Tmax 100 and 400 comparison

[tkamiya]

I see this trend and I would like to know if I'm seeing things or if this is a common experience.

Tmax 100 and 400 in bright mid day environment. Metered similarly but taking ISO difference into consideration (meaning Tmax100 is exposed 2 stops higher than 400) and developed in XTOL using the same time compensation (I use -10% time), Tmax400 appears to have contrast little higher than 100. To put it quantitatively, it is equivalent of ONE filter grade worth higher.

I am wondering if Tmax400 is designed to have little higher contrast to counteract naturally lower contrast in lower light conditions? Does it make; therefore, unsuitable for use in bright daylight condition without more reduction in development time?

Thanks as always for responses!

 

[L Gebhardt]

Yes, I found the published times for TMY2 to give too much contrast.

This is why relying on published development times is a bad idea, other than as a starting point. To do a true comparison you should decrease the development time on the 400 to get the same contrast as the 100 (or vice versa).

 

[fschifano]

I don't know. If I expose either film right and give normal development, that is right on the money as per Kodak's recommendation, both TMax 100 and TMax 400 print well for me on the same grade equivalent paper. I'll refer you to these two Kodak publications for the contrast index curves. Check them out. They should answer all your questions.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4043/f4043.pdf

 

[tkamiya]

Yes, thank you.

I am aware of those publications and I read them forward and backward many times over. My personal experience is that using Tmax400 exposed at EI 400 using my equipment, and developed per Kodak's literature using very precise temperature control almost always results in way too high contrast. The only exception is when I shoot in areas that does not have direct sunlight. I also noticed, using -15% timing almost takes care of too high contrast issue when shot in direct sunlight.

My concern was, since this is a high speed film, if this was a designed in feature. It makes sense if it were.... low light - naturally smaller range in highlight to shadow - compensate in film design.

I'm still experimenting after 10+ rolls.

 

[Carter john]

Somehow, I've had, I think, a similar experience. I haven't tested so this is just my way of doing it. I shoot Tmax 400-2 at 250 except when I'm shooting in noon sun then I use 400. I know it sounds stupid but that is my Mexico formula, I do develop for the 250 but get good results in direct heavy sun. I'm a complete amateur so maybe this isn't what you are talking about.

 

[Anon Ymous]

tkamiya, Kodak suggests development times that will give a CI = 0,56 for both films, so both should have the same contrast. Depending on taste, conditions and equipment (condenser/diffusion enlarger) this may or may not be ideal. I assume that it's the contrast that you get when following the ISO standard for film speed. If you want to get lower contrast for specific scenes you can always adjust development time, but keep in mind that EI should also be adjusted (reduced). When reducing development time to get lower contrast, the minimal exposure needed to get the characteristic curve 0,1 above film base + fog is increased, so that's why you need to shoot at a lower EI. On the other hand, low contrast scenes (cloudy days, indirect - diffuse light) will benefit from a higher contrast negative to look good, so following the manufacturer's data will give fine results. This seems to be true from my own experience (I have a condenser enlarger btw).

Finally, if you want to find development times that will give you a specific CI with a specific developer, have a look at the contrast index curves at the datasheets. See page 10 in F4043. Keep in mind though that 20% reduced CI (0,56 -> 0,45) will require +1 stop exposure.

 

[MikeSeb]

I'm still experimenting after 10+ rolls.

Aside from the interesting intellectual question you raise, at the end of the day it probably doesn't matter much. You're doing exactly what everyone should do to get optimum results from 400TMY with his/her own "system" of metering-->exposure-->processing-->printing.

It's been my experience, also, that I can shoot at box speed with D-76 or Xtol (either one 1+1) but that I routinely have to start with -15% development time. I do my film in a Jobo at 75ºF with its continuous agitation, so that's part of the equation. I often have to reduce it even further, though. I am **OMG** scanning my film, though, so I require a "thinner" negative. I need to preserve highlight detail; I can adjust midtone contrast in the dreaded Photoshop/LR.

 

[Mike1234]

I know it sounds stupid but that is my Mexico formula...

Perhaps Mexican water mixes for lower contrast because it's lower to the south. I wonder if Canadian water mixes for higher contrast because it's higher to the north. I'm in south Texas so perhaps my images will have only slightly less contrast... perfect for scanning.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

If you develop to the same contrast, the density ranges will be the same. If you see a difference between the two films, then you simply aren't achieving it. Kodak's development times are to specific contrast indexes, so there's no secret tweaking of the numbers. The information is there. Remember time and temperature aren't the only variables in processing. Agitation plays a big roll, and different films can have different responses to the same type of agitation. You just need to do some testing to confirm were each film is at.

Because of the longer toe and greater midtone and highlight up sweep of TMY's curve, it is prone to be more sensitive to development differences and to slight differences in exposure which will produce larger differences in the resulting negative density range.

 

[df cardwell]

If you give the necessary development to achieve the same contrast, say CI .56, with TMX and TMY2 the films will differ greatly in their SCALE.

TMY2 makes a linear negative which will record a 14+ stop range. It has a short toe, as Stephen mentions, and the shoulder does not occur until D 2.4 . Sometimes a straight line film is good for a scene, sometimes not.

TMX has a very short toe, as well, but has a fairly strong shoulder that begins at D 1.05 (Zone VII) and increases gradually until D 1.5, and it extends for many stops after that. Sometimes a film with a strong shoulder is good... sometimes not.

In other words, TMY2 will preserve tonal separation between highlights over a tremendous range, at NORMAL contrast. You get a similar rendition from FP4.

TMX, however, gradually compresses low highlights and strongly compresses bright highlights---very similar to Neopan 400.

The difference between the two films is NOT contrast, it is range. Like the difference between a piano and a violin.

.

 

[sanking]

I am going to preface my comments with the observation that when people describe the characteristics of film/developer combinations their findings are not necessarily universal, or for that matter, even the most typical.

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.

The fact that my observations may or may not agree with those of others should not come as any great surprise. If you look carefully at the curve families (Kodak Data) produced by different developers with these two films you will observe rather significant differences that are developer specific, for example a flaring shoulder with one developer, a compressed shoulder with another.

So even when experienced photographers report their results please understand that others may experience results quite different.

Sandy King

 

[Stephen Benskin]

The difference between the two films is NOT contrast, it is range.

Yes, but the OP is saying that he has to print on different grades for what I am assuming are similar subject matter. That sounds like a contrast problem resulting from different CIs. Rise/Run = slope. If the Runs are the same and there are different resulting Rises, the cause must be the Slope.

When people ask me if one black and white film is contrastier than another, I used to say "Contrast is contrast. If you develop both to the same contrast, they are the same." I think many get the idea of different B&W films having inherently different contrasts because some films develop faster or slower in certain developers. That's why time shouldn't be the controlling factor in development determination.

The OP should test in order to determine the cause.

 

[Hikingman]

Never having used this film before, I've been searching for examples and looking forward to evaluating both in MF and 35mm.

 

[df cardwell]

Sandy: The OP talked about Kodak's development time with XTOL, so I shared my experience with XTOL. Both TMX and TMY2, as you say, can produce different response curves WITH DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS.

Stephen: I can't account for the OP's experience, but I've had some experience with students who have mistaken contrast problems with overscaled images. Since I'm familiar with the films and the developer, and I can only assume the OP is following a procedure akin to Kodak's, both Rise and Run will be correct.

Even if there is deviation from optimal processing time and agitation, XTOL gives such a characteristic and consistent curve with TMX and TMY2, it seems the most likely that the Slope is normal.

For example, if one places a highlight at Zone VIII on TMX, it will likely fall on Zone VII. TMY2, VIII exposure falls on Zone VIII.
If the TMX were overexposed one stop (and printing compensated for the overexposure) VIII would fall on Zone VI ! Overexposure to the very strong section of the TMX shoulder compresses the highlights severely, and causes the lower Slope.

In TMY2, however, will not shoulder Zone VIII placement until it is overexposed by 7 1/3 stops !

Of course it is easy to be totally wrong without seeing the actual process.

d

 

[ic-racer]

Someone mentioned the range. Anyone checked the shoulder on the new t-max film? I did a full scale way back when t-max first came out. Because of non-linearities in my testing methods at the time, I was probably about +/- one-stop by the time I got to the end of the curve. To test again (without having to buy additional items) I was thinking of sandwiching a ND3 over half of a 21 step wedge (without numbers). That should make a wedge with 42 boxes big enough to measure with a 3mm orifice ( and very little overlap of the two scales). Then blast that with an EG&G sensitometer at 10-2 without "10-2 compensating" filter.

Of course if someone else has done this and can post the whole curve, it would satisfy my curiosity.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

I compensate 10% lower for 100, more than that for the 400. My times are 8.75 min for 100 speed and
10 min for the 400 speed, both D76 1:1 @ 68 30 sec agitation initial, 5 sec every 30.

All the shutters meters ,thermometers, are well calibrated.

I don`t believe Kodak Kodak actually tests all the times. They find one and work off a compensetion chart for the balance.

My negs scan perfectly on my KM 5400 mark 1 and print on #2 paper on a condenser enlarger. These are the best scanning silver black & white negs I have found.

 

[tkamiya]

In other words, TMY2 will preserve tonal separation between highlights over a tremendous range, at NORMAL contrast. You get a similar rendition from FP4.

This, actually, have not been my experience. Using TMY2 I tend to easily have blocked highlight. I have been equating this as over-development, but perhaps the problem is with my exposure. It rather frustrating that it's so easy to lose detail both in shadow and highlight. I'm sure the problem is with me and my processing, not the film. I just wish I knew where the problems are, so I can make changes and get what I want...

 

[MattKing]

This, actually, have not been my experience. Using TMY2 I tend to easily have blocked highlight. I have been equating this as over-development, but perhaps the problem is with my exposure. It rather frustrating that it's so easy to lose detail both in shadow and highlight. I'm sure the problem is with me and my processing, not the film. I just wish I knew where the problems are, so I can make changes and get what I want...

I'd suggest varying your agitation routine, if you are having problems with highlights.

Matt

 

[2F/2F]

If you give the necessary development to achieve the same contrast, say CI .56, with TMX and TMY2 the films will differ greatly in their SCALE.

TMY2 makes a linear negative which will record a 14+ stop range. It has a short toe, as Stephen mentions, and the shoulder does not occur until D 2.4 . Sometimes a straight line film is good for a scene, sometimes not.

TMX has a very short toe, as well, but has a fairly strong shoulder that begins at D 1.05 (Zone VII) and increases gradually until D 1.5, and it extends for many stops after that. Sometimes a film with a strong shoulder is good... sometimes not.

In other words, TMY2 will preserve tonal separation between highlights over a tremendous range, at NORMAL contrast. You get a similar rendition from FP4.

TMX, however, gradually compresses low highlights and strongly compresses bright highlights---very similar to Neopan 400.

The difference between the two films is NOT contrast, it is range. Like the difference between a piano and a violin.

.

Ditto!

 

[df cardwell]

Of course if someone else has done this and can post the whole curve, it would satisfy my curiosity.

The densities I discussed are from multiple samples of TMX and TMY2, tested over the past month.

Using TMY2 I tend to easily have blocked highlight.

HOW are you evaluating your results ? Contact prints, enlargements, scanning, a densitometer ????

For whatever it matters, I've had consistently excellent results from TMX and TMY since I saw them as beta samples long ago. I also prefer Peets to Starbucks, Bourbon to Scotch, and riding a bicycle to having oral surgery.

 

[2F/2F]

...and I prefer either of those to having oral surgery whilst riding a bicycle.

 

[sanking]

Sandy: The OP talked about Kodak's development time with XTOL, so I shared my experience with XTOL. Both TMX and TMY2, as you say, can produce different response curves WITH DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS.

d

I understand that he referenced Xtol, and my tests of Tmax-100 and TMY2 have also included Xtol and several other developers. I got a very short toe, straight line and not much shoulder with both Tmax-100 and TMY2 in Xtol, in contrast to your results, which is why I commented. The only thing I can take from that is that we got different results from testing, even using the same developer.

Sandy

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Stephen: I can't account for the OP's experience, but I've had some experience with students who have mistaken contrast problems with overscaled images. Since I'm familiar with the films and the developer, and I can only assume the OP is following a procedure akin to Kodak's, both Rise and Run will be correct.

Luminance range and film contrast are really the only two options. You're right that either is just an assumption on our part. That's why the OP should test.

Even if there is deviation from optimal processing time and agitation, XTOL gives such a characteristic and consistent curve with TMX and TMY2, it seems the most likely that the Slope is normal.

This is where I'm going to have to disagree. To me, deviating by it's vary nature will produce different gradients. The question is always by how much?

tkamiya, the problem isn't with your exposure. Variations in exposure will not produce as big of a change in NDR as you've indicate.

I've attached a comparison of old TMY and TMY 135. Both are developed to a CI 0.58. Accounting for experimental variances, they can be considered as producing identical negative density ranges for the given log exposure range which is for a 2.2 log subject luminance range and a .40 flare factor. Both give around a 1.06 negative density range.

 

[df cardwell]

Thanks, Sandy. It's good that we share our results, especially when they differ.

don

 

[df cardwell]

Stephen

How are you agitating this ?

Don