Pushing TMAX 400 to 1600 and above

[Newt_on_Swings]

I's not sure what compelled me to do it, but I just bought 2 bricks of expired Tmax 400 this morning on fleabay. It came out to be the about the same cost as legacy pro 400 (neopan).

I've read a lot about the pros and cons of Tmax in the past, but I couldn't find any literature regarding heavy pushing of it to 1600, 3200, or 6400.

I have pushed Trix, Neopan, and HP5+, in the past with good to ok results.

I have access to Xtol, and D76, and would rather not dump any more money into new developers until I use up what I have.

Does anyone have times and dilutions? or a link to some example images or outcomes? Thanks

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Tmax Developer was designed to push Tmax 400, and it works well.

This is Tmax 400 at EI 1600 in Tmax 1+4, 7.25 minutes, 75 degrees (24c)

 

[ic-racer]

I regularly test all the expired film I use. In every case the fog decreases the film speed. For example I just tested some old (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and it lost over one stop. So, depending on how old or fogged the film is, I'd give more exposure, not less.

 

[bwrules]

I tried pushing to 1600, and never liked empty shadows and over the top contrast at that speed. I now never go over 800, and most fast films push well to this speed, AND I seem to get plenty enough of light in most situations for 1/15 at 800. Favorite was Neopan 1600 at 800. Oh well. Xtol is a better pushing developer than D-76, and Microphen is even better.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I tried pushing to 1600, and never liked empty shadows and over the top contrast at that speed. I now never go over 800, and most fast films push well to this speed, AND I seem to get plenty enough of light in most situations for 1/15 at 800. Favorite was Neopan 1600 at 800. Oh well. Xtol is a better pushing developer than D-76, and Microphen is even better.

Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 both look better at 1600, tonally, than 400 speed films pushed to 1600, in my opinion. Have you tried them?

 

[bwrules]

Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 both look better at 1600, tonally, than 400 speed films pushed to 1600, in my opinion. Have you tried them?

Yes, and I found that Delta 3200 looks great at 800 (careful with developing times, the published times are a stop too short). Its real speed is about 1000.

I can't justify the cost and it has too much fog off-the-shelf. So it's TMY-2 at 800 for me.

 

[2F/2F]

If pushing is what you need to do, you'll get the best results from fresh film. I would use this at a lower than normal EI, and for things that you don't need to push. I'd start with EI 200 and see what you get, then make changes if needed.

 

[tkamiya]

A while back, I pushed Tmax 400 and Tri-X (400) to 1600 and processed it with XTOL using published figures. I also exposed Delta-3200 at EI 1600 and processed it as if exposed at EI 2400.

These were all shot at the same place within 20 minutes of each other.

Out of all these, I liked the result from Tmax 400 the best. Nice contrast and not too much so. Not a lot of shadow details but I didn't expect it anyway. Grain was actually very acceptable - actually less than Delta-3200.

Try it and see... you might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Thanks,

I'll have to do some testing when it gets here. I'll shoot it at 200 and 400, and go from there up. I just bought the 20 for the hell of it, I probably wont buy any more of this TMZ stuff as I got lots of cine stock. Just that I'm kinda sick of shooting at iso 200 (the last 20+ rolls, not including the films I use at work), which is the speed I rate my 250 speed cine stock at.

 

[Roger Cole]

I know it's not what you asked but my all time favorite BW for 1600 is plain old Tri-X in Diafine. I often use it as an all around film when I may have a few shots on the roll that need the speed. Of course you have a deal on other cheap film and don't want to buy other developers which I totally understand but in case you want to try it some day there it is. Diafine lasts almost forever so the per roll price is very cheap.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I know it's not what you asked but my all time favorite BW for 1600 is plain old Tri-X in Diafine. I often use it as an all around film when I may have a few shots on the roll that need the speed. Of course you have a deal on other cheap film and don't want to buy other developers which I totally understand but in case you want to try it some day there it is. Diafine lasts almost forever so the per roll price is very cheap.

I was actually contemplating mixing my own on the cheap, and even going pyro. but the cine stock I have doesnt push well at all, so I kinda dropped the whole idea. But I've heard good things about Diafine.

 

[Roger Cole]

Freestyle only has it in gallons now, for about ten bucks. I did see the quart size but for more than the gallon cost at Freestyle. They say it doesn't wear out but I used to see it degrade some after about 70 rolls - in a quart. Just pour back in the bottle and keep using it as long as you avoid getting any B solution into the A. The other way round hurts nothing and happens in the normal use since you don't rinse between A and B. Cheap enough to try and even cheaper to keep using I'd you like it.

Oh, when I tried TMY and TMX in Diafine I didn't care for it. Not nearly the speed boost of conventional films and didn't really like the look either. TMY is my favorite film in 4x5 but I prefer T-Max RS for it.

 

[Tim Gray]

A while back, I pushed Tmax 400 and Tri-X (400) to 1600 and processed it with XTOL using published figures. I also exposed Delta-3200 at EI 1600 and processed it as if exposed at EI 2400.

I did the same thing at some point, but used TMZ instead of Delta 3200. I found similar results. The TMY and Tri-X had VERY similar speeds and results. TMY was obviously finer grained. I also found that both of them had less grain than TMZ at any given exposure. But I expected that last bit.

Unlike you, I found TMZ to have much better tonality at EI 1600 and above than the other two. The grain was a bit more than Tri-X, but nothing too bad. I've also never had a problem with TMZ having fog when buying in date stuff. TMZ is great stuff - I'm always kind of surprised when I see people push Delta 3200 so hard over TMZ.

Actually I shot a roll of Delta 3200 during this test too but never developed it. Oops.

 

[Roger Cole]

I did the same thing at some point, but used TMZ instead of Delta 3200. I found similar results. The TMY and Tri-X had VERY similar speeds and results. TMY was obviously finer grained. I also found that both of them had less grain than TMZ at any given exposure. But I expected that last bit.

Unlike you, I found TMZ to have much better tonality at EI 1600 and above than the other two. The grain was a bit more than Tri-X, but nothing too bad. I've also never had a problem with TMZ having fog when buying in date stuff. TMZ is great stuff - I'm always kind of surprised when I see people push Delta 3200 so hard over TMZ.

Actually I shot a roll of Delta 3200 during this test too but never developed it. Oops.

The one thing Delta 3200 has over TMZ is availability in 120.

If Kodak made TMZ in 120 I'd buy a fair amount of it.

 

[Tim Gray]

True.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

If the film is not too old and has been kept cool, you might get by. Like others said test one or two rolls and see what happens.

Jeff

 

[bwcolor]

TMY-2/EI1600 in TMax Developer

Just tried TMax Developer with TMY-2 in a Jobo 1+4, 7 minutes at EI 1600. I have Chris to thank for the starting time (reduced to compensate for agitation). I was concerned that grain would become objectionable, but grain was well under control and the images displayed surprisingly high acutance and dynamic range. I would post a link, but this is my first post here and I'm not allowed linked images.