Thanks, but I’m still baffled by post 16. LOL
No matter what Kodak says
-
A
- Thread starter Juan Valdenebro
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 (V5) Camera with 4x5 Back
- Started by Barlow
-
Free 3 kits of kodak flexicolor developer, Free in Portland Oregon
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Horseman 6x12 roll film back
- Started by OlliJ
-
For Sale Lot of rvp100, Kodak EPP and rvp50
- Started by peter_guo1
Forum statistics
Some Kodak employees must have had precise goals and reasons for such a new recommendation...
Human/photographic mankind?
Sales?
Human/photographic mankind?
Sales?
Last edited:
Ah. “What does properly exposed mean.”
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/over-expose-over-develop.166234/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/over-expose-over-develop.166234/
Honestly, from the first time I read that recommendation, I've wondered what I've asked here.
I'm truly curious: I don't understand why they didi it.
All I'm sure about is yet I develop for a longer time if I give my film less light than it needs.
I'm truly curious: I don't understand why they didi it.
All I'm sure about is yet I develop for a longer time if I give my film less light than it needs.
Kodak suddenly recommended not extending development for a one-stop push, some years ago.
For everything, or only specific films?
I have the 1988 Kodak Technical Information book and they have said that about TMax since they introduced the films. I wouldn't exactly call 34 years ago "suddenly". The ability to give a one stop push and not need to segregate the normal and pushed films in development was a big selling feature at the time.
Suddenly doesn't mean recently, at least in my very underdeveloped English... 
Oh, sales then...
Oh, sales then...
But they don't recommend it for TMax films only...
Also for Tri-X.
I know some may say Tri-X is TMaxy now, or, those films have a straigther line down into the toe so they handle underexposure better, or, you can do lots of things in the printing stage, but, isn't tone better without underexposure to some of you?
Also for Tri-X.
I know some may say Tri-X is TMaxy now, or, those films have a straigther line down into the toe so they handle underexposure better, or, you can do lots of things in the printing stage, but, isn't tone better without underexposure to some of you?
I know they (Kodak) say some shadow detail is lost because of that underexposure, but what I mean is, extended development helps middle values even if it can't help shadows... And in case of metering sunny scenes, losing a whole stop means losing the possibility of truly open shadows...
Well, thanks, Craig...
Now I understand it more clearly. It started with the introduction of TMax films, and it was done with sales on mind, trying to make look TMax films better than other films. Then they extended it to Tri-X.
perhaps they did some subjective testing, and found that one stop underexposed looked as good or better then one stop underexposed and then Pushed.
rember that Kodak is in a position where they can get 100 people to look at pictures and answer "which looks better, Number A or Number B" without the person answering the question being told what is being evaluated.
rember that Kodak is in a position where they can get 100 people to look at pictures and answer "which looks better, Number A or Number B" without the person answering the question being told what is being evaluated.
I think there's one good case for doing what Kodak decided to recommend:
When we're in the middle of a roll, and all frames have been correctly exposed, so the film requires normal developmet... Then we have a lowish light scene, and we need to do it without tripod, and our lens speed or DOF requirement defines a low speed: then it makes sense to use a one stop faster speed, and just lose a stop in the shadows to get an image without camera shake.
When we're in the middle of a roll, and all frames have been correctly exposed, so the film requires normal developmet... Then we have a lowish light scene, and we need to do it without tripod, and our lens speed or DOF requirement defines a low speed: then it makes sense to use a one stop faster speed, and just lose a stop in the shadows to get an image without camera shake.
Found the tread.
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/best-way-to-get-asa-640-out-of-tri-x.22041/
The post is a response to the OP.
"Now, Kodak says on their website that a one stop increase in Tri-X's speed is best accomplished by processing normally, and falling back on the emulsion's exposure latitude."
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/best-way-to-get-asa-640-out-of-tri-x.22041/
The post is a response to the OP.
"Now, Kodak says on their website that a one stop increase in Tri-X's speed is best accomplished by processing normally, and falling back on the emulsion's exposure latitude."
Hi Stephen, I know that thread long ago.
640 is my most used EI. I use TMY, TX and HP5+ constantly. I develop them a little longer than when I use EI400.
I haven't found Kodak films behave better than HP5+. All three films give better tone when development is extended accordingly.
"Best accomplished" is what seems false to me.
640 is my most used EI. I use TMY, TX and HP5+ constantly. I develop them a little longer than when I use EI400.
I haven't found Kodak films behave better than HP5+. All three films give better tone when development is extended accordingly.
"Best accomplished" is what seems false to me.
I would say for many (not all) modern B&W films, that's a reasonable attitude. Most exposure comparisons I've seen, while there's a noticeable difference between -1 and 0, it's not enough to ruin the shot, unless you're already on the limits of what the film can do.
If you're doing sheet film, then sure-- develop individually and push away.
But if you've got one or two frames on a roll that are underexposed by a stop, develop normally.
If you're doing sheet film, then sure-- develop individually and push away.
But if you've got one or two frames on a roll that are underexposed by a stop, develop normally.
But that doesn't mean exposing correctly wouldn't be better for that one or for those two frames...
The reasonable attitude is exposing correctly if it's possible.
Of course underexposing one stop isn't the end of the world, but that's the inferior option.
The reasonable attitude is exposing correctly if it's possible.
Of course underexposing one stop isn't the end of the world, but that's the inferior option.
Now you got it.
Finally, it seems sales people at Kodak were right: maybe some people among film buyers think TMax and Tri-X are better -if a stop underexposed but normally developed- than HP5+.
I don't. In that regard they're the same to me.
But they have their own strengths (each of them), and that's why those three are best sellers.
But saying TMax100 at EI200 doesn't require more development than at EI100 is... use the word you prefer.
I don't. In that regard they're the same to me.
But they have their own strengths (each of them), and that's why those three are best sellers.
But saying TMax100 at EI200 doesn't require more development than at EI100 is... use the word you prefer.
You're assuming that the films are true to their box speed and that may or may not be true. For example, in my testing for a target contrast of 0.58 HP5+ is about a 500 speed film. What if Tmax 100 is really a 150 speed film? Then exposing at 200 is slightly over 1/3 of a stop underexposed, which is hardly detectable on black and white film.
Tmax 100 is a 64-80 film.
This thread's about honesty.
Kodak could have said "sometimes, if it's impossible for you to expose correctly, you can underexpose one stop, develop normally, and then you'll obviously lose a stop in the shadows, but do it only as an exception, and don't forget our films work better if you extend development when you underexpose".
But they preferred to confuse some unexperienced people.
Ilford people are different IMO: at least they've been until now.
If anyone's opinion is different, no problem.
Kodak could have said "sometimes, if it's impossible for you to expose correctly, you can underexpose one stop, develop normally, and then you'll obviously lose a stop in the shadows, but do it only as an exception, and don't forget our films work better if you extend development when you underexpose".
But they preferred to confuse some unexperienced people.
Ilford people are different IMO: at least they've been until now.
If anyone's opinion is different, no problem.
Have you determined that from your own denistrometry measurements?
Kodak's published characteristic curves suggest that "normal" developing times are already a push over what would usually be considered a normal contrast target. I'd consider the normal published times to be a 2/3 stop push process.
Found this in Kodak's "Kodak Professional T-Max Films" - January 2002 - F-4016
From the publication, "Because of the great latitude, you can underexpose this film by one stop (at EI 800) and still obtain high quality with normal development in most developers. There will be no change in the grain in the final print, but there will be a slight loss of shadow detail and a reduction in printing contrast of about one-half paper grade."
It's basically an opinion, with caveats, in a publication by a marketing department. The facts aren't wrong. Whether or not it's desirable is another topic. In addition, the degree of tolerable underexposure has a lot to do with the subject Luminance range and where the darker values fall. Not every scene has deep shadows that will be lost with underexposure.
It's only slightly misleading like calling TMZ - P3200 with the actual explanation in fine print. Kodak probably should have taken a closer look at the ethics of their marketing department back then.
Maybe something should also be said about the practice of quote mining.
From the publication, "Because of the great latitude, you can underexpose this film by one stop (at EI 800) and still obtain high quality with normal development in most developers. There will be no change in the grain in the final print, but there will be a slight loss of shadow detail and a reduction in printing contrast of about one-half paper grade."
It's basically an opinion, with caveats, in a publication by a marketing department. The facts aren't wrong. Whether or not it's desirable is another topic. In addition, the degree of tolerable underexposure has a lot to do with the subject Luminance range and where the darker values fall. Not every scene has deep shadows that will be lost with underexposure.
It's only slightly misleading like calling TMZ - P3200 with the actual explanation in fine print. Kodak probably should have taken a closer look at the ethics of their marketing department back then.
Maybe something should also be said about the practice of quote mining.
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |