunch of uncontrolled shots taken using an in-camera meter. Go do a test in controlled conditions, then you will know for sure.

...but even if you find that your EI and development need to be changed, you will always get a high contrast picture if you shoot a high contrast composition (given normal exposure and development). The emulsion has far less of an effect than the lighting.

2F/2F said:

Harry Lime,

You do not know that you are overdeveloping the film until you compare the luminance range from the actual scene of the composition to what you get on your print. You shot a high contrast composition, so expect a high contrast neg and a high contrast print. It is as simple as that. Sans testing don't change anything.

Click to expand...

I can't do a wet print at the moment, because my darkroom is in storage.
The negs are being scanned on a Nikon 9000ED.

You can't judge what you need to do based on a bunch of uncontrolled shots taken using an in-camera meter. Go do a test in controlled conditions, then you will know for sure.

Click to expand...

A Leica M2 doesn't have a built in meter. I almost always meter everything by hand with a Sekonic. My comments were made based on shooting many rolls of TMAX-2 in various conditions. This is one example frame.

...but even if you find that your EI and development need to be changed, you will always get a high contrast picture if you shoot a high contrast composition (given normal exposure and development). The emulsion has far less of an effect than the lighting.

Click to expand...

Of course.

Using a 2-bath developer should be ideal for this type of shot, but like i've said I let the development times creep up and I believe this is increasing the contrast level.