T-Max tonality

[bwrules]

I hear some people don't like the tones they get from the T-Max films. Is it true that they're tonally flatter than the non T-grain films, or they are just flatter when the light is low contrast?

Thanks.

 

[pinhole_dreamer]

I've not had the best results with T-Max. I prefer Ilford...especially the 125 speed has been my favorite so far for my antique cams and the 35mm cams I just pop in 400 and I get some awesome results, even when I forget to meter.

 

[2F/2F]

They are not flatter than most traditionally-grained films. Quite the opposite, in fact. They have a lot of "snap." Anyone complaining that they are flatter has probably shot in flat light and/or run in to the fact that these films are sensitive to under or overdevelopment. But their latitude is so great that this is easily recovered from except in very extreme cases.

 

[tkamiya]

Yes, quite the opposite.... I had problem controlling contrast that even when I wanted gentler flatter image, I ended up with contrasty image. I had to reduce development time 15% to get it to where I wanted - even then it didn't look exactly how I wanted. I guess more experienced folks among us would say something about the "tonal curve" but I'm not that good.... I find traditional film like Plus-X is more to my liking.

You should try a dozen or so and find out for yourself. I've been finding out, asking someone else how they'd like their film is pretty useless.... so many factors influence the result. Plus, it's how I/you like the result, not someone else.

Anyway, try some out and have fun!

 

[bwrules]

What about the fact that some people just plain don't like the T-max tonality at all? They just get "dead" or "clinical" look.

 

[2F/2F]

What about the fact that some people just plain don't like the T-max tonality at all? They just get "dead" or "clinical" look.

The shape of the curve (i.e. the tonal response to different levels of light) is very "good" from an engineering standpoint, but this does not mean that it is universally pleasing to all people, and for all shots.

But a good thing about T-Max is that you can heavily manipulate it with development. It is probably the most versatile and pliable film there is.

As for "clinical," I can see why people say that. Many are used to the look of other films, myself included. You might subjectively say that they have more "character," even though they are less technically "perfect" in a technical sense. You just have to pick subjects that it suits, and/or manipulate it to look less "clinical" with exposure, processing, and printing tricks.

 

[bwrules]

But a good thing about T-Max is that you can heavily manipulate it with development. it is probably the most versatile and pliable film there is.

So a good idea is to overdevelop for low contrast scenes and under for high with this film?

 

[2F/2F]

Yes; that would be a good idea to make printing much easier, especially in the high contrast scenes. The film holds a ton of detail in the high tones without compressing it. But you have to get good at burning and/or masking to get it on the paper. Some shapes just cannot be burned, and have to be masked, which anyone can do eventually, with a good bit learning curve. I would shoot myself if I had to do it for every shot, though. I already have little time to print as it is, so I try to get the negative easy to print in the first place.

 

[bwrules]

What about shadow and midtones?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

There are people online saying all kinds of things about the Tmax films. They're flat, or they're too contrasty, or they look 'digital' (whatever that means). What they really mean is that they don't have the skill to use these films, which are very sensitive to temperature, time, and agitation in developing. In other words, you can't work in the sloppy manner that 99% of photographers do and get good results with these films.

 

[tkamiya]

I guess I am one of those unskilled people. I controlled the developer temperature to +/- 0.5C, used constant agitation schedule, and timed it to the nearest second. I still didn't get exactly what I wanted.

Actually, this thread is the first one I read that says T-max films are flat. Most complaint I've read involves it having excessive contrast. This is my experience as well. I read "look digital" comment too and I attributed it to lack of grain - which I agree.... I thought it looked sort of clinical because of it. I don't like too much grain but I don't like absence of grain either.

I concluded, for many scenes, it isn't to my liking.

Interestingly enough, I did some brief (very brief) comparison test of shooting various film pushed to ISO-1600. I liked the result from Tmax 400 the best. Weird....

 

[jp498]

Yes, Tmax is very sensitive to developing changes and you can get a variety of results from it by changing things and learning to use the film.

Tmax 100 versus 400. Totally different animals, but advice above applies to both. I've got tmy2 (400) figured out real well, but not 100, and I'm not inclined to figure out 100 as 400 has plenty of image detail.

You need a bunch of rolls/sheets to try things out and figure out what to change for various results.

1+1 diluted xtol or d76 is great for general use. If it's too flat, you either didn't have enough agitation or time or your temperature was off. I mostly use xtol now, but had great results with either. The tmax developer is nice too, but more expensive.

Here's xtol for film shot in bad weather providing good snappy contrast, but traditional not-digital looking:

Dead Link Removed

I use tmy2 with PMK for high contrast scenes (bright midday sun, rock concert) at iso 320. It's completely awesome for this and provides better results (IMHO) than shortening development with a regular developer by preserving more shadow.

Here's the tmy2+pmk combination:

Dead Link Removed

 

[Austinite]

I've had a hard time getting it on with TMX in the past but am encouraged with recent experiments using Ilfosol 3. I find it's a bit agitation sensitive, at least with this developer so I do 5 very slow inversions up front and 2 slow inversions every 30 seconds. I'm developing for 5 minutes at 68 (20c) and use a top shelf thermometer along with a water bath to help keep temps constant. BTW this does not seem to be a fine grain developer with Tmax 100 so for those who might like a touch of grain it could be worth looking into.

 

[nworth]

What about the fact that some people just plain don't like the T-max tonality at all? They just get "dead" or "clinical" look.

This comment really gets to the point. Tmax is very linear. For some things, it seems to work wonderfully. For others, it looks dead. I can't explain exactly what the "dead" means, unfortunately, but the picture does not do the job emotionally. Fortunately, good results are more frequent than bad. But some people would rather have the look of TriX or FP4. Those films may not be technically as good as TMax, but they are esthetically more pleasing than some. I'm not sure which camp I'm in, and I'm not sure what works better with TMax and what works better with TriX. It would be nice to know, so I could choose the "right" film for a job, but I don't.

 

[2F/2F]

I've had a hard time getting it on with TMX in the past...

You know, they make a pill for that...

 

[Jeff Kubach]

You know, they make a pill for that...

You can get that at Wal-Mart for 90 days!

Jeff