tmax 3200 at 1600?

[abudhabiandy]

in this months Black and White mag, page 59, David Illman states he used Tmax 32oo at 1600 and pushed the development for punchier negs. Whats he talking about here? surely one should stick to the manufacturers instructions to get the best possible neg? I currently use FP4 / what would I achieve by uprating or downgrading the ISO? also what effect would increasing or decreasing the dev time achieve? right now I'm using ID11! Thanks Andy

 

[Uhner]

Hi Andy.

I really don’t know where to start. Oftentimes you get several advantages by exposing and developing a film contrary to the manufacturers recommendations. Why this is requires a lengthy explanation. There are several threads on this site that discuss your question. You can look them up using the search function on top of the page, but I think that your best option is to buy some literature on the subject. Les McLean’s Creative Black & White Photography and Ansel Adams’ The Negative are well written and pedagogic and I recommend them both.

 

[edtbjon]

Just to chime in a little to Uhner's good start.
The manufacturers instructions are mostly regarded as "starting points". If you are starting out in black&white photography these recommendations often are very good recommendations and you may stick with those for a long time. But bear in mind that these starting points are compromises, meant to be as "foolproof" as possible. Whenever you feel like exploring e.g. a more accentuated grain you have to step off the "middle of the road" path and now the fun begins. It for sure takes a lot more time and effort, also possibly lots of disappointments, but step by step you may learn how to use your film and developer combination to achive what you are looking for in your negative (in order to get the final print to look like you want).
A simple starter tip for you Andy, is to shoot the full roll of film in the same type of light. I.e. load a fresh roll of film and shoot all the frames during that overcast morning, or e.g. that beautiful late afternoon with the long shadows all over. Now you can adjust the developing time according to what contrast you have shot. If you shot your frames in low contrast, you need to develop some 30% longer to give the negatives a bit more "punch". If your film is shot on a sunny day with harsh shadows, you develop the film some 20% shorter time to tame the high contrast.
Do stick with your FP4 and ID11, it's a very good receipe, which will take you a long way. If you start to experiment with more than dealing with different contrast before you've started to learn ONE film with ONE developer it's very easy to get very confused with it all.
Most people at this forum are very knowledgeable and can help you out with whatever questions arise.

Finally, even though the TMZ film is named TMax 3200 the actual ISO is really about 800-1000. Exposing it at 1600 is to underexpose it, meaning that he sacrifises some shadow detail. The Push developing (that David I. made) you mention is probably meant to produce negatives that are easier to print. I havn't seen the article, nor the pictures, but the pictures could e.g. be taken in some kind of gloomy overcast or even rainy winter afternoon. Given a "straight" development, the negatives would lack contrast, making them harder to print to a desired look.

//Björn

 

[Jim Jones]

Years ago I frequently used TMZ for indoor sports, exposed at 1600 and developed as Kodak recommended for 3200. This gave decent shadow detail and contrast, and acceptable grain. Others preferred other exposure and development, or even other films, in these conditions. Many film makers have long stated that their recommended exposure and development are a starting point, to be adjusted according to the photographer's own taste. The present ISO system of film speeds yields negatives that are often on the verge of underexposure. Decades ago the old ASA system of film speeds suggested twice the exposure of the ISO system. The film and development were the same: the only change was in the "official" speed.

 

[pauliej]

Andy, I dont know where you live, but check your local library for photo books (if you havent already, of course). Hopefully, you will find a lot of interesting and creative ideas and how-to's. I hope your library is not flooded with the "Digital for Dummies" type books now so commonly found. You may be able to check the on-line catalog and browse and even order books from home. Saves a LOT of money to get this info. If you want to buy books you find very helpful, you can still do that too.

I hope this helps you.

Paul

 

[removed account4]

isn't the actual asa for tmz 1600, but it was just called 3200 cause "it sounded cool"
i was always told that film speed on the box is relative, and as always, no matter with what film
your mileage always varies

--john

 

[Lee L]

isn't the actual asa for tmz 1600, but it was just called 3200 cause "it sounded cool"
i was always told that film speed on the box is relative, and as always, no matter with what film
your mileage always varies

--john

The Technical Info sheet for TMZ has always stated a speed of approximately 800. When it first came out, I had our lab manager copy and enlarge that section of the sheet and post it at the drop off window so that we could confirm with official Kodak statements that anything faster was pushing the film.

I'd post a link to the correct info at Kodak, but their site is down at the moment.

The 3200 on the box is either ad copy or wishful thinking if you want to retain shadow detail or normal scene contrast. If you look at the images in the article that show how close the shadows are to the film base density, then look at the contrast and burning in used, you'd be hard pressed to call it anything other than a "push" of the film, which is exactly what the photographer called it.

Lee

 

[PhotoJim]

T-Max P3200 and Delta 3200 are ISO 1000 films that push exceptionally well to 3200. However, they are still ISO 1000 films.

I shoot these films at 1000 or 1600 almost all the time. I see no point to expose them at 3200 unless I really need that extra stop.

 

[fschifano]

When I first began to use this film, I'd rate it at 3200 and develop according to Kodak's directions. It left me a little bit disappointed. Then I tried it, setting the EI for the film at EI 1600 and developed for EI 3200. The results were much better in terms of shadow detail and dynamic range. The true speed for this film is indeed around ISO 800, so rating the film at a higher exposure index than that is technically a push. But the film is also built to a very low contrast, making the push more acceptable since push development will always raise contrast.

In practice, for me at least, this film will almost always do better if over developed 1 stop more than Kodak's recommendation for a given exposure index. As an example, if the film is exposed at 1600, then develop for the EI 3200 time. At EI 3200, use the time for EI 6400.

 

[MattKing]

Andy:

There are a lot of references in this thread to the "true" speed of the film. That is the phrase that people tend to use, but it might be more appropriate to refer to the "conventional" speed. The reason for this is that TMAX 3200 is really a special purpose film - it is designed to cope better with "pushed" (i.e. increased) development, which is development that is lengthened, in order to increase contrast.

If you develop TMAX 3200 normally, it will most likely behave like an 800 ISO film. If, however, your needs require increased development in order to increase contrast to offset the effects of low light levels, than arguably TMAX 3200 will perform better than other 800 ISO films designed to be shot closer to their ISO speed (not that there are a lot of those ).

The ISO number is the result of testing under a very specific set of lighting conditions, with one type of developer, and one approach (i.e. temperature and agitation, etc.) to the process. The lighting conditions and developer and process are not unusual, but they are specific. In real life lighting conditions vary, there are a number of different developers that have different strengths and weaknesses, there are a variety of approaches to processing, and different people prefer different results. All of those potential variations may bring rise to the need to use an EI (exposure index) that is different from the ISO number, in order to get the results one seeks.

In the short term, however, for most films using the ISO number as your EI will likely result in quite reasonable results. As your knowledge and experience grows, you will have a better idea of when it is best to vary the EI.

Most importantly, have fun!

Matt