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

[RalphLambrecht]

"Sharpness" is a complicated thing with several objectice/subjective components. Without getting into those weeds at this point, I'll give one example which may or may not be contributing to Boris's observations. TMax 100 is finer grained than Delta 100. Depending on a variety of other variables, Delta's slightly more prominent grain could contribute to the subjective impression of sharpness.

very true.One component,not mentioned yet is the lighting.soft ligting makes for softer looking imagesTmax is plenty sharp. Try somemore side-lit subjectstaking at f/8-11 and take a look again.We are lucky to have a choice of excellent films.My money is on scanning and lighting.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

You sre a quick learner.Sharpness and Resolution are quite different indeed and then there is Edge contrast aka Acutance!Keep up the good work.

 

[Xmas]

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.

The tabular grain films may be better in TMAX or Microphen of any of the similar PQ developers to make printing of shadows easier.
Acutance and grain are like the siren voices something to ignore, however compelling.

 

[MartinP]

Both films are "sharp", most likely any differences are in the things the OP is doing with the film after putting it in a camera. Print an 8x10 with your enlarger at the top of the column, so that the image is magnified as much as possible, and then look at the results. If you can only scan the film, use Ilford XP2 Super and don't worry (then look around for a secondhand enlarger and a room that you can make dark).

 

[BorisGil]

Once again, thanks for the replies. If I rephrased the question and asked instead – can the choice of developer and / or developing technique (time / agitation / dilution of developer) affect the resolution of fine details of Tmax 100, or is this a set property, inherent to the film?

Edit: the question above assumes a shot which is steady and in focus.

 

[David Lyga]

The problem, Boris, with simply 'scanning' is that you lose the ability to evaluate resolution of that original capture, the negative, definitively, or it becomes so much harder.

There is much to say about analog 'follow-through' that you seem to be missing by becoming 'married' to technology. Putting that negative (it's the NEGATIVE, Boris, not the 'scanned aftermath') in an enlarger and racking that enlarger to maximum and then looking at the baseboard image through a magnifying glass is the REAL evaluation here. You are allowing a link in the process to be severed when you introduce scanning into the equation, just like when you send out film to be developed, you introduce errors which might not be able to be definitively, quantitatively evaluated. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

Once again, thanks for the replies. If I rephrased the question and asked instead – can the choice of developer and / or developing technique (time / agitation / dilution of developer) affect the resolution of fine details of Tmax 100, or is this a set property, inherent to the film?

Edit: the question above assumes a shot which is steady and in focus.

The extent that the resolution is determined by the inherent characteristics of the film is the overriding force here. It would be difficult, if not virtually impossible, to mitigate the hard-won resolution characteristics of these amazing films. (Yes, Simon Galley, you may take a bow now.) - David Lyga

 

[pdeeh]

The problem, Boris, with simply 'scanning' is that you lose the ability to evaluate resolution of that original capture, the negative, definitively, or it becomes so much harder.

There is much to say about analog 'follow-through' that you seem to be missing by becoming 'married' to technology. Putting that negative (it's the NEGATIVE, Boris, not the 'scanned aftermath') in an enlarger and racking that enlarger to maximum and then looking at the baseboard image through a magnifying glass is the REAL evaluation here.

I think this misses the point, in a way that underlines exactly what I was trying to get across in my earlier post.

It is perfectly meaningful to consider the negative and the scanned image of that negative as the final points.

The op's questions are perfectly valid ones within the context of his current process.

But if he for whatever reason is unable or unwilling or simply does not care to wet print, then making points about what a print looks like has no bearing on his situation.

And let up not forget that film is itself "technology" - and rather complicated and current technology to boot - so any of us at apug are "married to technology" ...

 

[BorisGil]

Yes, wet printing is not a possibility right now, I'm afraid; it might be in the future.

At the moment, the planned workflow would be capture -> develop -> scan -> post-process digitally -> print from a digital file
So, it's a hybrid one. I admit that I might well be missing out on an important part by not following the developing by wet printing, but, as I said, that's not an option right now. My current aim is improve those parts of the process that I'm the least familiar with, namely developing and scanning (working on the capture part is an ongoing, never-ending process...)

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear BorisGil,

You are most certainly 'missing out' what you are actually missing out on is producing an analog print or perhaps 50% of the process 50% of the creativity and for me 90% of the fun !.

Do not get me wrong, if you cannot you cannot and not everyone can or is able to for a myriad of reasons, I understand that, imaging on film and scanning is OK by me.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[ic-racer]

capture -> develop -> scan -> post-process digitally -> print from a digital file

Why bother? They make cameras that capture to digital. You are only losing information with that complicated work flow.

 

[Athiril]

Add 10mg of potassium iodide per litre of working solution developer. This punches up actual resolution on the film and sharpness, and yes it works on T-Max 100. Works in both solvent and non-solvent developers, like Rodinal and Xtol for example, the addition of potassium thiocyanate to Rodinal gives it the fine grain on top of all that, but on some films greatly speeds up developing time, so you may need to shorten developing time or dilute developer more.


Resolving power of flatbed scanners are terrible btw, you cant use it for a good indication of detail, Nikon, Plustek dedicated scanners etc are much better and reveal more resolving power, I use a Flextight 949 at work for that.

edit: T-Max 100

 

[David Lyga]

Resolving power of flatbed scanners are terrible btw, you cant use it for a good indication of detail, Nikon, Plustek dedicated scanners etc are much better and reveal more resolving power, I use a Flextight 949 at work for that.
http://i.imgur.com/ER1xBvh.[/QUOTE]

This is why I noted the possible problem with the digital 'link', i.e., scanning. If you wish to debate, discover, discern, the resolution on an analog photo, you must look at the source: the negative, and this is NOT necessarily congruent with the digital scan. - David Lyga

 

[DREW WILEY]

TMX is plenty sharp for its rated speed in terms of the ability to hold detail. But in most developers it tends to have less edge acutance than
other medium speed films like Delta 100, FP4, and ACROS. This can either work for you or against you. It's nice in terms of smooth tones in portrait work, but can lead to a less than expected "snappy" look in landscape and architecture. If someone is scanning and post-processing, edges can simply be sharpened a bit later. This introduces a predicament. I have a friend who really wants a darkroom, but with two babies and a new home, simply doesn't have the time to build one yet. So he unloads his roll film in a little film tent into inversion drums, develops them, then scan and views on a screen to try to evaluate his negatives. He gave up on digital cameras once he saw some of my work - I never tried to convert him to film; it just happened. But until you do start wet printing, it really hard to isolate film performance versus intermediate variables. You just have to take things one step at a time until everything looks right. Good luck!

 

[Pat Erson]

I use a Flextight 949 at work for that.

Good for you but these 10K beasts are unaffordable for 99% of us. My cheap V500 gives me full satisfaction for "check" scannings.

 

[Athiril]

This is why I noted the possible problem with the digital 'link', i.e., scanning. If you wish to debate, discover, discern, the resolution on an analog photo, you must look at the source: the negative, and this is NOT necessarily congruent with the digital scan. - David Lyga

Many B&W films developed normally are above flatbeds, but below good scanners (such as the plustek). They're all below the Flextight with a few exceptions, all confirmed by microscope.

 

[David Lyga]

And Athiril, that is why I said 'NOT necessarily congruent with' and not, instead, 'definitively'. There are, indeed, high priced exceptions which would match, or (theoretically) even exceed the inherent resolution of the negative. - David Lyga

 

[Athiril]

The low priced options do too, just not the flatbeds.