That's one heck of a pull . . .

[John Galt]

read this article last year and wanted to give this a try . . .

http://www.alexluyckx.com/blog/index.php/2015/05/08/the-panatomic-x-trick/

TMax 100 @ 32ASA, Xtol 1+1 8 minutes at 24C

. . . and these are my results, I am very pleased with the look:

 

[ic-racer]

Even though Tmax has great latitude, enlargements of smaller negatives (for example 10x) could have poorer image quality with over-exposure. I don't do contact prints; In my darkroom 1.4x enlargements of 8x10 tolerate over exposure well, whereas Minox and 16mm still suffer quite a bit. So my experience matches that of Nelson.

 

[pentaxuser]

The look is fine John but what does it give in terms of a look that exposure at box speed would not, given the snags with possibly lower shutter speeds and ic-racer's resolution graphs? It is difficult to tell from the light conditions of the scenes but it seems that EI32 will open the shadows well, although there may be scenes in which this is no better or even slightly detrimental to the scene

However nice to see what can be done with Xtol and to know the dev times and dev temp.

pentaxuser

 

[ic-racer]

Actually the graph from Nelson posted above incorporates more than just resolution in the the quality of a print.

The prints were judged by ten observers who expressed their estimation of the quality of each print by means of the terms: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, and Very Poor. The observers were provided with a chart on which to record their judgments. On the chart, the quality terms were shown equally spaced along a scale on which each observer placed a mark for each print. Thus he could rate the print at one of the five quality levels or at any intermediate level. These judgments took into account not only the tone-reproduction characteristics of the print but also the other factors that affect quality, such as graininess, sharpness, depth of field, and camera motion. The judgments of the observers were averaged to obtain the final ratings. The details of this method of judging have been described by Sorem. -- P S & E, Vol. 4, 1960 SAFETY FACTORS IN CAMERA EXPOSURES

 

[faberryman]

read this article last year and wanted to give this a try . . .

http://www.alexluyckx.com/blog/index.php/2015/05/08/the-panatomic-x-trick/

TMax 100 @ 32ASA, Xtol 1+1 8 minutes at 24C

. . . and these are my results, I am very pleased with the look:

Not sure why you consider this pull processing. Normal development in Xtol at 24C is 5 minutes. You have just overexposed and overdeveloped.

 

[John Galt]

faberryman, ic-racer . . .:

These prints do not look over exposed or over developed to me. But I am pretty new to this. Explain to me WHY, ~objectively~, you think these are over exposed and overdeveloped.

I am listening and want to learn.

Did any of you read the article to see what the reason was for doing this? The article recommended 8:45 at 20C, I backed it off to 8:00 because my Xtol happened to be at 24C before I poured it into the tank . . . room temp was about 60 so I figured it would cool to 20C during the 8:00 dev time. It actually cooled to a bit less than 20C in 8 minutes in the tank so I nailed it

When I was younger I used a lot of Panatomic X. I liked it. This experiment was to simulate the look of Panatomic X. I think it succeeded.

 

[John Galt]

The look is fine John but what does it give in terms of a look that exposure at box speed would not, given the snags with possibly lower shutter speeds and ic-racer's resolution graphs? It is difficult to tell from the light conditions of the scenes but it seems that EI32 will open the shadows well, although there may be scenes in which this is no better or even slightly detrimental to the scene

However nice to see what can be done with Xtol and to know the dev times and dev temp.

pentaxuser

Thank you for the kind words pentaxuser. "what does it give in terms of a look that exposure at box speed would not" . . . I was trying to simulate the look of the old Panatomic X.

The conditions were Bright Overcast, tough and a bit flat.

I have shot about 10 rolls of TMAX 100 at box speed developed in D-76 1+1 and Mic X . . . the look is (in my eye) totally different.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply, John. I should have read your link and would have realised what your objective was. Unless you have manipulated the neg scan or is it a print scan then they don't look over developed to me. If the "correct" time is only 5 minutes then I'd expect to see a bigger difference when over developed by 60% but you have covered this in your explanation.

pentaxuser

 

[John Galt]

Thanks for the reply, John. I should have read your link and would have realised what your objective was. Unless you have manipulated the neg scan or is it a print scan then they don't look over developed to me. If the "correct" time is only 5 minutes then I'd expect to see a bigger difference when over developed by 60% but you have covered this in your explanation.

pentaxuser

thanks for the reply pentaxuser (FWIW I have a Pentax MX and K1000 SE I shoot some 35mm with) . . . this is a negative scan pentaxuser, I used an Epson v600 with no edits to the scan.

 

[John Galt]

. . . . and for the rest of you goofs . .

. . . . the title was a quote from the article I linked in the OP. Did you read it? It's pretty short . . .

 

[MattKing]

The link contains an incorrect use of the label "to pull".
To "pull" means to reduce development in order to reduce contract.
It has nothing to do with exposure, although people sometimes choose to increase exposure when they plan to "pull" development.
What I see here is a 1 1/3 stop increase in exposure, and either normal development or a small "push" - depending on what the net effect of the temperature drift was.
The small increase in exposure is probably well within the normal latitude of T-Max 100, given the lighting conditions.
And if the contrast was increased slightly, that would suit the lighting conditions as well.
I expect what you are seeing is the result of exposing generously, which is something that T-Max 100 rewards, unless the conditions are contrasty and the subject has a lot of important highlights where detail is critical.

 

[John Galt]

The link contains an incorrect use of the label "to pull".
To "pull" means to reduce development in order to reduce contract.
It has nothing to do with exposure, although people sometimes choose to increase exposure when they plan to "pull" development.
What I see here is a 1 1/3 stop increase in exposure, and either normal development or a small "push" - depending on what the net effect of the temperature drift was.
The small increase in exposure is probably well within the normal latitude of T-Max 100, given the lighting conditions.
And if the contrast was increased slightly, that would suit the lighting conditions as well.
I expect what you are seeing is the result of exposing generously, which is something that T-Max 100 rewards, unless the conditions are contrasty and the subject has a lot of important highlights where detail is critical.

Thanks MattKing for the explanation on what is actually going on here. I am always learning from the vast experience on this board. My education and background/career is Electrical and Telecommunications Engineering (it's a curse, along with being Scottish/Irish LOL) . . . Analog Photography is a hobby that I try to ~over Engineer~ LOL

the bottom line MattKing . . . I am trying to replicate the look of Kodak's old Panatomic X using Tmax 100 . . . what are your thoughts on that?

 

[MattKing]

the bottom line MattKing . . . I am trying to replicate the look of Kodak's old Panatomic X using Tmax 100 . . . what are your thoughts on that?

I'll let those who work a lot with characteristic curves tell you about the differences/similarities between the films.
But if you are working under conditions where the lighting is of moderate contrast, increasing the exposure by one stop (meter at an EI of 50 rather than 100) seems to give you the sort of results you like.

 

[John Galt]

"Crickets" (faberryman, ic-racer) on my request to tell me WHY these images were overexposed and overdeveloped . . . . jus' sayin'

 

[John Galt]

I'll let those who work a lot with characteristic curves tell you about the differences/similarities between the films.
But if you are working under conditions where the lighting is of moderate contrast, increasing the exposure by one stop (meter at an EI of 50 rather than 100) seems to give you the sort of results you like.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply MattKing

 

[ic-racer]

"Crickets" (faberryman, ic-racer) on my request to tell me WHY these images were overexposed and overdeveloped . . . . jus' sayin'

I don't know about your development. Proper development traditionally matches the negative density range to the printing conditions (paper and enlarger). So, if you found them easy to print, they were probably developed correctly.
In terms of exposure, you indicated the images were overexposed one and 2/3rd stop. That is how the phrase "TMax 100 @ 32ASA" would be interpreted.

I have inadvertently over exposed more than that and obtained acceptable results. The original post seems to indicate the over-exposure was intentional, thus the resulting diatribe.

The results of Nelson, posted above, were from a panel of observers. You are you own observer, and you could easily see if the results would have been any better exposed at iso 50 or 100. T-max 100 may be the best B&W film ever made and may fare better than some of the films tested by Nelson.

BTW, I add a safety factor back to my film but that is to account for variability in shutters, lenses, apertures and meters to avoid dreaded under exposure in the field.

 

[ic-racer]

BTW, this is a great resource for those that want to learn more about film and development. https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles...en_motion_education_sensitometry_workbook.pdf

 

[Bill Burk]

Not sure why you consider this pull processing. Normal development in Xtol at 24C is 5 minutes. You have just overexposed and overdeveloped.

Xtol 1:1 at 8 minutes is fine, you must have checke Xtol stock times

 

[Bill Burk]

@John Galt ,
I live for threads like this.
Ask about pushing or developing in pyro or a myriad of other topics and I will pass.

But talk about how you liked Panatomic-X and found TMAX-100 is as close as you can get.

That’s what I had to do. I still have a couple hundred feet of Panatomic-X so haven’t been forced into the switch yet. But I shoot TMAX-100 and find
It just might do the trick.

You don’t have to shoot it at 32 though. Go to 64 and enjoy that extra stop of speed because you are not getting the resolution of Panatomic-X anyway.

Panatomic-X had a magical property that I have seen and Fred Picker wrote about. It really is 32, even with Zone System tests that rate every other film at 2/3 stop less than box speed.

I have no evidence that TMAX-100 holds its speed in Zone System tests. So I would rate it at 64.

Resolution schmesolution if you aren’t on a tripod and shooting at a speed faster than 1/lens mm handheld- because you only get that resolution when you do everything right.

As for the “don’t overexpose or you’ll ruin quality”. That’s a great graph to absorb. One stop is a small dip past peak. So you haven’t ruined anything. But you could improve it with one stop less overexposure (based on these theories)

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, Bill Burk knows a lot about what he is talking about.

 

[Bill Burk]

BTW, I add a safety factor back to my film but that is to account for variability in shutters, lenses, apertures and meters to avoid dreaded under exposure in the field.

I don’t worry about much. But underexposure scares me to death

 

[MattKing]

This negative is probably a bit under-exposed:

Don't let fear control your life .

 

[ic-racer]

It is a nice print in my opinion. I'm going through a bleach phase right now, so I'd be all over the shadows with bleach. Not so much as the pint needs it, but to push the envelope of what can and can't be done for my own learning.

 

[ic-racer]

Just to throw it out, here is a related observation. This only applies to a print made once one knows how to make a good print that matches the negative to the paper grade.

Under exposed negative: When shadows printed to go to black and highlights printed to go to white the middle is too dark (scooped out by the toe)
Over exposed negative: When shadows printed to go to black and the highlights printed to go to white the middle is too bright (pushed up by the shoulder)

That form of over exposure is extreme (5 or so stops) and gives an odd look to the print. In my experience, this odd tonal scale, is responsible for the drop off in print quality way over to the right on the "Contact Print" line in the graph shown in post #2 above.

FYI: Another way to look at it:
Under exposed negative: When the middle and highlights are printed correctly, the shadows are gray. This looks really bad. This is how novice prints frequently come back from the lab.
Severe over exposed negative: When the middle and shadows are printed correctly, the highlights are gray. This looks really bad also.

 

[ic-racer]

Maybe off topic, but I'll post it anyway. This from my own research. The Y (vertical) axis of the graph is different than that of Nelson in post #2. This graph shows on the Y axis, the probability that the film receives the intended exposure. I takes into account all variables affecting exposure determination, and exposure. It is just another way of defining a safety factor for large format photography. It is based on the premise of Nelson's work that the 'print quality' line is relatively flat in large format photography.