TMAX XTOL

Pioneer · Jul 18, 2013

Good luck.

I am certainly not an expert in any sense of the word here but I have been using D76 1:1 developing TMX100 for 9 and one half minutes at 20 C. Works terrific for me for a long time and I have no complaints whatsoever. But, if I have learned anything I have learned that there are many different ways to develop a negative and I am sure you will have great success with XTOL.

dorff · Jul 18, 2013

Roger Cole said:
You are think of the CPP not the CPE which I have. It's the small model.

I'm happy with my results with D76 and T-Max RS. Xtol worked fine back when I tried it too but didn't do anything that special for me and I don't care for 5 liter powder mixes.

Worse heresy is that I've tried Rodinal in years past and was never able to get results I like with it. I have some to try again, probably inversion not rotary and I may have to limit that to winter.

Thanks for the clarification!

I don't think Rodinal is a good developer for rotary processors. The main reason to use Rodinal is to get accutance, and that requires minimal agitation. With continuous agitation, the negatives will be flat and dull.

Back to the OP, though: I think it is better to change one thing at a time, if something bothers you. If HC-110 and Acros didn't work (for good reason), then why not stick with HC-110 and try TMax100 or Delta 100? Or alternatively, stick with Acros and use a compensating developer. In my view Acros is a very fine film, and is the most affordable in 120 format at the moment, although the difference is not big and certainly not that important considering all other expenses. Developers such as Rodinal and HC-110 that can be used one-shot are very attractive to me, because it is far quicker to get the temperature of the water correct prior to mixing in developer, than getting pre-mixed stock solution to where it needs to be by immersion in cold or warm water baths. If you have perfect temperature control, that should not matter, but for me it is a great time saver. Apart from that, those developers last very long, and give fine results if used in the right combinations.

As I've said before, Rodinal at 1:50 with Acros gives me very good results. I don't do stand development, as I cannot control the temperature well enough over that period, and we have very widely fluctuating ambient temperatures. 1:50 is a good compromise that gives good results. By all means try Xtol too. I would be very curious about your impression comparing let's say Acros developed in Xtol, and in Rodinal. Only if you have any inclination towards such a comparison, of course.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Acros in Caffenol can produce very good results too. It would also give you a useful speed boost over Rodinal or HC-110. You'll have to experiment to find the best set of variables, becuase Caffenol is an "unofficial" developer. But it certainly works very well.

clayne · Jul 18, 2013

stevebarry said:
First roll drying. They look way under developed. I used massive dev chart. TMax 400 in XTOL 1:2 (4oz stock, 8oz water) 78* 6:41 agitate first 60 sec then 10 sec every min.

Mixed part A into a gallon of water, then mixed part B, then topped off to make 5 liters of stock.

Split into 1 litter bottles.

If you're just starting out with a new film and XTOL, or XTOL in general, stick to 1+1 or 1+0. 6:41 seems short for 1+2, but then again I see you used the XTOL temperature compensation of 10.5*e(-0.045*(78-68)) = 6.69 = 6:41.

I'd stick with 1+1 times for now until you've got things dialed in.

markbarendt · Jul 18, 2013

stevebarry said:
First roll drying. They look way under developed. I used massive dev chart.

There are so many variables that anybodies recommendation is simply a starting point.

Like clayne, I would suggest a thicker mix, 1:1 or straight to start, or better yet replenished.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 18, 2013

stevebarry said:
First roll drying. They look way under developed. I used massive dev chart. TMax 400 in XTOL 1:2 (4oz stock, 8oz water) 78* 6:41 agitate first 60 sec then 10 sec every min.

Mixed part A into a gallon of water, then mixed part B, then topped off to make 5 liters of stock.

Split into 1 litter bottles.

I will post a scan when they dry.

What's wrong with Kodak's data sheet?
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf

I know they don't have times for 1+2, but it's a good idea to start with something solid. The massive dev chart is not very reliable, because they are other people's data, tested for their work flow and printing methods. At least Kodak tests their film developing recommendations to a standard.

Try 1+1 at 75*F for 7 minutes, according to Kodak's document above, and go from there. Xtol chemicals are inexpensive enough that 1+1 or 1+2 doesn't matter.

selmslie · Jul 18, 2013

stevebarry said:
...
So I said what the hell and ordered tmax 100/400 and XTOL to try.

Much more expensive that is for sure.

I don't find TMX or TMY to be much more expensive than Tri-X. XTOL is a good choice but so is Rodinal 1+50, which may give a little more sharpness in the Florida sun. It's hard to get too much grain to show with either T-Max unless you use too much concentrate and too high of a temperature (77 degrees does not seem to be a problem for me).

stevebarry · Jul 18, 2013

OK point taken, I should have started with stock or 1:1. I just figured since I ultimately wanted to try 1:2 I would start there.

And I hear you on changing one thing at a time, normally that is what I do, but sometimes you have to shake it all up.

I was figuring the mass dev chart would get me ballpark, I wasnt expecting it to be dead on.

Thomas, I even looked at all the kodak times on the sheet AND packet, but paid them no attention. Stupid. Like you said, according to Kodak, my time/temp was closer to the 1:1 dilution than the 1:2 that I did. So I will try that next.

neg scan

pos convert

curve adjust

The black in upper right is a grill. I can tell even from crap negs that the grain is nice, and what really surprised me is how much sharper they are than the trix/hc110 combo.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 18, 2013

TMax / Xtol is a very sharp combination, with fine grain. Wait until you see properly developed negatives.

It does look as though you have a bit of underexposure in your negative as well. Very little detail in that upper right corner.

stevebarry · Jul 18, 2013

Hey Thomas, I was wondering that too - always hard for me to tell the difference between underexposure/development.

But, the upper right corner is a black grill....so no detail was going to be there.

I shot these with an F5 set to aperture priority and matrix. I double checked the ISO and it was set to 400 - no compensation dialed in. The camera works perfectly, so I dunno.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 18, 2013

Steve,

If you want that area to be without detail, then the exposure is fine. If you want some detail in those black parts, then you need to expose more. That's what over/under exposure is. Doesn't matter what camera you use, or what mode it was set to. That upper right corner is 'technically' underexposed.

stevebarry · Jul 18, 2013

Thomas, I hear you. I do prefer black to be rendered BLACK. I am just saying, there is little texture or detail in a black shiny grill. OK I will say it this way, for ME there is no texture or detail in a black shiny grill shot in low flat light.

markbarendt · Jul 18, 2013

I have an F5 too and do in certain situations use the aperture priority mode, it does a fine job in most situations. For refining my exposure and development regime, regardless of materials or process in use, I use an incident meter. Simply put it eliminates any guess work and yes, every meter can be fooled, even the F5's gets fooled regularly.

stevebarry · Jul 18, 2013

Hey Mark, I have a luna pro that I use too. All the frames from this roll look about the same, with shadow detail being about what I would expect (like the photo above).

It is an entire roll of film shot with an F5 set to aperture priority using matrix....should be 95% solid exposures. The F5 was used the day before, with perfect exposures, and same ISO film (TRIX).

All this to say, I am pretty sure my exposures were right, but I should have checked with my handheld.

markbarendt · Jul 18, 2013

I'm very happy with the F5s meter, it is plenty close for normal shooting, but when I print from rolls that I shoot this way I need to adjust the enlarger some for almost every shot. Conversely when I shoot exclusively with the incident meter I can normally just set the enlarger once and print and print and print.

stevebarry · Jul 18, 2013

I hesitate to even say this, but I do remember thinking my speeds were high for the light. It caused me to double check my iso setting and +/-. Three times. Everything was fine, nothing else to it, so I kept shooting. Short of my F5 developing a problem over night, it should be good. But I dont know. Good times.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 18, 2013

Steve, as long as you're happy with the pictures the exposures are bang on. I personally find shadow detail overrated, and it doesn't make or break a print. Poor black does, though.
I was just speaking in more technical terms, in case you felt you needed shadow detail in all of the dark spots.

Anyway, I hope you have fun with the TMax / Xtol materials. They are really wonderful together.

stevebarry · Jul 18, 2013

Thomas, no doubt, and I am sure I will

Michael, I did not know that about loosing shadow detail and bringing development to enough of a contrast index. I always thought shadow detail would increase with underdevelopment.

I will check F5 meter against my hand held, shoot another roll, and develop same temp/time but with 1:1 ratio instead of 1:2.

MattKing · Jul 18, 2013

stevebarry said:
Thomas, no doubt, and I am sure I will

Michael, I did not know that about loosing shadow detail and bringing development to enough of a contrast index. I always thought shadow detail would increase with underdevelopment.

I will check F5 meter against my hand held, shoot another roll, and develop same temp/time but with 1:1 ratio instead of 1:2.

Steve:

Shadow detail increases with underdevelopment if you increase exposure to compensate for the underdevelopment.

Your F5's matrix meter is great for evaluating a wide variety of scenes and then adjusting the exposure to match a built in paradigm.

However ....

When you are calibrating your personal exposure index and your development regime, you want to control the exposure adjustments, rather than letting the camera do that for you.

Once you get you personal EI and developing regime fine tuned, you can decide to re-check the EI with the matrix meter engaged, to see if you need to make a change in your EI for use with that meter only.

markbarendt · Jul 18, 2013

MattKing said:
Shadow detail increases with underdevelopment if you increase exposure to compensate for the underdevelopment.

A better way to think of this is to leave development out of the thought.

Increasing exposure gets an increase in shadow detail. Decreasing exposure get less shadow detail.

The second thing is that if you get extra shadow detail on the negative, it doesn't really matter. You don't have to print it. With negatives there is a significant range of acceptable exposure settings across which you can get excellent prints.

stevebarry · Jul 18, 2013

I guess I just don't do that much testing, or exploring with all the different possibilities when it comes to exposure/developing/printing. You guys are talking about inches, and I am talking about feet.

Maybe getting down into the inches would be interesting. I don't know what a personal exposure index is, or how to even go about the extensive testing I read about here.

I guess I get what I want from a negative. Or I get what I get. I ruin a few rolls of film whenever I try a new film. But then - its pretty good.

http://sgbarry.com/portfolio/uncategorized/two-2/

This is a group of photos that span five or six years, many different cameras, meters, 3 or 4 types of film and at least 3 developers. These are the tones I prefer - deep rich blacks that taper into a little bright white. And with very few exceptions, I get it from hitting the print button on my enlarger, which is all I want. They look pretty consistent to me?

stevebarry · Jul 18, 2013

I know where you were coming from Michael.

I should probably dig a little deeper into the chemistry side of things. I just don't want to end up with a lab next to my dark room if you know what I mean.

markbarendt · Jul 18, 2013

Steve,

Some of this is very basic, "foot" stuff, rather than inch stuff.

After a lot of testing/experimentation what I found is that Ilford and Kodak and Fuji have all done exceptional jobs in designing their materials and chemicals.

I shoot almost all my films at box speed and develop normally using the manufacturers instructions. I have used my incident meter to learn the foibles of all my camera meters. For critical work I always use an incident meter or "correct" from experience the reading made, for example, by my F5.

Working this way provides me incredibly reliable, consistent, high-quality negatives that are easier and easier to print as I get better at "normal". It provides a baseline that anybody willing to follow the instructions and practice with an incident meter can have.

Nailing the basics makes everything easier and brings quality up considerably.

stevebarry · Jul 19, 2013

I did not fix nearly long enough in addition to them being way under dev.

I did 1:1 78* 7:00, and in flat light they are still pretty flat but getting there. Going to bump it to 8:30 for shade, and probably keep it close to 7:00 for sun.

Thanks yall.

clayne · Jul 19, 2013

Remember, T-grain films require double-fixing time.

Roger Cole · Jul 19, 2013

clayne said:
Remember, T-grain films require double-fixing time.

Since when?

They require somewhat longer fixing times if you want to get all the dye out, and can exhaust fixer a little quicker, but in my experience it's nowhere NEAR double.

TMAX XTOL

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency