Tmax 100 and 400 comparison

[Stephen Benskin]

It was in an Refrema Olympic 70 gallon tank using a combination of nitrogen burst and a custom designed physical rocker agitation device. But that's not what the example is concerned with.

 

[Chuck_P]

In my own comparison testing of Tmax-100 and TMY2 I have not observed any significant difference between the curve type of the two films. What I have observed is that both have a rather short toe, a long straight line, and very little shouldering. In fact, in most cases I find it difficult to observe any significant difference between a family of Tmax-100 curves compared to a family of TMY2 curves.

My own film testing with TMX/D-76 1:1 pretty much mirrors these comments, although I'm not sure if X-tol is very similar to D-76 in terms of curve, seems I've heard that it is. Short-toed, very linear middle and upper zones. Mine show no shoulder up to a log exposure of 2.7 (Zone X) from +2 to -2 development. I have tested with TMY(old) and found similar results, haven't tested TMY2 yet.

 

[sanking]

My own film testing with TMX/D-76 1:1 pretty much mirrors these comments, although I'm not sure if X-tol is very similar to D-76 in terms of curve, seems I've heard that it is. Short-toed, very linear middle and upper zones. Mine show no shoulder up to a log exposure of 2.7 (Zone X) from +2 to -2 development. I have tested with TMY(old) and found similar results, haven't tested TMY2 yet.

When I tested TMY and TMY2 for the article I published in View Camera the curves of the new and old film were just that, mirror images of each other. I did find the new TMY2 to have somewhat finer grain and higher resolution, but in terms of curve type, and time needed to reach a given CI, the new and old films gave virtually identical results in the three developers I used, D76 1:1, Xtol 1:2 and Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100.


Sandy King

 

[df cardwell]

It was in an Refrema Olympic 70 gallon tank using a combination of nitrogen burst and a custom designed physical rocker agitation device. But that's not what the example is concerned with.

I was wondering why your curves have that little upsweep, while mine is straight at that point; I hand agitate, and barely more than is necessary.

Maybe the agitation we use accounts for the difference. Thanks.

don

 

[Stephen Benskin]

I was wondering why your curves have that little upsweep.

As far as I know, an up sweep is common in long toed films.

 

[df cardwell]

As far as I know, an up sweep is common in long toed films.

One of the interesting things about TMY/XTOL (to me at least) is how the toe and shoulder can be tuned. I see the upsweep with more agitation, and a shoulder with less. It is one of the cool things about the film. My first experience with TMY when it came out, an old timer looked at the results and said, "looks like Royal Pan" and so it did. Classically long toe.

And yet, over time, I came to giving longer development and less agitation, which DOES shorten the toe, and offer a shoulder way, way up the curve.

It would be cool to to log curve shapes and how we made them.

It would ALSO be cool to run film through that Refrema !

d

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

For what it's worth, and I can't quantify this, but I get similar results to Cardwell.

My Tmax 400 is very malleable in the highlights by changing agitation. I use agitation to control the final contrast of the negative, based on what the lighting conditions were. With Tmax 100 I have less ability to 'shape' my results, as it appears the highlights will compress too much in the tonal values and make the negatives hard to print with over-agitation and over-development when I need to increase the contrast of the negatives. Likewise, when I overexpose a scene with extreme contrast, it's hard to keep the densities under control in the mid-tones and highlights by reducing agitation and shorten development time. It can be done, but it's more difficult than with Tmax 400 in my world.
I use replenished Xtol, which I think gives similar results to the 1+2 dilution.

But they are both lovely films, and the Tmax 100 is one I gladly use.

- Thomas

 

[Merg Ross]

When I tested TMY and TMY2 for the article I published in View Camera the curves of the new and old film were just that, mirror images of each other. I did find the new TMY2 to have somewhat finer grain and higher resolution, but in terms of curve type, and time needed to reach a given CI, the new and old films gave virtually identical results in the three developers I used, D76 1:1, Xtol 1:2 and Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100.


Sandy King

Hi Sandy,

I have been testing TMY-2 in various developers, and Pyrocat-HD will be arriving soon for testing. What would be a start time, and more importantly, agitation technique for a small tank?

Appreciate your help.

Merg

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm not Sandy King, but your agitation and time depends on what the lighting conditions and exposure is like.

At the 1:1:100 dilution and Pyrocat, I processed a lot of Tri-X 400 and a number of Tmax 400 rolls at 13 minutes with agitation every three minutes as my standard developing time. Increase or decrease agitation intervals and time based on how much contrast you need to expand or contract. This is at 70*F using tap water and a one minute pre-soak.

- Thomas

 

[Merg Ross]

I'm not Sandy King, but your agitation and time depends on what the lighting conditions and exposure is like.

At the 1:1:100 dilution and Pyrocat, I processed a lot of Tri-X 400 and a number of Tmax 400 rolls at 13 minutes with agitation every three minutes as my standard developing time. Increase or decrease agitation intervals and time based on how much contrast you need to expand or contract. This is at 70*F using tap water and a one minute pre-soak.

- Thomas

Thomas, thanks. I was, of course, looking for ballpark numbers and procedures. This is a big help. I had not considered a pre-soak.

Merg

www.mergross.com

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Yes, I presoak TMY2 for as long as it takes me to mix my developer and end up pouring out a significant amount of dye....

 

[Stephen Benskin]

One of the interesting things about TMY/XTOL (to me at least) is how the toe and shoulder can be tuned. I see the upsweep with more agitation, and a shoulder with less. It is one of the cool things about the film. My first experience with TMY when it came out, an old timer looked at the results and said, "looks like Royal Pan" and so it did. Classically long toe.

And yet, over time, I came to giving longer development and less agitation, which DOES shorten the toe, and offer a shoulder way, way up the curve.

It would be cool to to log curve shapes and how we made them.

It would ALSO be cool to run film through that Refrema !

d

I have to admit, I've not focused on the affects of agitation. It would have been nice to see some curves on that.

To be slightly immodest, that particular Refrema was probably the best b&w commercial processor around. I was fortunate enough to be in the right position when the lab I was working for decided to get a new machine. First and foremost, Refrema built the best machines and their Olympic model was superior to their smaller compact model which most b&w labs used. I worked with Refrema and had them make a number of custom changes. Most weren't anything too radical and most of the ideas came from fine art concepts. In addition to the physical agitation, I had them split the fixer between two tanks and had them cascading and increased the fix time. I also split the final washes and increased the wash time. I had them put a pump on the photoflo tank and a 16 minute tab to the processing time. Refrema's maxed out at 16:45 and that wasn't enough time for pushes with TMZ. And I had them put solid plenums in all the tanks. They originally had surgical tubing in all the tanks with the exception of the development tank and they were always ripping. One of the things that made Refrema such a great company is that they would incorporate customers ideas into future machines. I heard they did that with one or two of mine.

Sadly, the photo lab went out of business and I've heard the Refrema now sits in storage somewhere. It was a 130 thousand dollar machine new, and today you probably couldn't give it away.

Steve

 

[sanking]

Thomas, thanks. I was, of course, looking for ballpark numbers and procedures. This is a big help. I had not considered a pre-soak.

Merg

www.mergross.com

Merg,

Sorry for the delay in replying but just checked back in on this thread. I think Thomas has recommended about what I would suggest for the 1:1:100 dilution at 70F, about 14-16 minutes with minimal agitation (every three minutes). Bump it up to 20 minutes for low contrast scenes, down to 12 or so for high contrast.

These figures should work pretty good for VC silver gelatin printing, or at least get you in the ballpark.


Sandy

 

[Merg Ross]

Merg,

Sorry for the delay in replying but just checked back in on this thread. I think Thomas has recommended about what I would suggest for the 1:1:100 dilution at 70F, about 14-16 minutes with minimal agitation (every three minutes). Bump it up to 20 minutes for low contrast scenes, down to 12 or so for high contrast.

These figures should work pretty good for VC silver gelatin printing, or at least get you in the ballpark.


Sandy

Sandy-

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. I will do as you and Thomas have suggested, and adjust as necessary.

I located the old VC magazine with your article on TMY-2 and learned a bit more about the film.

Thanks again,
Merg

 

[Merg Ross]

As feedback to all who have responded, I relay my initial results.

First, I must admit to neglecting (as forgot) to do a pre-soak. I have done so for years with sheet film, however am unclear as to the advantages of doing so with 120 TMY-2 and Pyrocat-HD. Please comment.

120 TMY-2, rated at 400 ASA and Pyrocat-HD @ 1:1:100 for 15 minutes. Small tank agitation (inversion) for first 30 seconds, and then 15 second inversions every three minutes.

Results. Excellent negatives that printed with a #3.5 filter using an Aristo V54cold light head. I would prefer my target to be negatives that print with a #2.5 filter, and will adjust my process accordingly. For that, I am considering extending the processing time to 20 minutes with the same agitation. Any thoughts?

Thank you for your previous responses.

Merg Ross

www.mergross.com

 

[fschifano]

First, I must admit to neglecting (as forgot) to do a pre-soak. I have done so for years with sheet film, however am unclear as to the advantages of doing so with 120 TMY-2 and Pyrocat-HD.

Apparently, there are no advantages to pre-soaking the film. The main reason for pre-soaking sheet film is to prepare them for tray processing. This way the sheets don't stick together. The secondary reason for doing it is to slow down the onset of development. It takes a bit of time for the water that has soaked into the gelatin to be displaced, and that little extra time can go a long way towards delivering an evenly developed negative. Sticking isn't a problem with tank and reel processing; and, if you're using a quick fill type tank and a good agitation technique, neither is uneven development.