Whenever I shoot T-max 100 at 100 and process for the recommended time at the recommended temperature, the negative comes out flat, low contrast, and under-developed looking.
...
Finding what ISO works best for you and your developer + way of processing is basic B&W photography.
Do any of you shoot this film as if it was a lower ISO? Am I just going nuts?
The Zone System was invented to solve exactly this problem (and more). The actual ISO speed of the film is posted on the box. But that's only valid for the ISO test suite. That is, exposure under their conditions, developed using their developer and process, all that.
I've covered this topic in great detail else where, so I'll just point out that the idea that ISO speed doesn't refer to real world conditions is simply a myth. .
Ok, well I've been shooting through a box of t-max 100 and I have almost finished. A few sheets in, I started to notice a trend, but thought nothing of it. Almost all the way through the box though, I can say it is consistent. Whenever I shoot T-max 100 at 100 and process for the recommended time at the recommended temperature, the negative comes out flat, low contrast, and under-developed looking. I have tried developing this film in D-76, HC-110, and T-max developer, all with the same result.
Do any of you shoot this film as if it was a lower ISO? Am I just going nuts?
I've covered this topic in great detail else where, so I'll just point out that the idea that ISO speed doesn't refer to real world conditions is simply a myth. Also, Zone System testing has a flaw or at the very least a different set of conditions in determining film speed. So, you can either consider that it's impossible to compare ZS speed to ISO speed or that ZS produces inaccurate results. Add to that the question of the validity of a fixed density method of speed determination and how a fixed density method was never the intent of those who created B&W film speed determination. Their position, in effect, is that film has only one film speed for a given film/developer combination over a rather wide range of processing (approximately -1 to +2).
Actually, there should be a a distinction between film speed and pragmatic method of making an exposure. What most people attribute to film speed is more about personal working methods. Film speed is about scientific methodology. How you use your light meter and other personal working methods have a higher degree of influence to how you expose than the actual film speed. My advice is to start with the ISO speed, then make adjustments based on the results.
Another question, if the ISO speed is simply a measurement based on un-real conditions (hence arbitrary), why is that we only hear people say the box speed is over-stated and NEVER under-stated. If box speed is as artificial as claimed, shouldn't there be almost as many cases in the "real world" where the box speed was too low?QUOTE]
Probably because what many people (of the do-your-own-testing variety) consider to be a useful EI is different than what manufacturers consider to be the film's ISO rating.
Also, because lots of people get addicted to the advice of blindly downrating, which is given out by many a frustrated and lazy instructor to beginning students. Rather than find out for themselves what EI works best for them, they choose to lean on the latitude of negative film instead of learning to meter and expose carefully.
I also disagree that box speed is NEVER understated. I shoot FP4 at 200 based on testing for a zone 2 placement, and Portra 400NC at 500 based on testing to make a grey card exposure match what Kodak says it should be on a densitometer.
It might also be because, when negative films are concerned at least, it is worse to underexpose than overexpose.
Mistakes in metering and exposure are more evident when they result in not recording bits, then when they result is a bit too much density.
Another question, if the ISO speed is simply a measurement based on un-real conditions (hence arbitrary), why is that we only hear people say the box speed is over-stated and NEVER under-stated. If box speed is as artificial as claimed, shouldn't there be almost as many cases in the "real world" where the box speed was too low?QUOTE]
Probably because what many people (of the do-your-own-testing variety) consider to be a useful EI is different than what manufacturers consider to be the film's ISO rating.
Ultimately, they are different testing systems. It's like comparing apples and oranges. There used to be a number of different official speed methods. The US has had a number. Germany's DIN and Russia's GOST are also rather well known. While each produce acceptable results in most cases, you really couldn't do a straight comparison of film speeds.
The thread asks for the actual speed of TMX. That would be the ISO speed. How you use it, and that includes any personal testing, is the exposure index.
People who claim the "box speed" is some how false simply don't have a good understanding of film speed.
Another question, if the ISO speed is simply a measurement based on un-real conditions (hence arbitrary), why is that we only hear people say the box speed is over-stated and NEVER under-stated. If box speed is as artificial as claimed, shouldn't there be almost as many cases in the "real world" where the box speed was too low?
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?