tmy2 in xtol problem...

[BimmerJake]

I just developed a roll of tmy2 in xtol (like the title says ) and it looks like i over developed, i think. basically, they're much more transparent than i would like, i guess you would call that thin? still getting the hang of some of these terms.

i also ran a roll of fp4+ through that same batch of developer and the negs look great to me, so i'm confident i mixed the xtol properly. as far as i know i used the recommended times and what not.

does it sound like i did a bad job timing the development?

where else could i have gone wrong? :confused:

thanks

 

[bob100684]

if the negs are thin, they are under developed. Could you have used times for a different temperature than your solution actually was? Maybe you were just a little off in your mixing of the developer?

 

[BimmerJake]

i think the developer is fine, i mixed the whole 5 liter batch so there wasn't that much measuring involved. so, if they're thin that means i didn't soup them long enough? i could have looked at the wrong temperature column i guess. i have another roll to shoot, so i'll double check the times before next time.

 

[Anon Ymous]

If they're more transparent that you think they should, you've underdeveloped. Did you reuse the developer you used for fp4+? Did you check the temperature before pouring the developer in the tank? Still, what's properly developed or not can only be judged by printing. Unless of course you're a guru that eyeballs the neg and assesses it's quality. I'm not!

 

[BimmerJake]

i don't have the capacity to print at the moment, so until i get them to the lab i won't know how they turn out. but based on how negative that i have had printed look they look way too thin.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Oh, if it's that obvious (way too thin), then that's bad.

 

[Denis K]

If you used stock (1+0) XTOL then Kodak calls for around 6.5 minutes at 20 C.

If you used XTOL diluted 1+1 your time should have been around 9.25 minutes.

Could you have used 1+1 dilution and then use the stock time?

TMY is a lower contrast film than FP4+ and will usually look bit thinner than FP4+ unless you start adjusting the development times. It shouldn't be mostly transparent though.

Denis K

 

[BimmerJake]

it's stock (1+0) but i seem to think i only developed for 5.5. looking at the chart again it looks like i may have used the 75f time. would that minute make that much of a difference? i guess it would, looks like it did.

 

[fschifano]

Yes, it would make that much of a difference. If the correct time is 6.5 minutes and you developed for 5.5 minutes, that works out to a 15% reduction in development time. Not insignificant.

 

[Robert Budding]

Where are they thin? Do you have detail in the shadows? If not, then you under exposed. Highlights not dense enough? That's under developed.

 

[BimmerJake]

well, they are universally thin. this leads me to believe it's the development that i goofed. i think even a beginner like me would have a hard time under exposing an entire roll of 36. i have one more roll to shoot and i'll have some from this roll printed to see what they look like. i'll get scans so i can post the images.

 

[BimmerJake]

i don't see anything about a pre-soak. i'm looking at this document from kodak http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.jhtml

the chart at the bottom is where i think i looked at the wrong development time.

i'm acquiring a s****er tomorrow, so i should be able to post samples later in the evening.

 

[craigclu]

I know at first blush this won't sound logical but sometimes, two different types of films developed together can lead to confusing results. I've read of it and have had it happen when experimenting with some home brews. The fact that the FP4 looked somewhat normal made me think of this possibility. I believe Ryuji Suzuki was one source of information on this potential in his testing with Xtol alternatives, but I may not be recalling correctly as I write this.

 

[Denis K]

Take a look at the exposure numbers along the edges of the film. If they are very dim the problem was underdevelopment. If they are OK then it is underexposure.

Denis K

 

[fschifano]

Take a look at the exposure numbers along the edges of the film. If they are very dim the problem was underdevelopment. If they are OK then it is underexposure.

Denis K

Unfortunately, that is not always a reliable indicator. I've had Tri-X with very bold rebates and Tri-X with very faint rebates. In both instances the film was perfectly good and so was development.

 

[BimmerJake]

craig, to clarify... i didn't develop together, they were in different tanks. but it was the same batch of xtol, but a fresh portion in each.

denis, i'll take a look, but this is the first tmy i've developed myself, so i'm not sure what they normally look like. i should be able to put scans up tonight to get your opinion.

thanks for the input so far

 

[clayne]

Edge markers. What do the edge markers look like?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Jake,

Edge markers are in the rebate.

Steve

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If your negativs are universally thin, you could have a problem with both underexposure and underdevelopment.

Take a roll of film and shoot quadruples of frames (important: in normal contrast) bracketed at EI 100, EI 200, EI 400, EI 800. Process the film according to the manufacturer's recommendations.
Find the frames with enough shadow detail for good separation. Then shoot a roll at that EI (exposure index, or 'film speed'). When you process the film cut it in thirds. Now process each third at -20%, at recommended time, and +20% of the manufacturer's recommendations to see if you can somewhat dial in a ball park of where your exposure and development needs to be for a normal situation.

By using two different films, you can't relate the results of the first film (FP4+) to what happened with the TMax.

My recipe for Tmax (replenished, which has activity about similar to in between stock and 1+1 dilution) is 8 minutes with agitation first 30s continuously, then 10s every two minutes. That's for normal contrast and at box speed (400). The 6.5 minute time by Kodak sounds accurate if you agitate every 30s or every minute.
A combination of slight underexposure and underdevelopment could result in thin negatives.

- Thomas

 

[BimmerJake]

steve, i have no idea what you're talking about , "seriously"

I'll post the two shots just to see if it helps (same place, same lighting, both reading green on my internal meter, not inverted or adjusted, just plain scan). the markers are readable, but i don't have any experience with the tmy2 to compare to.

first the tmy2

and the fp4+

i have much more detail in the foliage in the fp4 shot. the funny stuff at the top of the fp4 is unknown, i think it might just be the negative holder, not sure.

i guess really in the end i need to shoot the other roll and see what happens.

 

[Denis K]

The TMY looks underexposed to me. Even with a minute short in the developer you should have more shadow detail. This looks like two different camera's to me. Tell us more about your camera(s) and how you meter.

The lines at the top of the FP4+ could be either developer surge washing through the sprocket holes or else a light leak at the top of the film shining through the sprocket holes.

 

[BimmerJake]

same camera, i only have one. what do you mean by developer surge?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Jake, along the edge of the film, on both edges there are strips call "rebates". In the rebates are printed the film type, the company ["Kodak", Fuji"] and the frame number [approximately]. Usually the printing black and the rebate is clear. If we can see the image and the rebate, we can get a better idea what the problem is.

Steve

 

[Denis K]

By surge I mean that sometimes developer can flow through nooks and cracks in a repeatable pattern and cause certain portions of the film to be developed more than other areas with less flow. One cause of this is always agitating in one orientations. Often you will hear people say to rotate the tank at the same time as you invert it so as to add a bit of randomness.

However, these lines look more like a light leak to me. It's almost like you had some light shining into the top of the tank during development.

Denis K

 

[BimmerJake]

denis, come to think of it i usually put a towel at the bottom of the door when i load film on the reel, i don't thin i did this time, didn't think it was necessary. i don't recall seeing any light but i guess the film is more sensitive than my eyes. i have this pattern on pretty much the whole roll, just didn't look closely until the scan.

steve, i'll see what i can do.

yikes, i have a lot to learn.