TMax100, Delta100 & FP4+... Which one do you prefer for expansion / overcast ?

takilmaboxer

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
397
Location
East Mountains, NM
Format
Med. Format RF
I'd go with FP4, 10 minutes in D76 at 68 F. The T grain films tend to develop an upswept curve with expansion development; it takes skill to control them. FP4 is more forgiving.
 

osella

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
115
Location
Vermont
Format
8x10 Format
I’m not sure about overcast, but a lot of my negatives intended for palladium prints are usually from low contrast scenes. FP4 and Delta 100 are both pretty similar, at least in 8x10.

I usually develop in PC-TEA, with varying dilutions depending on scene contrast. I prefer Delta 100 at EI 100 for 12 minutes at 1+25 for A scene with a 4-5EV range.

I like Delta 100 because i can get the density range I want a little easier than FP4, grain isn’t an issue but I think Delta 100 is a little sharper so helps to hold the detail better on matte paper.
 
OP
OP

Juan Valdenebro

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
South America
Format
Multi Format
Can I ask you medium speed film users...?
When you expand those films with enough development after soft light exposure at box speed or a little bit above that in case of speed enhancing developers, how would you explain the differences between these three films if we talk about tonality?
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,080
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
I have not used Delta, can't use TMax100 for my alt processes (UV blocking layer), but love FP4+. Universal PQ Developer or PyroCatHD.

My expansion normally goes beyond that used for silver printing...both my platinum printing and carbon printing requires a greater DR. One feature of FP4+ has that TMax and Acros100 (when it was available), and I assume Delta, does not have is sufficient reciprocity failure. RF is a valuable tool for increasing contrast in low light situations!

When the contrast is much too low for regular expansion techniques for FP4+ (including bleaching and/or intensifying the negative), I go with a higher contrast film. Example below is on Kodak Copy Film (exposed at ASA 25). The scene read from 9 to 12 on my meter and exposed at 10 (f64 at 20 seconds). This film has no listed RF. Devloped in PyrocatHD. Carbon Print.
 

Attachments

  • ManyPools2.jpg
    568.4 KB · Views: 91

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,686
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I hate to get all technical, in my mind expansion and contraction is terminology Ansel Adams used when he developed the Zone System. Without testing all 3 films to determine the E.I or personalized (my term) ISO for your camera and developer I don't know. While testing you can expect that PF4 will have a more gentle curve while Tmax 100 and Delta 100 has a bit more contrast. Choice of developer is key to taming the curve. For more advise what formate, what camera, roll or sheet film?
 
OP
OP

Juan Valdenebro

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
South America
Format
Multi Format
I have in mind tripod work with 120 film, aiming at TMX if it expands well... Sometimes it looks flat, as if designed for direct sun contrast control and open shadows... But I guess some members use it -well used- far from direct sunlight too... I use D-76, FX-39 and Microphen...
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,943
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
If it's a low contrast scene you want to expand, a film that does the opposite of shouldering (or retains a straighter line longer) at higher contrast indices is the most useful option in terms of separating highlights. This is the point of the sharp upsweep in TMax 100's curve at higher contrast indices in certain developers.

No need for special developers - ID-11/ D-76 and PQ Universal if you really need to get your contrast up and fog down (at a potential speed cost). I think a lot of the moaning about 'film X' not 'expanding' well was a consequence of people sticking to developers/ dilutions that weren't appropriate for the job because they were far too reliant on what they were told, rather than doing their own testing. You don't need fancy procedures to get 5 stops on HP5+ to go to about grade 2 exposure scale, the slower films are easier still to expand.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,686
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
Ok, so exposure for expansion and contraction does not work well with roll film. Although the zone system can be used with roll film, the core concept is expose for shadows and develop for the highlights, increasing (expansion) adding or decreasing (contraction) is determined for each frame or each sheet of film. Your are developing an entire roll of film 16 to 8 frames depending on the formate, 6X4,5 6X6, 6X7 or 6X9.

You want a film that will give a nice contrasty negative, Tmax 100 might be right up your alley, many folks dont like Tmax 100 because it's too contrasty for their taste. I've used Tmax 100 with D76, for an average contrast seane may work for you. With a larger negative I would give Microphen a try.

For landscapes you need contrast filters as well, medium, yellow, orange, and green. Next question is how do you meter?
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,943
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
@Paul Howell if you have two rollfilm cameras/ backs, then it's very easy to cover the full range of contrasts you might need (one minus a bit - the other, plus a bit) - but if you are looking to exercise greater process control, it's usually because you are zeroing in on your particular style/ type of light that you want to work with, not looking for a generic set of solutions. And if you use neg films, you really should be shadow keying your exposure rather than the often bizarre approaches of various people who spend their time putting stickers over the useful scale on Pentax spotmeters.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,686
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
You have a good point, you can increase contrast by increasing exposure by over exposing 1/2 to 1 stop, or like decrease contrast by decreasing exposure by 1/2 to a stop. Which is what you are doing when using the zone system,this part of the system goes with increasing or decreasing exposure is a corresponding increase or decrease expanding or contracting in development so as not to blow out highlights or muddy the shadows. Although many people use the zone system with roll film roll film is not ideal as each frame is not independently developed.

When I shoot roll film I expose for the shadows zone III, develop the highlights as zone VII and fix with paper contrast.
 
OP
OP

Juan Valdenebro

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
South America
Format
Multi Format
Paul: I use medium format rolls for a single type of scene contrast. I meter perfectly since the 1980s. My cameras, my incident meter, and my spot metering on well placed gray card are identical: all inside one tenth of a stop: I like to double check if there's time... I've just worked most of my photography without tripod, using fast film, so apart from occasional use of medium speed film for portraiture many years ago, I'm no expert below ISO 400...
 
OP
OP

Juan Valdenebro

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
South America
Format
Multi Format
Thank you, Lachlan... I'll give TMX a try in D-76 and in FX-39 to compare tone and grain in both of them... Maybe D-76 with less speed will be it.
 
OP
OP

Juan Valdenebro

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
South America
Format
Multi Format
Andrew O'Neill said:
FP4. Pyrocat-HD. N+1 EI 80. N+2 EI 100. Great film for Alt processes, such as carbon transfer.
Click to expand...
Hi Andrew... That's close to what I've done... I even have some 120 FP4+ left... I've used Pyro but not Sandy's acclaimed mix...
My thinking was, considering FP4 has kind of big grain, could TMX be well trated for expanded soft light as to offer us more detail and more tonal gradation because of its much smaller native grain? With tripod, giving more light is not a problem...
 
OP
OP

Juan Valdenebro

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
South America
Format
Multi Format
I just don't see a lot of info on TMX and soft light... It seems it's more used for landscapes under direct sunlight... My EI for FP4+ is 80 in D-76 for overcast (what Andrew said...), but who knows if for TMX the best option would be 50-100 in D-76 or 100-200 in FX-39... I found TMY gives smaller grain in FX-39 than it's often imagined... At least on wet prints... And tone with FX-39 is very clean in the mids, just like D-76's tone...
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,943
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format

People tend not to read Kodak's voluminous documentation, nor properly understand it. Thus they don't understand the wide repertoire of the T-Max films & complain vociferously about stuff that could have been found via RTFM and/ or via fitting the film curves to paper curves. The usual assumption is that slower films are to be used only on bright days (not helped by culturally conditioned consumer colour neg branding), rather than as a means to expand contrast. As long as you treat T-Max 100 as a little slower than box speed in D-76 at a normal contrast, boosting the contrast should land you somewhere useful... Delta 100 is the sharpest & fastest of the modern crystal growth structure ISO 100-ish films - at the cost of slightly higher apparent granularity. I'd suggest perhaps a CI aim of 0.75-0.8 initially - and a set of bracketed exposures will likely get you somewhere in range for a flat light situation (depending on system flare etc).
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,080
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
I started using Ilford Universal PQ Developer for FP4+ after reading something Terry King (Royal Photo. Society) had posted somewhere suggesting it for increasing contrast on FP4+ as it maintained good mid-tone separation for platinum printing. No enlargement of course, so I have little experience the grain when enlarging 120 with the newer films.

Through the 80s I made enlargements up to 16x20 with 4x5 TMax100, developed in HC-110. A lot of low-light work, but not low contrast scenes. Here is an exception; my Pentax Spot Meter read 14 to 16, I exposed at 15 (f32 at 1/30 sec) and gave a note to develop 50% more than normal. Printed on Grade 3 Ilford Gallerie, selenium toned.

Windpocket, Eureka Valley Sand Dunes, 1991
Now Death Valley National Park

The middle dark streak is blowing sand. Photograph was taken near the top of the Dune...I ended up exposing only one sheet in the high wind, and was amazed it worked.
 

Attachments

  • Windpocket, Eureka Valley Sand Dunes, CA_16x20.jpg
    446.6 KB · Views: 102
OP
OP

Juan Valdenebro

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
1,286
Location
South America
Format
Multi Format
Great! Thanks for your clarity!
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,546
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Overcast, limited scene brightness range can be accommodated by just about any film or lens I have ever used. Even hazy lenses and inexpensive film so, no preference really.

Now an extended brightness range scene with a coated lens, that can only be handled by the best films with careful exposure and printing.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,934
Format
8x10 Format
Either film will work. TMax has finer grain and can be developed to a higher contrast level, but must be metered more carefully. FP4 is more forgiving. I shoot a lot of both in larger formats, but in 120 size prefer TMax for its greater detail and longer tonal range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…