Tons of info out out there on this Roger. Search for "t-grain fixing time" "tmax fixing time" etc. I've always double-timed any tmx, tmy, tmz emulsion myself to be on the safe side. They also beat up fixer pretty hard as well.
TMAX XTOL
-
A
- Thread starter stevebarry
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Graflex RB 4x5 (Auto or Tele) with longer bellows extension
- Started by blee1996
-
For Sale Benro S8Pro Fluid Video Head
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale $390 Nikon 500mm f4 P ais ed (I think that's all the labels?)
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Tanar 50mm f2 ltm lens
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale NEW FUJIFILM Neopan Acros 100 Roll and Sheet Film Expired 2016-2019
- Started by opPaulT
Forum statistics
Tons of info out out there on this Roger. Search for "t-grain fixing time" "tmax fixing time" etc. I've always double-timed any tmx, tmy, tmz emulsion myself to be on the safe side. They also beat up fixer pretty hard as well.
Kodak asks for 1 minute extra (3-5) fix time for TMax films over Tri-X (2-4), Ilford asks for the same time (2-5) for either type of film.
Given my clearing tests before each run with both types and that they both typically clear in about 30 seconds even in not-so-fresh fix it hardly seems an issue. I do fix for 5 minutes just so I only have one number to remember.
Kodak's words:
Given my clearing tests before each run with both types and that they both typically clear in about 30 seconds even in not-so-fresh fix it hardly seems an issue. I do fix for 5 minutes just so I only have one number to remember.
Kodak's words:
My experience too. I give five minutes in rapid fix for all films. Some are good in as little as one but the extra does no harm.
It looks like your negative is underexposed, for my taste. I don't like featureless areas of black.
Why not shoot another test roll and vary the ISO per frame from 200 to 800 (+/-1 stop) on a lot of scenes. Make your steps in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments. Then try printing/scanning the series. You will quickly know which speed gives you the shadow detail you prefer. I usually use an incident meter for these types of tests, and then record how the camera meter (or my handheld spot) differs. You can learn a lot with a single roll of film. If your development is significantly off your film speed results will be as well.
The way I shoot I consistently find my film needs 1/2 to 1 stop more exposure, such as ISO 64 for FP4+ and ISO 250 for TMY.
Also, if you're looking for the smallest grain you want to develop as little as possible since grain grows in appearance with density. For example you may want to target Grade 3 instead of Grade 2 for your printing. Or for scanning test out different density ranges in conjunction with your scanner.
Why not shoot another test roll and vary the ISO per frame from 200 to 800 (+/-1 stop) on a lot of scenes. Make your steps in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments. Then try printing/scanning the series. You will quickly know which speed gives you the shadow detail you prefer. I usually use an incident meter for these types of tests, and then record how the camera meter (or my handheld spot) differs. You can learn a lot with a single roll of film. If your development is significantly off your film speed results will be as well.
The way I shoot I consistently find my film needs 1/2 to 1 stop more exposure, such as ISO 64 for FP4+ and ISO 250 for TMY.
Also, if you're looking for the smallest grain you want to develop as little as possible since grain grows in appearance with density. For example you may want to target Grade 3 instead of Grade 2 for your printing. Or for scanning test out different density ranges in conjunction with your scanner.
Larry's thoughts here are a reasonable example, simply put Larry has a way he likes things to turn out and adjusts his meter to help him get that result.
The reason it is "personal" is that it depends on many things that we each do differently.
Testing doesn't need to be truly formal either, adjust your meter to a different EI for a roll, did the printed result improve? Adjust the other way for a roll, did the printed result improve? Look at the results and refine as you go.
As Mark and Larry mention, some trial and error goes a long way to get a print to look the way you want it to look.
For example: (please note the word example) my own method lately has been to shoot Tri-X and TMax 400 at 200, and processing in replenished Xtol for quite a bit longer than what's considered 'normal'. Then I print at grades 3.5 to 4.5 usually, which gives me prints that I am very happy with. Strong and rich, inky blacks, that really anchor the image, and my exercise is to boil the picture down to its bare minimum, trying to accentuate what I feel is important about it. Shadow detail? I don't really care. But overall tonality still has to be to my liking, which is why I'm doing it this way.
It isn't what is considered 'normal' and that's my point. It works for me, and you have to find something that works for you, and that's why playing with film exposure and development, and always print the results to see what happened (just like Mark says above). Only that way can we gain insight in how we as individuals need to use our materials so that we get the results that we covet. In my opinion, of course. Making a technically correct negative isn't that hard, but coming up with negatives that yield prints we love, without too much darkroom frustration, that takes a little bit of time, trial, and error.
Have fun!
For example: (please note the word example) my own method lately has been to shoot Tri-X and TMax 400 at 200, and processing in replenished Xtol for quite a bit longer than what's considered 'normal'. Then I print at grades 3.5 to 4.5 usually, which gives me prints that I am very happy with. Strong and rich, inky blacks, that really anchor the image, and my exercise is to boil the picture down to its bare minimum, trying to accentuate what I feel is important about it. Shadow detail? I don't really care. But overall tonality still has to be to my liking, which is why I'm doing it this way.
It isn't what is considered 'normal' and that's my point. It works for me, and you have to find something that works for you, and that's why playing with film exposure and development, and always print the results to see what happened (just like Mark says above). Only that way can we gain insight in how we as individuals need to use our materials so that we get the results that we covet. In my opinion, of course. Making a technically correct negative isn't that hard, but coming up with negatives that yield prints we love, without too much darkroom frustration, that takes a little bit of time, trial, and error.
Have fun!
OP
OP
So if I am understanding, I could give more exposure on my negative, develop for a similar contrast (shorter dev time), and extend my print times. By doing this I would get less grain?
No. All other things equal, if you expose your film more, the negative will be denser. Density is built up by silver grains, so that situation would yield more grain.
There is some compromise that has to be made with all kinds of photography, film photography is not exempt. You expose and develop your film to get the kind of tonality you want in your finished results. Then you basically live with the amount of grain you get from that film and developer combination. If you don't have the tonality to present the print in a beautiful way, the finest grain in the world isn't going to make it better (if you like fine grain).
That's just kind of the nature of it. Know this, though, with TMax 100/400 in Xtol, you are getting some of the finest grain achievable. Whatever grain you get is what you have to live with.
If you want to get as little grain as possible, you should expose the film as little as you can, and develop it the very least you can. Questionable tonality may result, because you get little to no latitude with exposure errors, because you're already at the limit. But that's the basic gist of it.
As Thomas said this wouldn't yield less grain, BUT, it may lead to a look you like, may not. Some advances in your work will be very counter intuitive at first.
Playing with the variables is the way to find out.
OP
OP
Thomas, that is how I understood things. Trade off, and to get the tonality I am after, I always get the same amount of grain no matter how I approach it (I have never done anything exotic though, bleaching etc).
So I stick with normal exposure box speeds, develop a bit longer, and straight print on vc papers. Sometimes I have to bump the contrast a bit on the print, but usually it is a straight print.
So I stick with normal exposure box speeds, develop a bit longer, and straight print on vc papers. Sometimes I have to bump the contrast a bit on the print, but usually it is a straight print.
Might try develop normal and use harder grade paper.
OP
OP
Hey Mark, do graded papers increase grain at a similar rate as printing filters would?
The grain you see comes from the film not the paper/paper grade choice.
Printing filters increase contrast, not grain. Grain may look more prominent but it is a separate issue.
This is one of those things that isn't necessarily intuitive.
Printing filters increase contrast, not grain. Grain may look more prominent but it is a separate issue.
This is one of those things that isn't necessarily intuitive.
OP
OP
Hey Mark, right. OK I should have said, do graded papers make the grain look more prominent at the same rate as contrast filters?
OP
OP
OK so generally - if you want a good amount of contrast in a print, it is better to develop the film longer and get that increased grain, or introduce the contrast when printing, or a combination?
You have to decide that for yourself, honestly, and frankly it is your job to find out how you like your prints to look. You really should try both ways and see which you like best.
Shoot a roll of film and develop half of it so that it prints well on Grade 3. Then develop the second half 15% longer, so that it prints well on, say Grade 2. Then make your call. Based on my own experience, and I have not actually tested this formally, the difference in the resulting print is likely negligible, from both a standpoint of tonality and grain.
No. Higher contrast makes grain more evident, but it has nothing to do with whether you get that from a higher contrast graded paper or a variable contrast paper.
Another point is that you may not want the same contrast for every shot on a roll. Those of us who shoot sheet film can develop each shot differently, but not so roll film. So many people tune development for results they like in average scenes they shoot that will print the way they want on a medium grade, usually 2, 2.5 or 3. Then if you have individual shots that need more or less contrast you can easily adjust a bit in printing.
OP
OP
Thomas, years ago, in school, I did test this. I came to the conclusion that it made no real difference how I got to the contrast and tone. The contrast and tone dictated the grain. The only real difference in grain I ever saw was in film/developer combinations.
But that seems to be in conflict with what others here are saying, so I am struggling to understand.
If there is a better way for me to get the tones I want with a straight wet print, I would certainly want to look into it.
Am I misunderstanding something? Perhaps I am not being clear? The photo included before in this thread is not my normal - I dont typically have development/printing problems. I have never used tmax/xtol before now, which is the problem, getting a starting point.
Here are examples of the tones I prefer:
M05001 by steve_barry, on Flickr
BL02_v_2326 by steve_barry, on Flickr
MT_farm_houses_06 by steve_barry, on Flickr
Livingston_MT_09 by steve_barry, on Flickr
But that seems to be in conflict with what others here are saying, so I am struggling to understand.
If there is a better way for me to get the tones I want with a straight wet print, I would certainly want to look into it.
Am I misunderstanding something? Perhaps I am not being clear? The photo included before in this thread is not my normal - I dont typically have development/printing problems. I have never used tmax/xtol before now, which is the problem, getting a starting point.
Here are examples of the tones I prefer:
M05001 by steve_barry, on Flickr
BL02_v_2326 by steve_barry, on Flickr
MT_farm_houses_06 by steve_barry, on Flickr
Livingston_MT_09 by steve_barry, on Flickr
OP
OP
Hi Roger, I develop all my negatives, be it 35mm to 8x10 the same for any given film/developer. The only variable for me when developing is sun vs shade. I develop photos taken in bright sun less than those in shade. I mark every roll of film sun/shade and each film holder this way. But beyond that, I dont mess with it.
OP
OP
Maybe everyone is saying I can pull more detail out of the shadows, while keeping them as dark as I have?
My opinion is that you should shoot at box speed or 1 stop below box speed, develop for box speep (or 1 stop below) in XTOL 1+1, print on #2/#3 paper with a bit of openness, selenium 1+20 to pull down the shadows of the print. That's just a general recipe.
OP
OP
Awesome. Thank you. Ordering paper and toner now.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
OP
OP
So I was forced into pushing a roll of TMAX400 to 1600 tonight and dinner, and am floored with the results.
While I have not printed these, they seem (to me) to have less grain than trix at box speed.
http://sgbarry.com/2013/07/howleys/
While I have not printed these, they seem (to me) to have less grain than trix at box speed.
http://sgbarry.com/2013/07/howleys/
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks great, honestly; but man I just can't get into that Tmax tonality unless the contrast is harder. One reason why many people flock to Tri-X vs it. Light looks like you coulda shot at 800?
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |