Test: Tmax400 @ 800,1600 and 3200 in Rodinal Std.

[jsimoespedro]

Hi all,

Here goes an example of what you can get from Tmax400 when shot at EI800, 1600 and 3200.

The shots were metered off the center car.

Developed in Rodinal 1+100 for 60 minutes with agitation at 20 and 40 minutes.

In the top row, only levels were adjusted to obtain same black and white points are approximately the same mid-tone.

On bottom row, processed to taste.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/90448738@N05/11935855125/in/photostream/

400, 800 are very close. 3200 shot returns very poor shadows. EI1600 is probably the maximum to get from TMax400 using Rodinal and Std development.

I also have over exposed shots (50-200) will post when I can.

 

[pentaxuser]

I was pleasantly surprised by TMax 400 at 800. Yes it was a dull overcast day so shadows weren't really a problem but frankly I couldn't see any loss at 800 and it is interesting that Kodak suggests the same dev time. It is almost as if TMax 400 is really a 800 film

While there is some loss of shadow detail at 3200 I'd say that in the right nightime shot where you'd expect shadows to be almost detail-less, 3200 is perfectly possible.

TMax 400 is a jewel in the crown of Kodak's range and if Alaris has any sense it will ensure that it continues to be made.

pentaxuser

 

[ic-racer]

The outdoor part of the image looks fine but the indoor part is under exposed. I don't think that is a very good test. You can rate your film however you want, but your negative exposure is determined by how you meter.

The logic of your test is like this example from another forum: "When I shoot a building in the sun I rate Tri-X at 25,600! I point my spot meter in the window of the building. I find an object in there and I set that on Zone V. For example I might get an exposure of 1/500th at f16 and pictures always come out fine, so I have been using Tri-X at 25,600 all the time now."

 

[RattyMouse]

I was pleasantly surprised by TMax 400 at 800. Yes it was a dull overcast day so shadows weren't really a problem but frankly I couldn't see any loss at 800 and it is interesting that Kodak suggests the same dev time. It is almost as if TMax 400 is really a 800 film

While there is some loss of shadow detail at 3200 I'd say that in the right nightime shot where you'd expect shadows to be almost detail-less, 3200 is perfectly possible.

TMax 400 is a jewel in the crown of Kodak's range and if Alaris has any sense it will ensure that it continues to be made.

pentaxuser

Strange, but from what I read here (at APUG), Tri-X 400 seems to be held in higher esteem than TMax. I never understood that because I thought TMax was supposed to be the higher performing film.

 

[markbarendt]

Strange, but from what I read here (at APUG), Tri-X 400 seems to be held in higher esteem than TMax. I never understood that because I thought TMax was supposed to be the higher performing film.

One must ask "for what task?" before performance can be judged.

If I'm hungry for asparagus, broccoli isn't going to be my first choice, and vice-versa.

 

[Xmas]

Strange, but from what I read here (at APUG), Tri-X 400 seems to be held in higher esteem than TMax. I never understood that because I thought TMax was supposed to be the higher performing film.

Best to down load the datasheet from the Kodak site for both films and read them.
Films are like paint brushes, pig bristle or long camel hair, both have their uses, some people will swear by one or other, colt 45's at 50 paces in fast draw holsters, or a pair of Samurai swords each...

E.g. you need to understand that the (mono) ISO standard is a formal shadow detail above fog and base density, but there is then a factor of 1.25 of a stop for safety added, assuming a simple light meter and exposure calculator, it used to be 2.5 of a stop when people used exposure tables and calculators.

So if you meter really carefully and use the calculator properly you can shot either film at 800 ISO and still print easily on grade 2, you make a mistake the shadow detail is not there, chose your own safety factor for static shots, or bracket for security, to avoid burning and dodging to salvage a print etc.

 

[jsimoespedro]

Comparing the 400 and 800 exposures, my conclusion is that by using the compensating development, shadows end having approximately the same density and highlights are slightly better tamed on the EI800 frame. On a high dynamic range scene it is preferable to underexpose by one stop (or there abouts) and then use a compensating developer to bring back the shadows.

 

[jsimoespedro]

I now post the other part of the test roll, from EI50 to EI400.

Again, recall exposure was metered the center car.

EI50 is pretty much useless for my scanner, despite the negative looking much better.

There is even quite a difference between EI200 and EI400 shots. Compensating development does not work when overexposing.

 

[pentaxuser]

. On a high dynamic range scene it is preferable to underexpose by one stop (or there abouts) and then use a compensating developer to bring back the shadows.

Interesting and the opposite of what I understand the logic of expose for shadows and develop for highlights suggests which is in contrasty light situations ( I may have misunderstood what high dynamic range means but I assume HDR is contrasty light situations) means that you overexpose for shadows to give detail there and under-develop to tame what would otherwise be blown highlights.

Of course I may have misunderstood what you meant in your above quote

pentaxuser

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Did you develop all frames for the same amount of time?

If 'yes' you should consider changing the developing time for the frames that received a lot of exposure.

I now post the other part of the test roll, from EI50 to EI400.

Again, recall exposure was metered the center car.

EI50 is pretty much useless for my scanner, despite the negative looking much better.

There is even quite a difference between EI200 and EI400 shots. Compensating development does not work when overexposing.

 

[mnemosyne]

When you look at the shadow area beneath the car to the front on the right, in the first set the EI 400 shot has less detail in that area than at EI800 shot. Strange. In the second set, the shadows in this area get brighter and brighter from EI50 to EI400, which is the brightest in this area, although it should really just be the other way round. Even stranger. This somehow doesn't make sense. You mixed up the shots or something is flawed in your test set up or workflow. Or maybe I don't understand the magic of stand development

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think the problem here might also be that a scanner is used, and there is no reference, like a step wedge.

 

[StoneNYC]

The outdoor part of the image looks fine but the indoor part is under exposed. I don't think that is a very good test. You can rate your film however you want, but your negative exposure is determined by how you meter.

The logic of your test is like this example from another forum: "When I shoot a building in the sun I rate Tri-X at 25,600! I point my spot meter in the window of the building. I find an object in there and I set that on Zone V. For example I might get an exposure of 1/500th at f16 and pictures always come out fine, so I have been using Tri-X at 25,600 all the time now."

I think your little confused, you essentially just said that you shoot it basically with the sunny 16 rule which isn't at all 25,600... (To make this easy let's say it's 1/400 at f/16)

So your basically shooting at box speed... (400) You're just metering a different area of the scene than what is traditionally done.

So it's not that Tmax can be shot at 25,600 and developed normally, it's that your metering is ... Different... But you should realize you're essentially shooting it at box speed...

 

[StoneNYC]

OP, would you be willing to lay out all of the negatives on a lightbox and take a picture of that image so that we can all see the difference in the density of the negatives before you made your adjustments? Or make a contact print of them all together?

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Someone should finally do an actual test of Rodinal stand and plot the results with a given film to see what it is actually doing. Suppose it offers no sensitometric advantage compared with other straight forward procedures, or worse, maybe you get less speed relative to contrast?

That would be great...

When you look at the shadow area beneath the car to the front on the right, in the first set the EI 400 shot has less detail in that area than at EI800 shot. Strange. In the second set, the shadows in this area get brighter and brighter from EI50 to EI400, which is the brightest in this area, although it should really just be the other way round. Even stranger. This somehow doesn't make sense. You mixed up the shots or something is flawed in your test set up or workflow. Or maybe I don't understand the magic of stand development

Yeah, I noticed some... discrepancies, too. A mix up or maybe the light changed...?

 

[markbarendt]

I think the problem here might also be that a scanner is used, and there is no reference, like a step wedge.

Yeah that.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have replied earlier to the OP's statement on his process for HDR scenes which I assume to be the contrasty scenes where you overexpose for shadows and compensate with dev time for highlights. It seems that the OP's process is the reverse if I have understood it which is strange.

However I also note the OP has another thread where he/she is trying to get answers on what is meant by exposing for shadows and developing for highlights where I think the thinking there may be confused.

I wonder if he/she may be experiencing confusion in this whole field.

pentaxuser

 

[jsimoespedro]

OP, would you be willing to lay out all of the negatives on a lightbox and take a picture of that image so that we can all see the difference in the density of the negatives before you made your adjustments? Or make a contact print of them all together?

I will post the original scans when I have the time.

 

[StoneNYC]

I will post the original scans when I have the time.

That doesn't help... Your scanner may automatically adjust things...

Why can't you post just a snapshot with your cell phone of the negs on a lightbox? That will show us how they differ before interpretation.

 

[jsimoespedro]

Here I post the link to the original scan:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/90448738@N05/11967421625/sizes/o/in/photostream/

The three strips were scanned simultaneously.
I later rescanned the strips using an iPad to backlit the negatives. Because I am not absolutely sure whether the light intensity was identical in all scans, I am not posting these.

The exposure at each frame is:

4: EI50 1/60 2.8
5: EI100 1/125 2.8
6: EI200 1/250 2.8
7: EI400 1/500 2.8
8: EI400 1/125 5.6
9: EI800 1/250 5.6
10: EI1600 1/500 5.6
11: EI1600 1/125 11
12: EI3200 1/250 11

Yes, I was slightly dumb that day and only realized I add duplicated some exposure latter.

I is also possible to note that exposure which are supposed to be equivalent are not perfectly identical. This probably has to do with calibration of shutter speeds. Frame 11 looks slightly thinner than 10. The same goes for frame 7 and 8.

Feel free to manipulate the file as you wish, and post your own results.

I have a 16 bits uncompressed file on request.

Have fun.

 

[StoneNYC]

Here I post the link to the original scan:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/90448738@N05/11967421625/sizes/o/in/photostream/

The three strips were scanned simultaneously.
I later rescanned the strips using an iPad to backlit the negatives. Because I am not absolutely sure whether the light intensity was identical in all scans, I am not posting these.

The exposure at each frame is:

4: EI50 1/60 2.8
5: EI100 1/125 2.8
6: EI200 1/250 2.8
7: EI400 1/500 2.8
8: EI400 1/125 5.6
9: EI800 1/250 5.6
10: EI1600 1/500 5.6
11: EI1600 1/125 11
12: EI3200 1/250 11

Yes, I was slightly dumb that day and only realized I add duplicated some exposure latter.

I is also possible to note that exposure which are supposed to be equivalent are not perfectly identical. This probably has to do with calibration of shutter speeds. Frame 11 looks slightly thinner than 10. The same goes for frame 7 and 8.

Feel free to manipulate the file as you wish, and post your own results.

I have a 16 bits uncompressed file on request.

Have fun.

What I see (and there are plenty who know a lot more) is that you highly over exposed most of them, and that (probably) #10 was close to the"proper" exposure and the rest before were over exposed, the change in aperture would also explain some of the issues others noticed with shadow detail being good in some and not in others that SHOULD have better shadow.

If you do this again you should keep the same aperture and only change the shutter speed. This might sound strange, but it's the difference between the AMOUNT of light entering the camera, vs RB duration to which the light hits the film. If you alter the speed, you get an overall adjustment to exposure, if you adjust the amount of light coming in, you change the way the light hits the film, the out of focus areas become more in focus, and the light is now hitting the film differently. It may be slight, but it's different.

But I wouldn't bother with a re-test, what this tells me is that it acts like any other film, if you over expose or under expose, you have to severely compensate in the printing/scanning end.

What do other more knowledgeable think?

 

[jsimoespedro]

Next time I will shoot a less contrasty scene, and record light readings in the highlights and shadows