TMAX100 - finicky compared to TMAX400?

[tomfrh]

I like the idea of TMAX100 for finer grained shots, however it never seems to come out as well as TMAX400, which is such a reliable film for me (KODAK watermarks excluded!)

The TMAX400 shots are always full bodied, with good contrast range. I typically shoot box speed, although have pushed on occasion.

TMAX100 are so often thin and lifeless, even when I give it extra development time. I shoot it at box speed.

I develop both with XTOL 1:1

Any hints? Does tmax100 need special attention? Need to be exposed longer? Different developer?

 

[revdoc]

It's finicky, but that doesn't mean you consistently get "thin and lifeless" negatives. That sounds like an issue with exposure and/or development.

Could you post a scan of what you're describing?

 

[albada]

TMAX 100 will do fine in XTOL. Are you sure your dev time is correct? Also, if you use a non-electronic (all-mechanical) camera, a lower shutter-speed might be too fast. Anyway, I suggest shooting a test roll, bracketing exposure from box-speed to two stops over box-speed, and using several shutter-speeds for each of those three exposure-values. Good luck.

Mark Overton

 

[Athiril]

My preferred development for T-Max 100 is also Xtol (although replenished, 24 degrees celsius 5m 45s). Worked well for me. Maybe check exposure is correct?

 

[removed account4]

I develop both with XTOL 1:1

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
xtol has had a history of creating flat negatives in some cases.

try it in a different developer and see if it makes a difference. it might make a huge difference
(it did for me, it refused to give me anything but flat negatives ... but i have been told, my results are not typical ).

not sure if you can get it, try using your tmx with sprint film developer, even dektol, you will get
nice snappy negatives.

 

[Ian Grant]

You need to do some tests determine the effective EI and development time that gives you the results you require. I used Tmax100 from when it was released until about 9 years ago, I shot it at 50 EI and processed in replenished Xtol or Rodinal and found it a very reliable film giving superb results. The only reason I stopped using it was availabilty where I was living and switched to Ilford & Foma films as they were easy to obtain.

Ian

 

[Harry Lime]

Barry Thornton's 2-bath

BATH A
Metol- 6.25gr
Soduim Sulfite- 85 gr
Water to make 1 liter

BATH B
Sodium Metaborate- 12gr
Water to make 1 liter

ca. 3 min each bath iso 50 films
ca. 4 min each bath iso 100 films
ca. 5 min each bath iso 400 films

15 rolls per liter. It gets better as it ripens after a few rolls.

Don't presoak

Solved my TMAX400 'issues'.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Harry Lime, is that for controlling excessive contrast?

 

[MattKing]

I'm slowly transitioning from Plus-X (only a few rolls left) to T-Max 100. It is different, but not really finicky.
The incredibly fine grain does sometimes make prints look less "sharp", if you compare it with films where the apparent sharpness comes from having distinct grain.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

IMO, the 'less sharpness' is a function of acutance, not size of grain.

 

[MattKing]

IMO, the 'less sharpness' is a function of acutance, not size of grain.

Which is sort of another way of saying what I did. Large, distinct grain means very visible "edges" to detail, which is one of the ways that acutance reveals itself.

 

[tomfrh]

That sounds like an issue with exposure and/or development.

You need to do some tests determine the effective EI and development time that gives you the results you require

You're probably right. I haven't fully tested it out. I'll give it another few tries and see how it goes. If not then it's Tmax400 from now on, which I find really reliable and more accomodating of my errors.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I don't think its finicky. Actually, Tmax 100 is a film that seems to work beautifully in just about any developer. I've gotten gorgeous results with it in Rodinal, PMK, D-76, Tmax Developer, and Xtol. If the negs you get are flat and lifeless, you're either underexposing or under developing.

 

[Ian Grant]

Tmax100 isn't finicky, however it respsnds to slight changes in exposure, dev time,, temperature variation, differences in agaitation quite a lot qucker than many other films.

It's not so good in D76/ID-11 but shines in Xtol or Rodinal both of which are better than Tmax developer. The bottom line with Tmax100 is tight technique and tight processing both of which are easy, it's just not a film for lax practice

Ian

 

[tomfrh]

Tmax100 isn't finicky

it respsnds to slight changes in exposure, dev time,, temperature variation, differences in agaitation quite a lot qucker than many other films

The bottom line with Tmax100 is tight technique

But, isn't that pretty much the definition of finicky? Having particularly exact requirements?

 

[MattKing]

To my mind, finicky includes an element of being unpredictable.

T-Max 100 is very predictable, and wonderfully controllable. You just need to use smaller variations to achieve that control.

Not an uncommon thing for lower/medium speed films.

 

[pcyco]

maybe a startingpoint http://glsmyth.com/articles/tmax.asp

i use tmx 100 in d76 1+1. works well.

regards

thomas

 

[Ian Grant]

But, isn't that pretty much the definition of finicky? Having particularly exact requirements?

No not at all, as Matt points out and I totally agree Tmax100 is very predictable and easy to use but like any other film if you want consistency and the highest quality then initial testing and tight technique are the key.

Ian

 

[Darko Pozar]

When you work on your personal film speed relative to your exposures and development procedures, you can end up with a result which is most satisfactory with meaty negatives.
I started with TMAX at college in 1989, fine tuned it to my personal techniques and found the film most rewarding.
I base all my all my B/W films of many brands using processed TMAX as my control to compare with.

 

[tomfrh]

Matt points out and I totally agree Tmax100 is very predictable

Finicky doesn't mean unpredictable, it means having exacting requirements, which you all seem to agree with.

 

[Ian Grant]

Finicky doesn't mean unpredictable, it means having exacting requirements, which you all seem to agree with.

I've never treated Tmax 100 any differently to any other films, I test for my effective EI and dev times with all films. In fact I used to regulary process it in the same tank as APX100 or EFKE Pl 25, the only difference were I sjot the EFKE 25 and Tmax100 at 50EI (that's the Daylight EI for the EFKE/Adox 25) and the APX100 ate box speed 100 EI. That's not finicky as I'm processing completely normally, where as Finicky implies "Demanding, requiring above-normal care".

The key to quality is nailing the effective EI to give the results you require, and then as I've said before tight process control which is actually remarkably easy. It's not finicky it's "Craft" and gives you the control and confidence when you shoot knowing you'll get what you expect when you process and print your negatives.

Ian

 

[removed account4]

hi tom

i couldn't agree more with what others have said about tmx and tmy. been using it since the early days...
they aren't finicky but you need to do a simple bracket test and developer test
to find what time and iso works best for you. and if you do that, and your xtol doesn't work
( still ! ) then change developers and do it again until you find a developer that gives you what you want.
there is really no reason to use a developer that doesn't do it for you ( or your film ) no matter what its "fans" say.

good luck !
john

 

[Rudeofus]

There is a good chance, that you shoot TMAX100 in other light conditions than you would shoot TMAX400, and that the light conditions or filtering you shoot TMAX100 in are more prone to exposure errors. I just developed a very thin roll of Acros, most likely because I underestimated the amount of light blocked by filters. As others have already suggested, try to bracket exposures on one roll, to check whether your exposure measurement is correct.

 

[Thomas71]

My experience with TMAX films

TMAX400: grainless and very forgiving film, with a very long shoulder (you can overexpose this film without any problem in the high lights)

TMAX100: grainless film, but with a low micro-contrast in the mid tones; the reason why someone (me too) belives that TMAX100 is "thin and lifeless". It doesn't forgive any underexpose.

I develop TMAX100 with Rodinal 1+50 for 10 min and I expose @ 50, because Rodinal tends to "eat" some speed with most films.
I obtain quite good negatives, but I would like more contrast in the mid tones. In order to obtain a little more punchy in the mid tones, I tried to increase the developing time, but the results were disappointing (harsh contrast with bleached high lights).

According to my tastes, Ilford FP4 in Rodinal is definitely better than TMAX100: more grain but more acutance and punchier mid tones (very important for portraits).

TMAX400 is so forgiving that, at limit, you can forget to set your meter and you can still obtain printable negatives. However, TRI-X remains my favourite medium-speed film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I disagree with most of those stereotypes, Thomas; and my opinion is based on many years of shooting TMax films in formats all the way from 35mm to 8x10. For example, TMX100 is capable of stunning microtonality. Just depends on how you develop and print it. It does have weak edge effect, if that is what you are actually complaining about, which can affect visual acutance. Is this good or bad? Depends on your subject. I personally like sharp edges for most landscape subjects, but generally not for portraiture. But I have used TMX for extreme range lighting with sparkle all through. You might try certain Pyro developers for reining in the highlights. TMY400 is similar in curve characteristics and also fussy about shadow metering. But it gives distinct edge effect. I wouldn't call it forgiving at all, especially compared to a film like FP4.