Tmax 400 at EI 800, Tmax developer or ID-11?

[brian steinberger]

I'm finally giving in and trying some TMY-II (120). I shot a roll today at EI 800 using a spot meter. It was meant to just be a test roll so I could simply start running tests, but I think I got some shots I'd like to get as good as possible.

According to Kodak you can shoot TMY at 400 to 800 with no difference in processing. Is this true? If so, shooting at EI 800 is technically not "pushing" the fillm, though I did shoot in low light and will need N+1 development. I have Tmax developer that I haven't used yet and ID-11 which I use all the time. I was wondering which would better in this particular case. I've heard great things about TMY in D-76 so I'm leaning toward ID-11 1:1. Also, with N+1 development with TMY, add 10 or 15%?

 

[AmsterdamMartin]

I once shot TMAX 400 at 800 in 35mm, and did not adjust processing time, because I didn't know which roll it was.
No problem at all, amazing !
I did that in D76 (ID11), but I guess TMAXdev would have yielded indistinguishable results. Only when really pushing, does it start to make a real difference (TMAXdev would be better IMO). But then I use an iso 3200 film, which is even better.

 

[aldevo]

I have no experience pushing TMY or TMY-2, so take this all with a grain of salt...

* Tmax developer generally produces higher film speed than ID-11/D-76. If you can get your hands on Ilford DD-X, it should produced equivalent film speed to Tmax developer and isn't as sensitive to small changes in temperature, development time, agitation, etc.

* One poster mentioned using Delta 3200 or Tmax 3200. I would not agree, while these films have a "true" ISO senstivity of ~1000 an ~800, respectively, they have ccharacteriistic curves that are optimized for pushing. So if you shot them at their "rrue" speeds, you would likely find that the resulting constrast is too low.

* I think most people have found that Kodak's guidance to not extend the development time for TMY-2 when shot at EI 800 is correct. But again, I have no experience here myself.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

TMax developer is great for pushing more than one stop, and it produces a lot more grain than MQ developers, even for EIs close to box speed.
Unless you want to make TMY2's grain look closer to Tri-X's grain, TMY2 at EI800 is much better in D-76 stock.
About using the same development time for 400 and 800, it can be done, as Kodak people wrote, but this doesn't mean that's the best we can get -tonally- for EI800: I develop a bit longer for EI880 than for EI400 to get cleaner middle grays.

 

[Paul Howell]

When pushing Tmax to 800 I add 10% to the time, have used TMAX, D76, DDX, and Clayton F90 which is hard to find and MCM 100. Between TMax and D76 for a one stop push I agree with Juan and use D76. I've shot Tmax 400 at 1600 and 3200 and developed in Tmax or DDX.

 

[MattKing]

As more than ten years have elapsed, I wonder how Brian's shots came out?
Rule of thumb - if you meter TMax 400 at 800:
Develop normally, and the shadows will be okay, while the mid-tones and highlights will be normal.
Use a one stop push, and the shadows will be marginally better, the mid-tones will be close to normal, and the highlights may or may not be detrimentally affected.
Pick your poison. Kodak recommends the former.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

As more than ten years have elapsed, I wonder how Brian's shots came out?
Rule of thumb - if you meter TMax 400 at 800:
Develop normally, and the shadows will be okay, while the mid-tones and highlights will be normal.
Use a one stop push, and the shadows will be marginally better, the mid-tones will be close to normal, and the highlights may or may not be detrimentally affected.
Pick your poison. Kodak recommends the former.

Hi Matt,
I don't think so... I see both cases the other way.
If exposed for half the optimal light, there's no way that the shadows will be equally fine: they will have a whole stop less detail, no matter the development time.
And the middle grays will be better when development time considers the underexposure, and they'll be a little low after simple underexposure.
Kodak's recommendation is just for getting the same grain or close to that of EI400, but not even that: grain is slightly smaller when optimal light is used, and it grows a bit anyway because of underexposure.
All that, understanding TMY's grain is small enough AND has a straight line going down into the shadows, so both things define TMY behaves very well at EI800: more than any other film.
That's why it's the film I use at EI800.
Another great option for that, is HP5+ at EI800 in TMaxDev at 1+4: unexpected clean tone and controlled grain... Both things nearly unbelievable, because that film and that developer show grain often when used most other ways.

 

[MattKing]

Juan,
Mid-tones and highlights have a much greater affect on the quality of most prints than shadows do.
That is why Kodak recommends what it does.
And why I used "okay" rather than "good".

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Pick your poison. Kodak recommends the former.

When using TMY-2 @ EI 800 I tend to give a slight "push", nothing too aggressive.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What is more important if something has to be given up, whether highlights versus shadows, is totally an esthetic decision. I like to have my cake and eat it too; but if shooting at 800 in a high contrast scene, there will be some inevitable penalty to shadow gradation.