TMAX100 - finicky compared to TMAX400?

[Pioneer]

This just goes to show how clueless I am.

I have been using TMX100 a lot since Efke went out of business. Not knowing any better I have always exposed it at box speed, or at EI200 if needed (all on the same roll.)

At the time I started using TMX I had lots of D76 available so I just developed the film in D76 1:1 at the times recommended by Kodak in their publication f4016. I have also used HC110 dilution B using the times recommended in the same publication, though not as often. I have also used Rodinal at various dilutions a few times using times recommended on DigitalTruth, though not as often as D76 which is my go to developer for a lot of films. Up to this point I have not been terribly experimental with my developing and stay pretty close to manufacturer suggested times when I can.

I recently started to mix up D23 from scratch rather than buying D76 but I haven't noticed any difference in the few rolls of TMX that I have developed since making that change.

I have always been extremely happy with the results (if I exposed and composed properly) as well as the reliability of those results.

I use it in 135, 120, 4x5 and 8x10. I develop in daylight tanks by inversion, by Jobo tanks with continuous rotation, and in trays.

I contact print my 8x10s and sometimes my 4x5s. I enlarge using my Beseler 45. I have never had a problem printing though I am not a very good printer.

Overall, if I had to pick one film that I have found the easiest to expose, develop and print it would be TMX100.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, it's very nice in D76 1+1.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm just the opposite of you, Ralph! I prefer 400 T-Max for landscapes, due to its crisper edge effect, plus speed on windy or rainy days. But I like 100 for portraits because it is softer edges (not to be confused with detail capacity per se).

 

[Ian Grant]

I'm just the opposite of you, Ralph! I prefer 400 T-Max for landscapes, due to its crisper edge effect, plus speed on windy or rainy days. But I like 100 for portraits because it is softer edges (not to be confused with detail capacity per se).

I'd use a fast 400 ISO film all the time for LF work except I find them too fast when in the UK when I want slower exposures to capture the movements caused by wind, and occasionally rain. I shoot HP5+ when in Turkey/Greece when I shoot 5x4 hand held 1/200 @ f22

So for years in the UK I used Kodak's 50 EI film Tmax 100 along side EFKE 25 at it's 50 EI daylight speed, I prefer the crisper edge effects of these slower emulsions compared to Tmax 400, I ditched Tmax films due to extremely poor availability while living abroad, Ilford films and surprisingly Foma are very easy to find (I'm ltalking about capital cities !!!).

Ian

 

[MJLangdon]

This just goes to show how clueless I am.

I have been using TMX100 a lot since Efke went out of business. Not knowing any better I have always exposed it at box speed, or at EI200 if needed (all on the same roll.)

At the time I started using TMX I had lots of D76 available so I just developed the film in D76 1:1 at the times recommended by Kodak in their publication f4016. I have also used HC110 dilution B using the times recommended in the same publication, though not as often. I have also used Rodinal at various dilutions a few times using times recommended on DigitalTruth, though not as often as D76 which is my go to developer for a lot of films. Up to this point I have not been terribly experimental with my developing and stay pretty close to manufacturer suggested times when I can.

I recently started to mix up D23 from scratch rather than buying D76 but I haven't noticed any difference in the few rolls of TMX that I have developed since making that change.

I have always been extremely happy with the results (if I exposed and composed properly) as well as the reliability of those results.

I use it in 135, 120, 4x5 and 8x10. I develop in daylight tanks by inversion, by Jobo tanks with continuous rotation, and in trays.

I contact print my 8x10s and sometimes my 4x5s. I enlarge using my Beseler 45. I have never had a problem printing though I am not a very good printer.

Overall, if I had to pick one film that I have found the easiest to expose, develop and print it would be TMX100.

I always think of the box ISO and manufacturers development times to be an average, the same as digital cameras measure averages and its up to the photographer to adjust the average to acquire the results that the photographer has visualised.

Use the manufacturers figures as a starting point for the testing, then record the results you get with your equipment and techniques.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I still have quite a few rolls of 120 Efke 25, but I just can't risk using them on any serious project due to emulsion dust contamination of later batches. Just about every other frame has some blimp in the sky. Rumor has it, that as the factory was almost falling apart due to lack of maintenance funds,
so they were using sheets of black plastic over the coating machines. Sad. It was a formerly a fine product.

 

[jonasfj]

TMax 100 is the only film that I use in large format sheet film and 120 roll film.

I have done full tests on TMax 100 film with my standardised development method, using HC110 developer.
I personally rate it at ISO 80 which gives me 0.10 Base + Fog density, 0.20 Zone I net density and Zone VIII 1.30 net density.

I use a De Vere 504 colour enlarger for split grade printing on Illford warm tone multigrade FB gloss paper developed in Dektol.

The Blacks are so deep and the whites are nice and bright, while still retaining detail with scenes that have a full tonal range.

All I can suggest is that you research into how to test film densities and work out your own EI number.
Remember to standardise all your development routine, even down to the agitations to get predicable results.

Tests can then be done to find out the dynamic range of the film that contains detail.

Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

Hope this helps.

Exactly!!!

My only comment is, that for those of you who do not have access to a densitometer, you can get 80-90% result by following either:

Kodak method:
Google Kodak TechPub o3

Or the excellent paper by Mr. Halfhill:
http://www.halfhill.com/speed1.html

 

[MJLangdon]

Exactly!!!

My only comment is, that for those of you who do not have access to a densitometer, you can get 80-90% result by following either:

Kodak method:
Google Kodak TechPub o3

Or the excellent paper by Mr. Halfhill:
http://www.halfhill.com/speed1.html

I found that a calibrated 1 degree spot meter worked well by placing the negative on a white balanced light box and the spot meter lens directly on top of the negative in the middle, take a reading and record the results.

Repeat without negative and subtract the light box reading from the reading that you got while the negative was in place, that will give you the density in stops of light.

Convert the stops into a logarithmic scale (density)
Every 0.10 log number = a 1/3 stop change.

That will give you a result pretty close to a densitometer.

Don't forget to do the Base + fog reading first then subtract it from all the other negative densities to give you the net density.

Hope this helps.

 

[jonasfj]

I found that a calibrated 1 degree spot meter worked well by placing the negative on a white balanced light box and the spot meter lens directly on top of the negative in the middle, take a reading and record the results.

Repeat without negative and subtract the light box reading from the reading that you got while the negative was in place, that will give you the density in stops of light.

Convert the stops into a logarithmic scale (density)
Every 0.10 log number = a 1/3 stop change.

That will give you a result pretty close to a densitometer.

Don't forget to do the Base + fog reading first then subtract it from all the other negative densities to give you the net density.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for a good tip!

 

[removed account4]

no densitometer is necessary.

the OP should just do a simple film and developer test, it can be done with 3 sheets of film and a dark slide
the op can expose at box speed using 1/3 a sheet, then the speeds like a test strip and then develop the film
in whatever developer he wants at the time recommended then 30% more and 30%less. **
contact print or scan and see what he likes best then a whole sheet for whatever time /development he decided on
no fancy equipment, log values or charts are needed just film and developer and and paper/scanner.
no need to overcomplicate a very simple procedure.

** if the op doesn't like the test strip he can just use x-sheets of film.

 

[Pioneer]

I always think of the box ISO and manufacturers development times to be an average, the same as digital cameras measure averages and its up to the photographer to adjust the average to acquire the results that the photographer has visualised.

Use the manufacturers figures as a starting point for the testing, then record the results you get with your equipment and techniques.

I fully agree with this MJLangdon. But then I start looking at the process of exposing film as a holistic exercise and this is what I come up with.

In hand I have a film that is identified as an ISO100 film through proper ISO testing methods. I also know that those testing methods do not necessarily reflect real-life useage. When I put this film in my camera I know that, on average, if I am out taking photos on a sunny day I can supposedly expose that film using the Sunny 16 rule of thumb which says to expose it at 1/100 of a second at f/16, and it will probably come out fine. However, I also know that I do not have a shutter speed of 1/100 seconds. I do have one that supposedly fires at 1/125 seconds. I am told that this will still work fine. I could adjust by opening my aperture a little to about f/14 or some such thing but I am told not to worry about it. Besides, I would be guessing at the aperture opening anyway since my lens only provides half steps. Of course, the shutter in my camera may only really be firing at 1/100 seconds anyway since very few mechanical shutters are 100% accurate. And my lens, which hasn't been new in many years, has a bit of dust in it, and is covered with a small amount of haze. I am told that this won't have any effect of the photograph but I know that technically I am probably not getting the full amount of light that I should be getting through this lens. Further, I am led to believe that most black and white, as well as color negative film, has a fair amount of latitude built in so small amounts of exposure variation doesn't have that much of an effect on the final result.

I could keep going but I don't think it is really necessary. I think the message is that absolute scientific accuracy is not that important in photography. A fudge factor here, a rule of thumb there, mixed up with a bit of latitude and a dose of composition and...voila. You have a negative. And mine won't look a lot different than yours, particularly after it is printed. Yours may be exposed at EI80 or EI50, mine at ISO100. I may see my subject as a little dark and moody, you may see it as bright, airy and joyful. It is all in what you want to communicate.

We haven't even delved into the "science" of printing yet.

 

[MJLangdon]

I agree with both of you that there are easier ways to test and it's not really needed to expose a photo "correctly"

But knowing exactly how the negative and final darkroom print is going to come out before even taken out your camera through visualisation and using a hand held spot meter is very rewarding and also saves a lot of time and wasted film.

I am a landscape photographer and often work with large dynamic ranges that don't leave a lot of room for error especially when using a red contrast filter (tends to darken shadows under blue sky) so a 1/3 stop under exposure could mean loss of shadow detail or over development leading to loss of highlight detail.

The best thing is to figure out what gets you the best results and stick with it because what works for one won't work for another because there are too many variables with gear and technique.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The wonderful thing about both TMax films is that they have relatively long straight lines that will resolve shadows quite well in high contrast scenes,
while still bagging the highlights well. The down side of this is that you do indeed have to meter those shadow values accurately. So yes, it is a finicky
film compared to certain others. But once you understand it, not much of a hassle at all. Just don't rely on any "latitude" nonsense.

 

[tomfrh]

I've tried a few rolls of TMX in Rodinal, and it's coming out much better than with the XTOL. I think I am seeing this film's power now..