Tmax P3200 too dense and low contrast

ericdan · Mar 8, 2020

I shot a few rolls of P3200 at EI1600 And developed it in Xtol 1:1 for 20 minutes. 14mins is Kodak’s recommended time.
My negatives are dense and low in contrast.
I get acceptable results with filter 5 on a condenser enlarger but my print times are between 90-140 seconds at f/4 onto a 5x7.

I still have a few rolls left that and wanna have them come out better. What can I do?

less exposure to make it less dense?
30% longer in the developer to make it more contrasty?

thanks!

awty · Mar 8, 2020

Develop at the recommended time for exposure.

jimjm · Mar 8, 2020

20 mins is pretty significant over-development in this case, so you're going to get dense negatives. Depending on your subject matter, lighting and exposure accuracy, that may account for the lack of contrast. Even if the contrast was OK with the normal dev time, over-development is going to blow out your highlights.
If you're trying to get a higher contrast final print, you'll be better off developing for the recommended times, than adding contrast during the printing stage. I usually try to develop film so that a straight print at grade #2 will show shadow and highlight detail, although it may look a bit flat. Increasing or decreasing contrast during printing lets me darken the shadows or add density to the highlights as needed.

ericdan · Mar 8, 2020

If I’m already at grade 5 when I print, this is obviously not an option.
Developing for less time will give me an even flatter negative.
Longer developing should in theory only really affect the highlights and grain. I don’t see how developing for less time will help me here, but I could be wrong.

MattKing · Mar 8, 2020

ericdan said:
If I’m already at grade 5 when I print, this is obviously not an option.
Developing for less time will give me an even flatter negative.
Longer developing should in theory only really affect the highlights and grain. I don’t see how developing for less time will help me here, but I could be wrong.

The 3200 films are inherently low in contrast. If you expose them generously, and then develop them extensively, you can end up with blocked up highlights and mid-tones, which will result in flat prints.

ericdan · Mar 8, 2020

MattKing said:
The 3200 films are inherently low in contrast. If you expose them generously, and then develop them extensively, you can end up with blocked up highlights and mid-tones, which will result in flat prints.

I see. So maybe try expose it at EI 3200, develop at recommended time and see what I get?

removed account4 · Mar 8, 2020

use a different dev you will get much better results

Kino · Mar 8, 2020

ericdan said:
If I’m already at grade 5 when I print, this is obviously not an option.
Developing for less time will give me an even flatter negative.
Longer developing should in theory only really affect the highlights and grain. I don’t see how developing for less time will help me here, but I could be wrong.

You are at grade 5 because the over development has packed the negative up with density at all levels and flattened out the image.

Denser negatives don't necessarily mean better contrast; Remember that pure black on a print has to have NO density on the negative.

The best printing negative, in general, is to have JUST enough density to represent the full scale of the scene. To this THEN print up with higher grades of paper, as others have suggested...

ericdan · Mar 8, 2020

jnantz said:
use a different dev you will get much better results

Any recommendations?

Bill Burk · Mar 9, 2020

Where did you shoot them? Is it possible you were outdoors in bright daylight and your camera couldn't give you a high enough shutter speed?

Was the original subject low contrast?

ericdan · Mar 9, 2020

I shot about 5 rolls. All in various lighting conditions. In bright sunlight I use filters to bring the shutter down. At night I take filters off and just shoot at f/2 1/60th and hope for the best.

gorbas · Mar 9, 2020

Did you use fresh or expired film?

Bill Burk · Mar 9, 2020

How does the area between frames and the sprockets look? Clear? If so you don’t have excessive fog due to long development.

If the whole film is dark gray, you might have developed too long.

It also could mean your darkroom isn’t light tight.

ericdan · Mar 9, 2020

It was fresh film.
I develop in daylight tanks and use a changing bag. Pretty sure it’s not light leaks.
The space between frames is extremely clear. Very low fog.

koraks · Mar 9, 2020

Any chance of posting a photo of a strip of negatives on a light table?

Huub · Mar 9, 2020

You could try a developer like Microphen as stock solution. It is what i use the few times i develop P3200 or Delta3200, after having more or less the same trouble with XTOL 1+1 as you describe: dense negatives, issues reaching filmspeed and low contrast. The pushing quailties of this developer help reaching the nominal filmspeed and it will give you reasonable negatives.

Anon Ymous · Mar 9, 2020

FWIW, I developed a TMax 3200 film recently in homebrew stock Xtol. It had just expired and it was kept in the fridge since bought. It was shot at EI 800 and developed for what the datasheet suggests for this EI. The negatives had high film base plus fog density and it seems they were a bit overexposed, EI 1250 would probably be fine. I only scan at this point, but contrast seems fine. Actually, a characteristic curve based on bracketed shots of a gray card seems reasonable, if a bit higher in contrast.

removed account4 · Mar 9, 2020

use a different dev you will get much better results

also rate it at 1600, that is its real iso, 3200 just "sounded good" so they call it 3200...

pentaxuser · Mar 9, 2020

ericdan said:
I shot a few rolls of P3200 at EI1600 And developed it in Xtol 1:1 for 20 minutes. 14mins is Kodak’s recommended time.
My negatives are dense and low in contrast.

thanks!

You'd think that Kodak would get this right as it is their film and developer and they do seem to get it right with most of their films in Xtol so my first tendency is to stick with Kodak times. I take it that you are quoting Kodak times for Xtol at 21 degrees C as it is 16 at 20.

I have used P3200 at 1250 for 16 mins at 20C and that was fine for my negs No sign of excess density or flatness so on that basis at 1600 I might have tried a bit more than 16 mins but maybe not as much as 20 mins.

You seem convinced that everything about your process was OK so as others have said, try the Kodak times of 16 mins at 20C or 14 mins at 21C

I'd endorse the request to show us the negs

pentaxuser

removedacct1 · Mar 9, 2020

Tmax 3200 is an inherently low contrast film. Xtol is also an inherently low contrast developer, so mating these two products is going to suppress contrast even more. I suggest you expose the next roll at 3200 and develop in something like D76 instead, and use Kodak's recommended time for that developer at that EI: 14 minutes in D76 STOCK (not diluted). If you suspect your lighting is fairly flat then you could go to 15 or 16 minutes development, but if you push to extremes (as you did with your first test) all you are going to do is start to compress the values and negatives will get denser and flatter.

PS: Avoid Rodinal with this film! It tends to blast highlights into uselessness - blocked up and detail-less chalky highlights.

TheFlyingCamera · Mar 9, 2020

jnantz said:
also rate it at 1600, that is its real iso, 3200 just "sounded good" so they call it 3200...

Actually, its an ISO 1000. Exposing at 3200 and processing it according to the box is actually a 1 1/2 stop push. So overexposing and then over-developing is going to give you extremely flat, bullet-proof negatives.

Tmax 3200 is a very versatile film, when used intelligently. I've shot a bunch of it at 1000, developed in Dektol 1:3, for 3 1/2 minutes at 75F. Grain like golf balls, but sharp, and shadows that positively glow. It's great for portraits, or things that don't have lots of fine detail, when done that way. I don't think I'd do landscapes with it, though, when used like that.

pentaxuser · Mar 9, 2020

Yes assuming that you developed at 21C as this is the time you quote for Kodak's time of 14 mins then 20 mins is almost a 43% increase and that is a lot by any measure

pentaxuser

ericdan · Mar 9, 2020

TheFlyingCamera said:
Actually, its an ISO 1000. Exposing at 3200 and processing it according to the box is actually a 1 1/2 stop push. So overexposing and then over-developing is going to give you extremely flat, bullet-proof negatives.

Tmax 3200 is a very versatile film, when used intelligently. I've shot a bunch of it at 1000, developed in Dektol 1:3, for 3 1/2 minutes at 75F. Grain like golf balls, but sharp, and shadows that positively glow. It's great for portraits, or things that don't have lots of fine detail, when done that way. I don't think I'd do landscapes with it, though, when used like that.

I’d like to see those!

removed account4 · Mar 9, 2020

TheFlyingCamera said:
Actually, its an ISO 1000. Exposing at 3200 and processing it according to the box is actually a 1 1/2 stop push. So overexposing and then over-developing is going to give you extremely flat, bullet-proof negatives.

Tmax 3200 is a very versatile film, when used intelligently. I've shot a bunch of it at 1000, developed in Dektol 1:3, for 3 1/2 minutes at 75F. Grain like golf balls, but sharp, and shadows that positively glow. It's great for portraits, or things that don't have lots of fine detail, when done that way. I don't think I'd do landscapes with it, though, when used like that.

thanks.i know I got the native ISO wrong its nice to know what it is supposed to be ..
golf ball sized grain ?? I've been processing in dektol for years have never gotten golf ball sized grain.
must be the heat ! I just use it ambient temperature

Bill Burk · Mar 10, 2020

ericdan said:
It was fresh film.
I develop in daylight tanks and use a changing bag. Pretty sure it’s not light leaks.
The space between frames is extremely clear. Very low fog.

Ok great.

I looked at the spec sheet and your developing time is “off the chart” too long.
The range of developing times they graph is only a few minutes. 10 to 12 minutes for example and you went from 10 to 20.

They also only show a fairly short range of exposure. Very roughly, the exposure of a normal shot spans around 2 of the major marks on their graphs. They only show a range of three major scale marks from toe to end of what they graph.

So assume a perfect exposure at 1000 would cover from toe to two big numbers. This leaves one big number until part of your normal picture will go off the chart.

A big number of overexposure would be like going from “perfect for 1000” to “perfect for a 125 film”. So if you gave an outdoor 1/125 at f/16 to this film... part of your picture will start to go “off the chart”.

I could measure it with a densitometer but with the very long printing times that you get, I don’t have to. Those enlarging times are “off the chart”

You have to reduce something. Maybe two things. I think you might have flat negatives because of extreme overexposure putting your photograph on the shoulder. I don’t know where the shoulder is because literally it’s off the chart.

I think you should reduce your exposure by a big number... (3 stops) and either develop recommended time or at most 2 minutes longer than recommended.

Maybe I will find out where that shoulder is one day... I have a couple rolls of the stuff.

Tmax P3200 too dense and low contrast

ericdan

awty

jimjm

ericdan

MattKing

Moderator

ericdan

removed account4

Kino

ericdan

Bill Burk

ericdan

gorbas

Bill Burk

ericdan

koraks

Moderator

Huub

Anon Ymous

removed account4

pentaxuser

removedacct1

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

pentaxuser

ericdan

removed account4

Bill Burk

Tmax P3200 too dense and low contrast

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency