TMY at 1600?

[Stephanie Brim]

I just shot a roll of night fog shots on TMY. I have Rodinal, D76, and Diafine developers. Can anyone give me times for development in any of those chemicals? I'd really like to use Rodinal if I could. Checked the Massive Dev Chart, too, just so you know. Nothing on TMax 400 at 1600 for Rodinal.

Edit: I just saw that the time for Rodinal 1:80 was 16 minutes for ISO 400. Would 32 minutes be a good starting point for ISO 1600? I know that I'm most likely going to get some *large* grain with this...I want to see how it affects the film.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Went 32 minutes. Could have used a bit more. I think that the next time I do this I'm going with 36 minutes. I went with Rodinal 1:100 and three inversions every other minute. I'll post the results I got when the negatives dry.

 

[pauldc]

Would really like to see the results Stephanie - very interesting

 

[df cardwell]

To estimate a good development time for a situation like this, it's important to know the character of the scene: low light but low contrast, low light and high contrast, that sort of thing. Importance of shadow detail vs highlight, etc.

I'd have guessed the time you used would have been good for holding important highights.

The nature of Rodinal is to be about a stop slower at the deepest shadows than D-76 1+1. "Pushing" in Rodinal will always make the deepest shadows empty, which may or may not be good. D-76 1+1 will give you a stop more shadow speed. XTOL, even more.

When I want to simplify a composition, by increasing the contrast of the midtones against the shadows, I go with Rodinal. If the shadows are important to the story, Xtol or D-76 1+1.

 

[fschifano]

I know you don't have it on hand, but my best results for TMYat EI 1600 have been with XTOL 1+3 for between 19 and 20 minutes at 68 deg. F. XTOL gives slightly better shadow detail than D-76 and Diafine isn't good for much of a push with this film. Rodinal is best used with slow and medium speed films and is not a very good developer for push processing.

 

[kaiyen]

Another good choice would have been Microphen. I've seen surprisingly good results from this from one of the photo.net B&W film moderators, Lex Jenkins. You can do a search for him there.

allan

 

[gnashings]

Perhaps someone remembers this discussion - I can't find the link to the thread - but there was some excellent examples of how far you can push with Rodinal in a Rangefinder Forums thread. Granted, the film was TriX - probably the most flexible medium out there - but overall results of these pushes were a revelation. And I am talking about 12800 for example. It would seem that with the semi-stand method that you are thinking of using, you should be able to get surprising results!
Hopefully someone can remember the discussion or perhaps was involved in it - it seems that the gentleman who did these experiments may be a good resource for people wanting to push with Rodinal. I just wish I could have been more help with specifics,

Peter.

 

[kaiyen]

Stephanie frequents RFF quite a bit, so I'm sure she knows it. However, the link is:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4441

Rodinal with decreased agitation can really get you places with TXT in particular. Of course, the question is again the lighting situation. Merciful's does not _look_ like a particularly contrasty shot. I might be wrong, I'm just saying what it looks like.

I've taken TXT out to 3200 in what I would call contrasty situations - walking around the street at night - with reduced agitation and am impressed with the results.

Stephanie's thread on RFF is at:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19456

She has a link to the resulting photo. This is my _personal_ opinion (she and others are happy with it), but I think the very high contrast scene and absolute absence of significant shadow detail just aren't to my taste. I would personally not use this combination.

allan

 

[Stephanie Brim]

THe next shots will be done on TXT. I was just curious as to how this would work so I did it.

To tell you the truth, I think I didn't quite get it developed long enough. I was guessing. There ARE no times for TMY in Rodinal 1:100 on the Massive Dev Chart and I could find nothing in a Google search to give me much more of a clue. I took the 16 minutes for 1:80 that the MDC had and doubled it...I think I should have doubled and added four or so more minutes. This is just my hypothesis, though.

I may take two cameras out and do both TMY and TXT in the same conditions tonight. It may shed some light on whether or not I got quite the right times.

So that you can all see the photo without going to RFF, I've attached it.

 

[df cardwell]

More development would not have give more shadow density. That's what Rodinal does: raises the midtones and highlights, but not the shadows.

TMY is MEASUREABLY better for this than Tri X.

D-76 1+1 is better than Rodinal, at any dilution, for a two stop push.

XTOL 1+1 is better than D-76 for a push, OR MICROPHEN OR ANYTHING ELSE.

This is a really simple thing to do with contemporary materials.

 

[kaiyen]

Wait - is XTOL better than anything else, or are you saying that anything else is better than D76?

I really gotta try some XTOL.

Also - Stephanie - I don't see how taking some TXT out will help you figure out whether you have the right time for TMY.

allan

 

[gnashings]

XTOL 1+1 is better than D-76 for a push, OR MICROPHEN OR ANYTHING ELSE.

Hang on - XTOL is plain better than D-76 AS ARE microphen or anything else... or is XTOL (in your opinion) better than anything else period? Sorry, I just got lost - I am kind of taking notes here as I read along.

AND,

I think this has to be said: Hats off to Stephanie - I love her attitude towards all this: I am going to try, and if it fails I will try something else, and if that fails - well, you get the point: she actually goes out there and DOES IT... which is more than I can say for myself most of the time...

Peter.

EDIT: Kaiyen - sorry, i missed your post altogether - I see you already asked... I am having a dense moment here...

 

[Claire Senft]

I believe that a developer that contains Catchecol such as Pyrocat Hd is very much to be preferred when one has bright lights in the scene. Stephanie There is a fairly long thread on Latensification that is about a year old. If you like to work at night and want to get the best quality under these conditions you will find it helpful. If you have any questions I would be happy to hear from you, after all you are only a state away.

 

[df cardwell]

Wait - is XTOL better than anything else, or are you saying that anything else is better than D76?

I really gotta try some XTOL.

Also - Stephanie - I don't see how taking some TXT out will help you figure out whether you have the right time for TMY.

allan

Let's see if it's easier with the wine.

1.) Rodinal, compared to D-76 straight, is about 1/2 stop slower in the lowest shadows. From the middle shadows and higher, the curves match, and Rodinal extends a straightline beyond the D76 shoulder.

2.) D-76, diluted 1:1, for clever photochemistry reasons, INCREASES the shadow speed by another half stop over straight D-76. It also is a bit sharper than D-76 straight. These are the reasons it has been the Photojournalists Soup of Preference for decades.

3. ) So far, either version of D76 pushes film better than Rodinal. With D76 1+1 you're a stop ahead already ! Developers like Acufine and Microphen are '50s era phenidone developers that, while similar to D76, because of phenidone's neat qualities, adds a third to half a stop over plain, and diluted, is a little faster than D76 1+1. But it lacks some of D-76's elegance ( in 35mm ) and has not been as widely loved. Loved well by some, but not by everybody.

4.) XTOL is a phenidone/ascorbate developer ( callinng mr gainer ! ) that finally beats D 76 in all respects ( OK, some folks don't like it with old tech films, but I do ! ) It is even more efficient than Microphen, and elegant like D-76. SO, 1+1, it gives more shadow speed than D-76, Microphen, or anything else. And it IS at its best with TMY.

5.) EI 1600 is ducksoup for XTOL 1+1 and TMY. Compared to Tri X (which I have loved well for years ) TMY has less granularity ( an objective quality ), higher resolution ( also objective ) and a higher MTF ( also objective ). The kicker, for me, is that pushed Tri X has a shoulder which tends to block high values. TMY does not. This simplifies both printing and scanning immensely. Check the Kodak publications to verify I'm not inventing this.

6. Kodak has published every conceivable time and speed for XTOL and every film.

Good, clear, objective qualities for XTOL when it comes to pushing film. Second best, D-76 1+1. And not bad at all.

My own darkroom has a vat of Rodinal, a tub of XTOL, and a vile cauldron of something JDEF cooked up. It really does amazing things developing TMY, but it's been raining frogs ever since I've started to use it.

d

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

...and a vile cauldron of something JDEF cooked up. It really does amazing things developing TMY, but it's been raining frogs ever since I've started to use it.

d

df, You must be talking about Jay's 510-Pyro. It does do amazing things with TMY - and now that you mention it, it's still raining here!

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Thanks...I'm going to process all the information and possibly use it the next time I get a new developer. I had been meaning to try XTOL and HC-110 next. Maybe I should mix up some Pyrocat as well eventually.

I DO like the result in Rodinal...the problem was the fact that I didn't develop long enough. Almost, but not quite. Had I developed it longer, the reason I shot THAT shot as I did would become clear...I was trying to show how dense the fog was. The sign was barely readable from where I was. To give you an idea, I was 15 or 20 feet from it.

Kaiyen: About the TXT and TMY thing I said. I know the times for Tri-X semi stand in Rodinal...so I know how to both shoot and develop that film better than TMY. It will give me an idea of whether or not my TMY negs are getting developed long enough if they look somewhat like my TXT negs. I know that both films will give me different results, but the shot should look similar. I'm also going to shoot both at 1600 and develop in Rodinal 1:50...the MDC doesn't post times for Rodinal 1:100.

 

[pmu]

What about trying that rodinal + xtol combination? Should that give better detail to the shadow areas when compared to just rodinal? I tested this and have used this combination since... mainly Adox chm 400 (= hp5+) and tmy shot at ISO800 and I really like the results. Here is one ISO800 frame shot at pretty high contrast situation and developed with this combination... (a scan from print).

 

[kaiyen]

df,
Thanks for the clarification. That's what I thought you meant, but wasn't sure. I have a big stock of Microphen right now that I need to get through, but I do mean to get to XTOL eventually. Quick digression - is FX-50 also ascorbate-based? I had read somewhere that it was...

Stephanie - I'm still not sure what you're going to gain from increasing time on the TMY. Maybe if you did it without any agitation at all...otherwise it seems to me that you will merely get more and more density in the highlights. The chances of increasing shadow detail are very, very slim.

allan

 

[janvanhove]

ok, i'll bite: why not use simply kodak t-max developper? I know it's not on your list of chemicals you use, but it's the best I've used for push processing of both kodak t-max films (T-max 3200 at 12800 anyone??) and even ilford HP5 (up to 3200)...

Cheers,

PJ

 

[Stephanie Brim]

df,
Thanks for the clarification. That's what I thought you meant, but wasn't sure. I have a big stock of Microphen right now that I need to get through, but I do mean to get to XTOL eventually. Quick digression - is FX-50 also ascorbate-based? I had read somewhere that it was...

Stephanie - I'm still not sure what you're going to gain from increasing time on the TMY. Maybe if you did it without any agitation at all...otherwise it seems to me that you will merely get more and more density in the highlights. The chances of increasing shadow detail are very, very slim.

allan

I'm not really wanting to increase the shadow detail. I think that I will try without agitation and see what I get then. I'm still really in the experimenting phase with Rodinal and the films I use...so I'm going to have to try a few things before I get things right.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

ok, i'll bite: why not use simply kodak t-max developper? I know it's not on your list of chemicals you use, but it's the best I've used for push processing of both kodak t-max films (T-max 3200 at 12800 anyone??) and even ilford HP5 (up to 3200)...

Cheers,

PJ

Because I don't want to buy yet another developer when I have three perfectly good ones right here. Rodinal is GREAT for pushing Tri-X (IMHO) and so I just wanted to see what pushing TMY would be like.

 

[stormbytes]

Perhaps someone remembers this discussion - I can't find the link to the thread - but there was some excellent examples of how far you can push with Rodinal in a Rangefinder Forums thread. Granted, the film was TriX - probably the most flexible medium out there - but overall results of these pushes were a revelation. And I am talking about 12800 for example. It would seem that with the semi-stand method that you are thinking of using, you should be able to get surprising results!
Hopefully someone can remember the discussion or perhaps was involved in it - it seems that the gentleman who did these experiments may be a good resource for people wanting to push with Rodinal. I just wish I could have been more help with specifics,

Peter.

Peter,

I too was intrigued by that thread and especially by the results that the author posted and claimed. Unfortunately, in my own testing - which was rather thorough, it seems the information in the rangefinderforum thread may have been embelished just a touch.

check this out for the specifics:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)


Cheers
Daniel

 

[zenrhino]

It really does amazing things developing TMY, but it's been raining frogs ever since I've started to use it.

Well, it IS Passover.

 

[jeroldharter]

ok, i'll bite: why not use simply kodak t-max developper? I know it's not on your list of chemicals you use, but it's the best I've used for push processing of both kodak t-max films (T-max 3200 at 12800 anyone??) and even ilford HP5 (up to 3200)...

Cheers,

PJ

I notice this too. Seems like the curious people here are bored with straightforward combinations and anything with "Kodak" in it.

I was very disappointed with myself when I did a blind testing of various printing papers and found that I liked the look of Polymax the best. Surely my tastes are more esoteric than that. In the end I settled on TMAX 100 in TMAX RS developer on Polymax (Zone VI developer though). Wish I had time to test more options too.

 

[df cardwell]

Wonderful weather in Detroit this weekend.

Thinking about Sunday dinner, and hankering for something nice in the way of tomatoes

Went straight to the receipe box, the treasury of secrets of great cooks I've met from all over. EVERY fantastic receipe for a marinated tomato, however wonderful the variation of the sauce, echoed my Mom's Ozark farm-girl's advice,

"Start with a good tomato."

The exact same wisdom informs all possibilities of film development: start with a good picture.

And since there won't be a good tomato around here for months,
I think I'll go with Grandma's wilted lettuce instead.