Newcomer's question – how to develop Tmax 100 for more shaprness

Hello everybody, first time poster here.

I was shooting film for the first time ever earlier this month, and had a few different films to try out, including a roll of Tmax 100 and Delta 100. After developing both in Microphen (which is what the local store had), I really loved the Tmax tonality (the room shot below), and really loved the Delta 100 sharpness (the Delft houses stand). I don't imagine I could make the Delta look like Tmax, but is there a way of making the Tmax sharper?

Any other 100 films I should try? I have two rolls of Acros which I haven't shot yet.

Thanks in advance!
Boris

Tmax is just as (inherently) sharp as Delta is. This has been proven time and again through the decades.

Something is amiss with your procedure, Boris, and I cannot pinpoint just what, at this juncture. Perhaps the camera was shaking slightly (tripod?) or not precisely focused. Or ... perhaps you used a lens that was not 'fabulous' at maximum aperture. There could be countless reasons, but I (we?) think that the culprit is NOT Tmax 100.

Actually, the window panes seem sharper than the table (especially more so than the front-most chairs at the near right). Thus, it just might have been wrong focus.

Given this small enlargement, I assure you that it is not the choice of developer. Both pictures should (and could) have been stunningly sharp. - David Lyga

Thanks for the reply, David. The two shots above were taken with the same camera/lens, on the same day. Both developed in Microphen, using Ilford's suggested times. Could it be the scanning? I use a DSLR for scanning, and I refined the procedure as I went along; the Delta was scanned last.

Edit: another reason to suggest it wasn't the camera/lens/photographer's (my) fault, is that *all* the Delta shots are noticeably sharper than the Tmax ones.

Again, looking closely, I am disturbed with the panes being sharper than the front-most chairs (although the metal buttons on the rear chairs are quite sharp). Focus more precisely.

Maybe scanning is the problems here, but I am not technologically savvy. - David Lyga

You took 2 sharpest iso 100 films that are on the market. As David stated: it is not about the film - some other variables are in question. Many people on this forum do not use Tmax 100 because it is too sharp (or too clinical - as they say). Which camera/lens/f stop/shutter_speed you used for Delta and which for Tmax?

Dear BorisGil,

The other posters are correct..... something must be awry... ( could be scanning ) side by side, same discipline, you would not be able to tell any difference in sharpness between DELTA 100 and T.MAX 100 they are both very sharp films.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

You may just be seeing the difference in subject matter. The objects in the Delta 100 image have more sharp details than those in the TMax image. Or perhaps more accurately, there are many objects in the Delta image that 'appear' sharper than the objects in the TMax image.

Thanks very much for the replies! Darko, it's Nikon F-301 + 50/1.8. I'm afraid I don't remember the shutter speeds/apertures, though I think both were shot either wide open or close to it.

Once I get home, I'll rescan a few of the Tmax shots, to see if that might be the reason. Will report!

I'd recommend we are shown two or more different shots where the real or imaginary sharpness difference can be eliminated

Otherwise we might waste our time debating the real or imaginary problems with these negs which might divert our attention from being able to help inform the newcomer about these films.

pentaxuser

Pentaxuser, I was thinking of it myself – here are two more shots. I think I might have used the words 'sharpness' in a wrong way. What I meant is resolution of small details, the way one uses the word 'sharp' when speaking about a lens. The Delta shot is still unprocessed (even uncropped from the scan, as you can see), and yet, I see a higher level of detail resolved there than in the Tmax shot.

What do you think?

Again, you're comparing images of different things shot at different times. Try a 'direct' comparison shot of the same subject and only seconds or minutes apart.

i can't tell which photographs are which LOL
but if you are using your camera at slower than 1/125 you
might consider a tripod, you might also consider using a different
aperture if you want more things to be in focus have better resolve .
wider aperture ( faster / smaller f-numbers ) will leave you with
limited depth of field and maybe the out of focus areas are the things
you feel aren't giving you resolution ?
i've been using tmx since it was introduced in the 80s, and also delta100
whenever i get the chance .. both sharp as nails, both beautiful contrast
both fined grain ( when you process them that way ) ...
i can't remember if delta100 is as finicky as its tmx cousin, but sometimes
tmx films can be finicky ...
no idea how to use a camera as a scanner but if it is without 3 legs on the floor,
you might consider that as well ..

nice photographs btw !
john

Thanks for the two new negs but I am not sure it gets you any nearer to an answer. To re-iterate what at least one other has said it needs to be two photos of the same scene( preferably one with sharp lines and details) in the same light and ideally developed in the same way i.e. same developer and process according to the manufacturer's specification.

The Delta looks marginally sharper to me but the wheel and other parts of the Delta neg helps this.

pentaxuser

Perceived sharpness and perceived resolution are a lot more complex than people think. Any step in the a process that reduces the result to a screen image (subject, lighting, camera, lens, film, development=contrast, digitization process, software, display) can affect the results.

The latter three steps often involve adjustments that are not obvious to the user.

You need to set every other variable to the same in order to isolate the effect of the film in order to make a true comparison. That includes developing to the same micro-contrast, and adjusting the digital parts of the process to respond in the same manner to the different films.

Tough to do outside of a laboratory.

For home use, try comparison shots of the same subject, in the same light. Then adjust your film processing to end up with the same contrast.

After that, a microscope or high power magnifier will provide more easily controlled viewing, but if you must digitize, be wary of the effect of contrast.

The OP is not clear about his developing method. However a high solvent developer like Microphen used FS is not be the best choice for T grain films. This is supported if one looks at the working solutions of developers specifically designed for these films such as the TMax developer and FX-37. Try using Microphen 1+1 with either film. You could use the Kodak TMax developer.

You should be shooting the same subject in same way. Simplest way is this: lets say you have Delta 100 in camera, and you are on frame 35. Shoot frame 36 on f4-f5.6 and shutter speed 1/250, rewind the film, load Tmax and shoot frame No 1 the same image on f4-f5,6 and shutter speed 1/250 .
Ideal would be to have some wall brick on distance cca 10 meters with lot of light - but not in open sun, not too much contrast in the scene.

http://web.archive.org/web/20051017022108/http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/bwstateofart.html
See "The embarasse de riche" for the view of Leica Guru Erwin Puts.

How are you measuring the 'sharpness?' T-Max 100 is sharper than your equipment and technique.

http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/res-chart.html

Use loupe or microscope on negative...

darkosaric said:

You should be shooting the same subject in same way. Simplest way is this: lets say you have Delta 100 in camera, and you are on frame 35. Shoot frame 36 on f4-f5.6 and shutter speed 1/250, rewind the film, load Tmax and shoot frame No 1 the same image on f4-f5,6 and shutter speed 1/250 .
Ideal would be to have some wall brick on distance cca 10 meters with lot of light - but not in open sun, not too much contrast in the scene.

Click to expand...

Yes. And +1 to the others who said the same thing.

While we don't discuss scanning here (DPUG is the place for that), scanning frames from both in the same file will be more informative as they will have the same treatment by the software.


And I'm biting my tongue (figuratively) on mentioning that the image is more than the sharpness/grain/detail, etc.. You will see things in them that the vast majority of people viewing them will never notice.

I've developed T-Max 100 only in T-Max developer. The results are limited more by photographic technique than by the film. T-Max 100 will record more detail than one can see on the focusing screen of a camera, so focusing technique is important. Select an aperture that is in the sweet range of the lens. Don't stop down too far or diffraction will limit sharpness. Also, overdeveloping will cause an increase in grain. T-Max developer mixed for use has a very long shelf life when stored in a proper partly filled bottle. I use soft drink bottles.

winger said:

Yes. And +1 to the others who said the same thing.

While we don't discuss scanning here (DPUG is the place for that), scanning frames from both in the same file will be more informative as they will have the same treatment by the software.


And I'm biting my tongue (figuratively) on mentioning that the image is more than the sharpness/grain/detail, etc.. You will see things in them that the vast majority of people viewing them will never notice.

Click to expand...

And looking at an image is subjective.

If you want more perceived sharpness I recommend a slightly grainier film and develop in something that will give you more edge. FP4+ in D-76 1-1 would be a good choice, or in Rodinal.

Thanks for the replies, guys. Point very much taken.
Thanks also for the info and links to articles – very useful; there's a huge amount of things I don't know (in general but in what regards film photography in particular), so I'm learning on the go.

Edit: regarding the initial question – it seems to have been a moot one in a way, as both rolls seem to have much more fine details resolved than the initial scans showed. See below; earlier attempt on the left, newer method (4 shots + stitching) on the right.

A couple of thoughts ...

It may be (I am guessing) that the OP is coming from a digital photography background. Forums dedicated to digital photography are thick with endless debates about "sharpness", mostly derived from the photographers loading up their images in LR or PS (or whatever) and then poking around in the corners of their pictures "at 100%", and then arguing endlessly about which picture from which lens and sensor is "sharper".

If someone is only looking at homemade scans of negatives and attempting to judge "sharpness" on a similar basis, then there are a whole lot of other issues that intervene to make the question of "sharpness" very unsharp indeed: the resolution and focus accuracy of the scanner, the post-processing applied to the scanned image, grain aliasing and so on can (will) all contribute to making it difficult to form consistent conclusions about "sharpness". Plus of course, no film will ever look "as sharp" compared to a digital photograph from a decent sensor when subjected to the "at 100%" test.

Comparing a well-made, normal sized print from either a process , however, will probably mean it is hard to distinguish which is "sharper" (lets rule out silly comparisons like mural sized prints from an enlarged 11x14 neg vs a small-sensor digital pic, etc.)

Plus of course all the other factors that contribute to apparent "sharpness" (motion blur, camera shake, Ajaxed lenses, choice of developer).

I gave up ages ago trying to distinguish between different films/processes/lenses on the basis of viewing negative scans online. Not only are there too many variables introduced in the digitisation process, the resolution of the average web image is far far too low to make a sensible judgment - just about any film looks much like any other film, or can be made to do so.

I'd guess that the vast majority of film negatives now end up in a scanner and not in the negative carrier of an enlarger ... and perhaps are never printed even on an inkjet. Accordingly, the question isn't so much "Which film is sharpest?" but "Which film when I process it and scan it produces the image quality I like best?", and that can really only be answered by personal empirical testing; that is to say, shooting, developing & scanning with a test regime that allows sensible comparisons to be made.

The downside to this is that if you want to be truly rigorous, this could take months if not years (rather like EI testing for every camera, film, shutter speed and aperture combination ).

I'm not saying this to denigrate the OP or digital photography, simply to point out that the issue of "sharpness" in this context is really a bit of a red herring ... APUG is a community the explicit aim of which is to discuss and promote entirely wet processes, and explicitly excludes discussion of digital matters. That means if someone posts negative scans and asks for help, the natural bias of most of the community might be to answer in terms of their experience in making darkroom prints from film, and with an assumption that the end point of the process will be the print and not an image presented on a screen.

That "skew" doesn't the advice less valuable, but it needs to be accounted for.

[And just to be absolutely clear: I'm not suggesting APUG be opened up to hybrid questions, I'm not suggesting the OP go to DPUG, I'm not making any suggestions that one process is "better" or more "real" than another, I'm not criticising or denigrating any of the advice or discussion so far in the thread, I'm simply offering some personal opinions and a suggestion that things are complicated and not amenable to simple answers ]