Low contrast developer for TMY-2 400

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Harry, if you use TMax developer, try replenishing it. It will soften those highlights remarkably, and will allow you box speed. A friend of mine does this with really beautiful results.

- Thomas

I could, if I wasn't 1600 miles away from my enlarger...

Currently on the road with the evil scanner in the suitcase...

Yes, I can lift the shadows in PS or a wet print, but I still feel that with my current developer setup TMAX builds contrast in bright light very quickly.

 

[H. James Wolf]

Perhaps you could try Xtol in a higher dilution - 1:3. There are times, etc. in the Film Developer's Cookbook. It also works well with the reduced agitation, semi-stand system in the same book - increase the time and agitate every three minutes.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Xtol at 1+2 or 1+3. Just make sure you have 100ml of stock/concentrate per roll of film.

You will get full speed, nice controlled highlights and I would be amazed if you cannot get what you want from this same dev just further diluted. You will also likely get a touch more bite to the negs, more economy of course and if you need, try reducing agitation to one or two inversions a minute.

I find Xtol 1+2 (my standard) to be nice and gentle on highlights - noticeably more so than 1+1. Graphs I have seen suggest this to be the case and not just fiction. I dont use 1+3 simply because it means I need a lot of overall solution and cannot develop many rolls in it due to the need to maintain 100ml stock per roll.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Tom, what does diluting the Xtol to 1+3 do to film speed, if anything? I've never tried Xtol that dilute.

 

[Harry Lime]

Thanks Michael, that's really helpful

I ran a batch at 1:1 last night with less aggressive agitation. I'l throw them on the scanner and see what I get.

But I will try your suggestions.

 

[Harry Lime]

Michael, do you have any times for xtol @ 1:2? I'm thinking something like 10.5 minutes @ 20 C

thx

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Michael, do you have any times for xtol @ 1:2? I'm thinking something like 10.5 minutes @ 20 C

thx

If you can find an old Xtol data sheet, they used to publish times for 1:2 but stopped doing so. Perhaps they thought that people were being too frugal with the developer usage?

You actual developing time will vary with what type of enlarger you use. Condensor versus diffusion enlarger will change it around. If diffusion your negatives will be better to have some more contrast, for example. TMY-2 at 400 I would go about 11 minutes for condensor, and probably 12 for diffusion. Normal contrast, that is.

- Thomas

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Depends on how you use it. But the more dilute it is, the more "speed" you can get if you develop it to the same contrast as is with the stock solution because contrast is built more slowly in the dilute formulation. So the idea there would be very full development of the lowest densities without runaway highlights - sort of like a mild push, but only to the lower density areas. The other, very useful side of the coin is you can reduce overall contrast while maintaining film speed. So if you wanted a significantly contracted negative you'd likely get more speed by doing it with XTOL 1+3 than simply reducing development time/agitation at 1+0. You can take it further by reducing agitation at 1+3, which might give favourable edge effects for very big enlargements, and further tame highlights. Then of course there is enhanced sharpness and slightly more grain at 1+3 due to reduced solvent effects etc.

So if you dilute Xtol 1+3 the developer just keeps slowing down, building contrast slower, and responding well to reduced agitation? No ill effects? No minimum volume of developer per roll?
I know Xtol responds very well to agitation changes at 1+1, because I do it all the time. (with replenished Xtol too). 1+1 gives very good film speed. I was able to re-create the Tri-X 320 (TXP) film curve last weekend, by shooting TMax 100 at EI 400 and then push process the film while slowing down agitation with Xtol 1+1. I am yet to make the prints from it (I don't like how the scanner usually just shows the limitations of the scanner), but it is amazing how much shadow detail Xtol gives.

So, not to hijack the thread, but I'd be curious to find out what those results would look like at Xtol 1+3. Any last words of advice before I take the plunge?

Thanks,

- Thomas

 

[cmo]

They say there is a minimum amount of 100ml stock per film. This recommendation comes from the old story that people who used Tmax 100 in old XTol from 1 liter packages and diluted too much, that was the birth of the "sudden death" legend. I suggest, just don't exagerrate dilution and don't try it with old developer.

 

[Harry Lime]

Michael R:

I also took a look at the MD chart, but as you said it is unclear if they are talking about the old or new TMY-2. They really need to label that. In any case I'll rolls the dice with 1:2 @ 11:00 min.

Last night I looked at the 1:1 negs on the lightbox. There is a high con backlight shot of two swans sitting on the water (the equivalent of a cat shot), with the sun low on the horizon. There are appears to be plenty of shadow detail and with the exception of a few glints the highlights look pretty good.

Two things:

I am very impressed with XTOL. I had a go at it a few years ago and that wasn't entirely successful, but in hindsight that was due to operator error. The smooth grain of full strength and 1:1 is impressive, tonality with TMY-2 400 looks excellent, especially now that I am getting the contrast under control. I think I am seeing maybe a full stop more speed, than I was getting with Barry Thornton's 2-bath.

TMY-2 400 continues to be quite the seductress. Kodak really created something impressive here. The fine grained nature of this film continues to amaze me. It really is equivalent to many traditional 100asa films. I'm still not the fence about the spectral response, which I believe is different than Tri-X. TMY-2 is also very linear and doesn't seem to have as pronounced a roll-off at the shoulder like Tri-X has, so it looks quite different as it approaches highlights. Not bad, just different. But the exposure range is very impressive. In any case it's nice to see that Kodak is trying in this day and age of digital.


I'll try the 1:2 and 1:3 dilution and then will probably give good old Tri-X a shot.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas: As I said to Harry Lime, I don't use XTOL in my own work so I can't give you any hard facts or personal test results.

I was hoping you had had personal experience with it to provide some empirical evidence. Without it, words are just words, I'm afraid. I'll try Xtol 1+3 to see if it works as expected or not, using 100ml per roll.

My comments thus far would apply generally to any general purpose, solvent developer. And if you find it responds well to adjustments at 1+1, I'm sure it will work well at 1+3. So for XTOL, although I have not tested it myself, it is reasonable to assume that at 1+3 you will get the following in comparison to stock or 1+1 (again, depending on how you choose to use it):

-Increased acutance
-Slightly more grain
-More gentle curve with a more pronounced shoulder (more highlight compression) while maintaining film speed. Here you can reduce agitation as well for more pronounced contractions (ie compensation).
-Enhanced edge effects, particularly if agitation is reduced (ie intervals lengthened)

Please let me know how things turn out. I'm always interested in hearing about this stuff.

We will see if your assumptions are correct or not. I am well familiar with how agitation changes can alter a film curve, and try to use it to my advantage as much as possible. With Xtol 1+1 it has been really interesting to take TMax 100 and Acros, under-expose it by two full stops at EI 400, and then overdevelop them while slowing down agitation.
This brings back shadow detail, but will look more like the old Kodak Tri-X 320 (TXP), and the shoulder created by the agitation change will also make it look like TXP in the highlights. Mid-tones remain normal.

Attached it an Acros example.

- Thomas

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That's better. Published results. Thank you.

If I find time, I'll report back to this thread.

 

[ChuckP]

There is some older 1+3 times on this site: http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/
But they are probably for the older TMY.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There is some older 1+3 times on this site: http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/
But they are probably for the older TMY.

I have found no real difference in how TMY and TMY-2 behaves, other than the finer grain of the later version.
I have seen that web site before. Thanks!

 

[Harry Lime]

Here is a frame of TMY-2 400 in XTOL 1:1. Contrast looks nice. Lots of shadow detail (at least on a properly calibrated monitor...)

 

[dancqu]

Three Roads To Depletion

Contrast control through depletion is possible three
ways: two bath - water bath - and high dilution. For
ease of processing and least bother in preparation
I prefer D23 at a 1:7 dilution.

Extended development is needed but agitation is
minimal: at 2 - 3 minute intervals 2 - 3 inversions.
Full development of the shadow areas proceeds while
high density areas are held back due to depletion. Dan