tmax400 120 developing questions.

[chris77]

hello all..
i have exposed a roll of 120 tmy-2 @iso 250.
different subjects with different sbr in different (natural) lightings - its sunny in the south of france .. hooray!
the one thing in common between these shots, enough exposure was there (in some shots open shadows placed on IV), so the only difficulty will be the highlights (again in some shots only - high sbr and information up till zone XII).
some shots were taken indoors, again generously exposed.

how would you develop this film?

first i thought about a compensation attempt (rod. semi stand) but in fact i dont want to loose contrast here, neither in highlights nor shadows. and tmy has "no shoulder" until XII or higher as i have read. so why compensate?

what would happen if i develop normally and simply adjust (filtration, split printing(?), dodge/burn) for the few shots that have high SBR?
simply increasing the print exposure might already do the trick for some, i guess (as my shadows are anyway high placed).

is my approach correct?

at the moment i have rodinal at home (and very much like the look of tmy in rodinal) but i am thinking to get an alternative..

as i am still learning about densitometry and the limits of exposure/print values, what happens with the information in zone XII (in case of tmax it means a density of about 2.0?) is this 2.0 related to the dmax (around 2) of print papers or am i mixing things up here?

hope my questions make sense..
tx anyway for all advice

chris

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

I think I would have developed it slightly shorter than normal and hoped for the best. If the highlights are really, really dense I'd try to pre flash when printing and use a mask to burn down any stubborn highlight.

You could do something similar to a N-2 development but then do would loose a lot of contrast in the other images and in worst case some shadows as well. And then you'd also have to find a proper time for N-2 (which should really be established by testing).

I don't own a densitometer so I haven't tuned in my process that much, but I'd go with -15% development and burn the highlights until they behave.

 

[ic-racer]

Multigrade printing and rollfilm make a great combination.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I would develop normally or maybe as N+1 and compensate for the rest in printing on VCpaper as suggested aboveyes, you are mixing things up a bit in your sensitometry. a negative logdensity of 2.0simply means thatonly 1%(1/10^D)of the light can get through as it is sufficiently opaque to block the rest..make sure to remain an artist on your way to become a scientist

 

[chris77]

I would develop normally or maybe as N+1 and compensate for the rest in printing on VCpaper as suggested aboveyes, you are mixing things up a bit in your sensitometry. a negative logdensity of 2.0simply means thatonly 1%(1/10^D)of the light can get through as it is sufficiently opaque to block the rest..make sure to remain an artist on your way to become a scientist

hello ralph.

thanks for the reply, although confusing, as i was certain that a N-1 development would be necessary to bring the zone XII highlights within reach.. (without messing up the good shadows).
i am still pretty sure i need to cut back instead of adding development.

for the density.. i was aware that the negative density 2.0 means that..
was simply wondering if this value (2.0) stands in any relation with the average dmax of print paper or it is just incidentally so.

nice day..

 

[chris77]

I think I would have developed it slightly shorter than normal and hoped for the best. If the highlights are really, really dense I'd try to pre flash when printing and use a mask to burn down any stubborn highlight.

You could do something similar to a N-2 development but then do would loose a lot of contrast in the other images and in worst case some shadows as well. And then you'd also have to find a proper time for N-2 (which should really be established by testing).

I don't own a densitometer so I haven't tuned in my process that much, but I'd go with -15% development and burn the highlights until they behave.

that sounds pretty good to me!
as long as the shadows are good not too much of a problem anyway.. especially with this kind of film.
tx

 

[chris77]

in the meantime..

found a book called "the art of photography" by bruce barnbaum.
his way of explaining the matter suits my level of understanding (ambitious amateur).
i recommend it!

"...Therefore, if you encounter a scene of excessive contrast and choose to expose the brightest areas well above Zone 9 (a perfectly good approach), be sure to use less-than-normal development times in order to avoid excessive densities. Good separations will still be maintained in your negative and in the print..."

 

[MattKing]

Bruce Barnbaum is a bit controversial when it comes to his advice.

TMY-2 has a very good ability to record a very wide range of subject brightnesses - the straight line section of its curve is quite long. Mr. Barnbaum's advice may be more suited/necessary for other films.

I would recommend normal development, followed by print manipulations where necessary.

 

[PittP]

In average this sounds like 2 DIN / 2/3 ASA overexposure in contrasty scenes. TMY-2 should easily deal with this, e.g. in Xtol stock and normal development (as per Kodak instructions), or 1+1 and a slightly reduced time.
IMHO, refrain from (semi-)stand development notably in Xtol, agitation is good for homogeneous areas (eg sky).
Good luck and keep us updated on your results.

 

[Bill Burk]

I'd wait to hear from Ralph Lambrecht whether he meant N-1.

In the galleries, my shot "Dad and the twins, Laguna" is TMY-2 normally developed, shot taken at the beach in full sun, fit Grade 2 very nicely. Even the skies weren't blown out which I fully expected.

I just checked my charts and this particular family of curves shows N-1 (10 minutes curve), N (13 minutes curve) and N+1 (16 minutes curve).

You say you placed your shadows on Zone IV, this roughly corresponds to my chart's X-Axis value 2.25

If you really have important highlights Placed at Zone XII, that puts your highlights fully at the right-hand side of my graph 0.00 on the X-Axis.

So if you develop N+1 the shadow will have 0.80 density, highlights 2.70 density. (1.9 density range).

At N, shadow will have 0.63 density, highlights 2.30 density. (1.67 density range).

At N-1, shadow will have 0.40 density, highlights 1.84 density. (1.44 density range).

Since I consider a density range over 1.20 to be difficult to print on Grade 2 paper, I would say N-1 is pretty close to a contrasty negative already according to your evaluation of the scene. Maybe though, you overestimated the important highlights. If you overestimated the highlights, you will be fine on Grade 2.

Note the slight "upsweep" in my curves is a development anomaly, not a film response. I get slight edge "overdevelopment" in 4x5 sheet development as I shuffle sheets - the edges tend to get a little more fresh developer than the center of the sheets. I estimate that the film's true response is still a straight line even a little past what I graphed.

http://beefalobill.com/imgs/Sept9TMY2.pdf

 

[chris77]

Bruce Barnbaum is a bit controversial when it comes to his advice.

TMY-2 has a very good ability to record a very wide range of subject brightnesses - the straight line section of its curve is quite long. Mr. Barnbaum's advice may be more suited/necessary for other films.

I would recommend normal development, followed by print manipulations where necessary.

just to understand you right, can you explain why you wouldnt give less development? what harm would it do? loss of contrast in the midtones should be very little if visible at all, no?

and about barnbaum, could you explain further please? thank you

 

[chris77]

I'd wait to hear from Ralph Lambrecht whether he meant N-1.

In the galleries, my shot "Dad and the twins, Laguna" is TMY-2 normally developed, shot taken at the beach in full sun, fit Grade 2 very nicely. Even the skies weren't blown out which I fully expected.

I just checked my charts and this particular family of curves shows N-1 (10 minutes curve), N (13 minutes curve) and N+1 (16 minutes curve).

You say you placed your shadows on Zone IV, this roughly corresponds to my chart's X-Axis value 2.25

If you really have important highlights Placed at Zone XII, that puts your highlights fully at the right-hand side of my graph 0.00 on the X-Axis.

So if you develop N+1 the shadow will have 0.80 density, highlights 2.70 density. (1.9 density range).

At N, shadow will have 0.63 density, highlights 2.30 density. (1.67 density range).

At N-1, shadow will have 0.40 density, highlights 1.84 density. (1.44 density range).

Since I consider a density range over 1.20 to be difficult to print on Grade 2 paper, I would say N-1 is pretty close to a contrasty negative already according to your evaluation of the scene. Maybe though, you overestimated the important highlights. If you overestimated the highlights, you will be fine on Grade 2.

Note the slight "upsweep" in my curves is a development anomaly, not a film response. I get slight edge "overdevelopment" in 4x5 sheet development as I shuffle sheets - the edges tend to get a little more fresh developer than the center of the sheets. I estimate that the film's true response is still a straight line even a little past what I graphed.

http://beefalobill.com/imgs/Sept9TMY2.pdf

thanks for your detailed and interesting comment.
i agree with you, density range matters after all..

on the other hand, maybe you are right and i overestimate the importance of the highlights (a little burning here and there would be no problem). some other shots on the same roll are just spot on in the desired range for printing. so why mess with contrast in the higher tones there..

lets see. normal development or n-1. guess i will toss a coin

edit: i just realise you were rating tmy at 400 there. i shot my roll @ 250..
so my highlights will expand density range even more.
n-1 it should be so?

 

[Bill Burk]

edit: i just realise you were rating tmy at 400 there. i shot my roll @ 250..
so my highlights will expand density range even more.

OK. I use TMY2 at 250 as well. It only moves the X-Axis 0.20 to the right, both the shadow and highlights move to the right. Since it's all on the straight line exposing at 250 will not change predicted density range for your negatives.

But I forgot to calculate flare. And this WILL reduce the predicted density range for your negatives. Flare will work to your advantage here.

A common Flare factor is 0.40 to the right as well on the X-Axis (but only for the shadows, the highlights will not move due to flare).

So correcting for flare first, if it was 2.25 on my X-Axis and you move 0.40 to the right that's 1.85 on my X-Axis

N+1 shadow density will be 1.08 (at 400) then 0.20 to the right to 1.65 on the X-Axis (to move to 250) shadow density will be 1.22

Original guess was 0.80 so now density range is 1.62 & moving to 250 doesn't change the density range, even though it's off my graph, I still guess you are on the straight line.

N shadow density will be 0.85 (at 400) then 0.20 to the right (to move to 250) shadow density will be 1.00
Original guess was 0.63 so now density range is 1.45

N-1 shadow density will be 0.63 (at 400) then 0.20 to the right (to move to 250) shadow density will be 0.75
Original guess was 0.40 so now density range is 1.21

Now here is where the magic comes in... 1.21 is difficult to print on Grade 2 paper. Not extremely difficult, just a bit of burning of the highlights (in f/stop terms, probably 1/3 f/stop of burn will be required in a highlight area that you want to hold.

You will be fine with N-1.

 

[chris77]

OK. I use TMY2 at 250 as well. It only moves the X-Axis 0.20 to the right, both the shadow and highlights move to the right. Since it's all on the straight line exposing at 250 will not change predicted density range for your negatives.

But I forgot to calculate flare. And this WILL reduce the predicted density range for your negatives. Flare will work to your advantage here.

A common Flare factor is 0.40 to the right as well on the X-Axis (but only for the shadows, the highlights will not move due to flare).

So correcting for flare first, if it was 2.25 on my X-Axis and you move 0.40 to the right that's 1.85 on my X-Axis

N+1 shadow density will be 1.08 (at 400) then 0.20 to the right to 1.65 on the X-Axis (to move to 250) shadow density will be 1.22

Original guess was 0.80 so now density range is 1.62 & moving to 250 doesn't change the density range, even though it's off my graph, I still guess you are on the straight line.

N shadow density will be 0.85 (at 400) then 0.20 to the right (to move to 250) shadow density will be 1.00
Original guess was 0.63 so now density range is 1.45

N-1 shadow density will be 0.63 (at 400) then 0.20 to the right (to move to 250) shadow density will be 0.75
Original guess was 0.40 so now density range is 1.21

Now here is where the magic comes in... 1.21 is difficult to print on Grade 2 paper. Not extremely difficult, just a bit of burning of the highlights (in f/stop terms, probably 1/3 f/stop of burn will be required in a highlight area that you want to hold.

You will be fine with N-1.

hello bill. thanks for clearing his up.
nice of you to make the effort.
time for me to start learning about flare..

have a nice weekend..

 

[pbromaghin]

I'd wait to hear from Ralph Lambrecht whether he meant N-1.

In the galleries, my shot "Dad and the twins, Laguna" is TMY-2 normally developed, shot taken at the beach in full sun, fit Grade 2 very nicely. Even the skies weren't blown out which I fully expected.

I just checked my charts and this particular family of curves shows N-1 (10 minutes curve), N (13 minutes curve) and N+1 (16 minutes curve).

You say you placed your shadows on Zone IV, this roughly corresponds to my chart's X-Axis value 2.25

If you really have important highlights Placed at Zone XII, that puts your highlights fully at the right-hand side of my graph 0.00 on the X-Axis.

So if you develop N+1 the shadow will have 0.80 density, highlights 2.70 density. (1.9 density range).

At N, shadow will have 0.63 density, highlights 2.30 density. (1.67 density range).

At N-1, shadow will have 0.40 density, highlights 1.84 density. (1.44 density range).

Since I consider a density range over 1.20 to be difficult to print on Grade 2 paper, I would say N-1 is pretty close to a contrasty negative already according to your evaluation of the scene. Maybe though, you overestimated the important highlights. If you overestimated the highlights, you will be fine on Grade 2.

Note the slight "upsweep" in my curves is a development anomaly, not a film response. I get slight edge "overdevelopment" in 4x5 sheet development as I shuffle sheets - the edges tend to get a little more fresh developer than the center of the sheets. I estimate that the film's true response is still a straight line even a little past what I graphed.

http://beefalobill.com/imgs/Sept9TMY2.pdf

My God. I could study this post for a week and not know what the heck you are saying.

 

[Bill Burk]

You're welcome.

As to what is considered Bruce Barnbaum's controversial advice, you just ran into a problem that I might have predicted when you followed his advice and somebody else's advice too. You double corrected for the same thing: Placing shadows on Zone IV was his advice, but adjusting EI from 400 to 250 was somebody else's. Both are adjustments intended to give more exposure to improve shadows.

Now you will see what it is like having dense negatives with a good density range. They will take "longer" exposure times when printing. But otherwise they should be fine.

 

[Bill Burk]

My God. I could study this post for a week and not know what the heck you are saying.

Sorry. I'm sure the follow-up post I wrote where I had to adjust for flare made things worse.

I hope you are familiar with the Zone System for starters, because most of the "jargon" relates to Zone System place and fall and development plans.

_*_ shot some film a bit overexposed and in pretty bright conditions...

Wondering if it should be underdeveloped to avoid blowing out the highlights, I tried to explain that... yes it should be underdeveloped. Not because the film was overexposed, but because the subject had one more f/stop of brightness than a normal scene.

We were considering Zone System "N" = Normal development or "N-1," Normal minus one (minus enough time in developer that if your subject had one more f/stop of brightness than a normal scene, the negative would look the same as a negative taken of a Normal scene developed for Normal time).

My family of curves graphs shows curves for "N+1" = 16 minutes, "N" = 13 minutes and "N-1" = 10 minutes.

If _*_ gets development times like I do, then the right time to develop the film would be 10 minutes in D-76 1:1 at 68-degrees F...

"N-1" isn't defined in terms of minutes though, it's a time based on results... (that long phrase in parentheses)

 

[MattKing]

just to understand you right, can you explain why you wouldnt give less development? what harm would it do? loss of contrast in the midtones should be very little if visible at all, no?

and about barnbaum, could you explain further please? thank you

Bill Burk has covered most of this.

Mr. Barnbaum has an interesting approach, which results in very high quality prints for him. However, when he tries to explain why his advice works, his explanations don't necessarily make sense.

His approach may also be more necessary with films other than TMY-2.

From my point of view, mid-tone contrast is really important - more important than the odd slightly blown highlight. So I prefer using a film like TMY-2 which allows me to maintain that mid-tone contrast, while still holding all the details in the highlights, even if I have to do a bit of burning at the printing stage to make use of them. It doesn't hurt, as well, that the spectral sensitivity of TMY-2 often means that you don't need to use a yellow filter to achieve good details in the skies - which may have something to do with Bill Burk's success with his beach photos.

 

[Bill Burk]

Reading an old Ansel Adams book "The Making of a Photograph" (it's kind of refreshing, 1947, before Zone System)...

"Different developers influence the speed of emulsions... For instance excess potassium bromide in the developer... effectively reduces the speed... Thus it is to be added to the developer when known over-exposure is encountered."

So... If I were faced with precious film exposed as you described, I would run sensitometry tests with some fresh TMAX 400, to make a family of curves where I had added potassium bromide to my D-76 (more than 60 grains potassium bromide to a gallon of stock developer).

Then I would choose a development time that gives 0.48 Contrast Index, and then I would develop the precious film.

I would expect to see the speed of the film significantly reduced, the resulting negative would have less density overall but would have the same density range.

_*_ ,

I don't think we'll really do that kind of lab work for your shots. But it's fun to imagine what can be done given a particular problem.

 

[Roger Cole]

You're welcome.

As to what is considered Bruce Barnbaum's controversial advice, you just ran into a problem that I might have predicted when you followed his advice and somebody else's advice too. You double corrected for the same thing: Placing shadows on Zone IV was his advice, but adjusting EI from 400 to 250 was somebody else's. Both are adjustments intended to give more exposure to improve shadows.

Now you will see what it is like having dense negatives with a good density range. They will take "longer" exposure times when printing. But otherwise they should be fine.

Yep, totally agree - grainier than they need to be though, especially in the highlights. Likely matters not at all with TMY-2 in 4x5, not too much in medium format depending on the format, degree of double correction and print size, but may well matter in 35mm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[chris77]

Reading an old Ansel Adams book "The Making of a Photograph" (it's kind of refreshing, 1947, before Zone System)...

"Different developers influence the speed of emulsions... For instance excess potassium bromide in the developer... effectively reduces the speed... Thus it is to be added to the developer when known over-exposure is encountered."

So... If I were faced with precious film exposed as you described, I would run sensitometry tests with some fresh TMAX 400, to make a family of curves where I had added potassium bromide to my D-76 (more than 60 grains potassium bromide to a gallon of stock developer).

Then I would choose a development time that gives 0.48 Contrast Index, and then I would develop the precious film.

I would expect to see the speed of the film significantly reduced, the resulting negative would have less density overall but would have the same density range.

_*_ ,

I don't think we'll really do that kind of lab work for your shots. But it's fun to imagine what can be done given a particular problem.

bill,

luckily i dont own a densitometer, otherwise i might be tempted..

and just to say it, i am not a "nerd" when it comes to technical details. i find it very interesting, also because i am discovering..
i do understand what is happening in some extent, and i will keep learning, as in my opinion understanding the technical/chemical/.. details is to a photographer what is the theory of the contrapunctus (for example) to a musician.
you can play great and even in front of a big crowd without knowing it, but when it comes to the interpretation of a certain piece, it will make a difference..

nice sunday to you all.
chris

 

[Bill Burk]

The amazing thing is Ansel Adams, in 1947, would have done this by feel - I don't think he owned a densitometer yet.

 

[chris77]

The amazing thing is Ansel Adams, in 1947, would have done this by feel - I don't think he owned a densitometer yet.

well... absolute hearing.
to stay with the comparison..

 

[Alan Klein]

My scanner an Epson V600 can read densities at any part of the negative. Are these things accurate and could they be used?

 

[Bill Burk]

Scanner as densitometer: Not very accurate in my opinion. I've used VueScan with its density mode and been unhappy with the readings.

But. I can see that it would be easy to get a Stouffer step wedge and scan it "at the same settings" as your negative and compare readings from steps on the scale, to readings from your negative.

With a few sketches on paper you could correlate digital readout to known densities.

Even an uncalibrated scale would be fine for the purpose, we're not trying to get super-precise.