Tnax3200 exposed at iso 100

NB23 · Apr 12, 2018

Hello guys,

While in Paris on assignment to replace Doisneau’s and HCB’s stuff with new, fresh and earth shattering masterpieces, there was one tmax3200 film among my bag full of tmax100. And so I therefore exposed it at iso 100.

As you probaly guessed, and as Murphy’s law would have it, all the masterpieces are on that particular film (38 of them).

How would you develop that film? I haven’t sat down to fully analyze my developing charts but I’m guessing something along hc110:H (1:63) for 4-5 minutes, from the top of my head.

What would you do?

Helinophoto · Apr 12, 2018

MDC recommend 5 minutes at B when shot at 400, which is around 10 minutes in H.
Yeah, I suppose around 5 minutes at H is more or less in the theoretical ballpark.

No idea how this will be in reality though, 5 stops overexposed.

Prepare for extremely low contrast shots?

Please post some here if/when you have developed your shots, it would be very interesting to see.

removed account4 · Apr 12, 2018

hello NB23

personally, i would take another roll adn shoot it in similar contrast the same iso
THEN process it "normally" in xtol 1:2
for me at least i could over expose and over develop any film in that dilution
and it came out flat and not too bad.
not sure about you though ... not worth developing something less than 5min and risking uneven development...
especially an important roll ...
i've over exposed 4 or 5 stops before and developed in caffenol ( that is my typical MO ) and the negatives come out great

good luck !

YMMV

pentaxuser · Apr 12, 2018

If the true speed of P3200 is only about 800 i.e. slightly lower than D3200 and there seems to be some consensus on this( ltd no doubt) then this is only 3 stops. Isn't there every reason to believe that the negs should be fine?

pentaxuser

zanxion72 · Apr 12, 2018

It has a latitude that makes it excellent anywhere from 400 to 6400. There won't be much of a problem. I would give it 6 minutes in D76 to avoid severe underdevelopment with anything less than that..

E. von Hoegh · Apr 12, 2018

jnanian said:
hello NB23

personally, i would take another roll adn shoot it in similar contrast the same iso
THEN process it "normally" in xtol 1:2
for me at least i could over expose and over develop any film in that dilution
and it came out flat and not too bad.
not sure about you though ... not worth developing something less than 5min and risking uneven development...
especially an important roll ...
i've over exposed 4 or 5 stops before and developed in caffenol ( that is my typical MO ) and the negatives come out great

good luck !

YMMV

Best idea so far. You could even cut the test roll in pieces and try several developers/times. Good luck, I'm pretty certain you'l get fairly good negatives at the very least.

NB23 · Apr 12, 2018

Yes, Xtol 1:2 is something to consider.

I’m just afraid of the possible low contrast, but there also might be a special look, after all.

removed account4 · Apr 12, 2018

the thing about xtol i have found is no matter how you slice it it is nearly impossible to over process / blow out your film.
and even if they have that xtol low contrast look, chances are with print filtering they will still print beautfully ... if i recall les mclean used to sometimes
boost xtol with rodinal ( as i boost caffenol c with ansco 130 or dektol ) it will improve the contrast &c ... if you have that test roll you can
also test it with a mix of xtol and rodinal, or if xtol is anything like its cousin caffenol add 20cc / L of your favorite stock print developer. if you have those dark green safelights
you can also develop by inspection by looking at the highlights the same way HCB's lab guy used to do it for him. i do it for LF ( or used to )
to assure my times were on ..
http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/devinsp.html

DEVELOPING FILM BY INSPECTION, michaelandpaula.com/mp/devinsp.html.

E. von Hoegh · Apr 12, 2018

NB23 said:
Yes, Xtol 1:2 is something to consider.

I’m just afraid of the possible low contrast, but there also might be a special look, after all.

Low contrast is A-ok. Solid highlights are not.
You can make very good prints from low contrast negs blocked highlights are gone forever.

Bill Burk · Apr 12, 2018

NB23 said:
Yes, Xtol 1:2 is something to consider.

I’m just afraid of the possible low contrast, but there also might be a special look, after all.

You will get low contrast if you underdevelop. Exposure doesn’t affect contrast. It makes dense negatives that will take longer at the enlarger to print.
jnanian has good advice - shoot a non-masterpiece roll at 100 and develop it normally to see if you like the way the negatives print.

NB23 · Apr 12, 2018

Non-masterpiece roll. Ok.

But I am a man of many quirks.

For example, I treat tmax3200 as if it was pure Gold. I just can’t get myself to mistreat another roll of this fine film. It’s that sacred.

I’ll just go on a headbunt and develop it without testing. I’ll let you know what developer/time I’ll have chosen.

E. von Hoegh · Apr 12, 2018

NB23 said:
Non-masterpiece roll. Ok.

But I am a man of many quirks.

For example, I treat tmax3200 as if it was pure Gold. I just can’t get myself to mistreat another roll of this fine film. It’s that sacred.

I’ll just go on a headbunt and develop it without testing. I’ll let you know what developer/time I’ll have chosen.

After you've used it for 30 or so years it won't be so sacred.
It's just film, after all. Now Tech pan, that's sacred!!

trendland · Apr 12, 2018

NB23 said:
Non-masterpiece roll. Ok.

But I am a man of many quirks.

For example, I treat tmax3200 as if it was pure Gold. I just can’t get myself to mistreat another roll of this fine film. It’s that sacred.

I’ll just go on a headbunt and develop it without testing. I’ll let you know what developer/time I’ll have chosen.

In your case it will be a developement in experimental form. You can't get much advises from experienced people because no one would use Tmax3200 with E.I. ISO 100.......
My recomandation is the following :
In your case everything has gone wrong - why should you not proceed in a way nobody has done before?
Now dare you something - right then, off you go : Stand developement with highest delution.
Ilford Perceptol 1:8 ?
D76 1:10?
Rodinal 1:400 ?
Beutler with 1/4 of recomaned strength? It is your choise ! And pls. report the developement times and your result.
with regards

PS : My whole experience came from such ways - just by try and error

removed account4 · Apr 12, 2018

trendland said:
You can't get much advises from experienced people because no one would use Tmax3200 with E.I. ISO 100.......

i have, and i have shot it at 50!
processed in caffenol C, the negatives were absolutely beautiful.
https://www.nanianphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Untitled-22sm.jpg

trendland · Apr 12, 2018

jnanian said:
i have, and i have shot it at 50!
processed in caffenol C, the negatives were absolutely beautiful.

trendland · Apr 12, 2018

jnanian said:
i have, and i have shot it at 50!
processed in caffenol C, the negatives were absolutely beautiful.

Yes that might be - but never forget :
You are sometimes the exeption of the exeption.....

with regards
PS: Tmax 3200 at E.I ISO 50 and PanF with EI. 6400 (last with Rodinal/supermixture) ?????

removed account4 · Apr 12, 2018

trendland said:
Yes that might be - but never forget :
You are sometimes the exeption of the exeption.....

with regards
PS: Tmax 3200 at E.I ISO 50 and PanF with EI. 6400 (last with Rodinal/supermixture) ?????

the exception of the exception ???
i actually do the things i talk about, do you? or do you make recommendations with no experience.

i have never exposed pan f at high iso s. i only OVEREXPOSE things, underexposing is an absolute waste of time and effort as far as i am concerned
and i have never used rodinal or any of the mixtures claiming to be a rodinal formula or the rodinal made with pain reliever, and i never plan on it.
I have used caffenol with a splash of print devloper in it since 2007ish, i have beat the developer in the ground using it every way i could to learn about it
and how to use it. and it works well and there really is no reason for me not to use it.

vivre la difference !

Helinophoto · Apr 12, 2018

Bill Burk said:
You will get low contrast if you underdevelop. Exposure doesn’t affect contrast. It makes dense negatives that will take longer at the enlarger to print.
jnanian has good advice - shoot a non-masterpiece roll at 100 and develop it normally to see if you like the way the negatives print.

Yes, or said differently:
If you are pulling film (which is what needs to be done here, you are shooting at a lower iso than intended and developing for shorter time).
- In this case, the few shadows that exist, will have little time to form in the short dev-time, to save the highlights from blocking. This will keep most tones in the lighter spectrum, giving a over-all high-key feel to the shot and low contrast. If you would develop it normal, it would have normal contrast*.

* and yield a bullet-proof negative ^^

Indeed, if I thought I had a golden roll that I fouled up, I would get another roll, set my camera to auto and fire off 36 shots of the same scene, then cut appropriate lengths in the dark and try out various things until i felt i got something I could live with.

I wonder what the technician who burned Robert Capa's D-day photos thought.......at least these aren't burnt......yet

Just a question: I know the recommendations for developing are to avoid 5 minutes or less development. But, with Acros, I always develop the EI 100 shots at 5 minutes (HC110) and I have yet to see unevenness. (I do rotate and invert the tank during development though). The only times I have ever experiences uneven development, was with stand-development and even semi-stand and when I have had too little developer in the tank.

I think I even developed some roll for as little as 3.5 minutes once, can't remember, but I think it went just fine.

I know the recommendations are generally considered 'gospel', but have any of you guys experienced unevenness with development-times of 5 minutes?

trendland · Apr 12, 2018

jnanian said:
the exception of the exception ???
i actually do the things i talk about, do you? or do you make recommendations with no experience.

i have never exposed pan f at high iso s. i only OVEREXPOSE things, underexposing is an absolute waste of time and effort as far as i am concerned
and i have never used rodinal or any of the mixtures claiming to be a rodinal formula or the rodinal made with pain reliever, and i never plan on it.
I have used caffenol with a splash of print devloper in it since 2007ish, i have beat the developer in the ground using it every way i could to learn about it
and how to use it. and it works well and there really is no reason for me not to use it.

vivre la difference !

Did you actually swellow this bait (from above) ?

with regards

PS : Tmax 3200 in caffenol / PanF (ISO 100) in caffenol ....right.....

removed account4 · Apr 12, 2018

Helinophoto said:
* and yield a bullet-proof negative ^^

helinophoto
i have tried and tried and was never able to get dense negatives with xtol - 3-4 stops over exposed over processed by 2-3x
that is the "anti bullet proof" developer ...

trendland said:
Did you actually swellow this bait (from above) ?

with regards

PS : Tmax 3200 in caffenol / PanF (ISO 100) in caffenol ....right.....

yeah i know, sometimes i feed trolls and regret it later ...
quack quack

trendland · Apr 12, 2018

Helinophoto said:
Yes, or said differently:
If you are pulling film (which is what needs to be done here, you are shooting at a lower iso than intended and developing for shorter time).
- In this case, the few shadows that exist, will have little time to form in the short dev-time, to save the highlights from blocking. This will keep most tones in the lighter spectrum, giving a over-all high-key feel to the shot and low contrast. If you would develop it normal, it would have normal contrast*.

* and yield a bullet-proof negative ^^

Indeed, if I thought I had a golden roll that I fouled up, I would get another roll, set my camera to auto and fire off 36 shots of the same scene, then cut appropriate lengths in the dark and try out various things until i felt i got something I could live with.

I wonder what the technician who burned Robert Capa's D-day photos thought.......at least these aren't burnt......yet

Just a question: I know the recommendations for developing are to avoid 5 minutes or less development. But, with Acros, I always develop the EI 100 shots at 5 minutes (HC110) and I have yet to see unevenness. (I do rotate and invert the tank during development though). The only times I have ever experiences uneven development, was with stand-development and even semi-stand and when I have had too little developer in the tank.

I think I even developed some roll for as little as 3.5 minutes once, can't remember, but I think it went just fine.

I know the recommendations are generally considered 'gospel', but have any of you guys experienced unevenness with development-times of 5 minutes?

Yes I wonder too - the technicians of R.Capa's lab possible don't care so much
as the OP do? Who is right now.
Both from my point - the technicials in the UK 1944 lab helped Capa to his special look a bit.
And the OP want to avoid Capa's look
but to get such bad results isn't possible today (just by using my recomandation with total wrong times)......
with regards

trendland · Apr 12, 2018

jnanian said:
helinophoto
i have tried and tried and was never able to get dense negatives with xtol - 3-4 stops over exposed over processed by 2-3x
that is the "anti bullet proof" developer ...

yeah i know, sometimes i feed trolls and regret it later ...
quack quack

NB23 said:
Hello guys,

While in Paris on assignment to replace Doisneau’s and HCB’s stuff with new, fresh and earth shattering masterpieces, there was one tmax3200 film among my bag full of tmax100. And so I therefore exposed it at iso 100.

As you probaly guessed, and as Murphy’s law would have it, all the masterpieces are on that particular film (38 of them).

How would you develop that film? I haven’t sat down to fully analyze my developing charts but I’m guessing something along hc110:H (1:63) for 4-5 minutes, from the top of my head.

What would you do?

NB23 don't be afraid : "We will never let you allone with your problem"
I am just remembering times to deluted D76 (1:8) - it was nearly 38min. but with highest possible temperature and somewhere around ISO 6400 !!!
I guess (so you realy have to find out your exact times) you can compensate your highest overexposure via this starting point at normal temperature.
4stops would not been totaly compensated with low temperating developer - therefore (to be on a safer side) 20 - 25 min. should be fine.
To the principe : The very high delution will pore the efficiancy of developement and will give fine edge effects in addition.
with regards

Adrian Bacon · Apr 12, 2018

According to Kodak J109 p3200 at EI 400 is 12.5 minutes in a small tank with XTOL 1:1 with a contrast index of 0.52.

Looking at that table, they trim about 2 minutes per stop pulled, so EI 100 will probably land you in the 8 minute range if you do XTOL 1:1. The negative contrast will probably be about 0.44 or so, pretty flat, but not unusable.

You could also alternatively just develop it at EI 400. It has enough latitude that your negative will be denser and your shadow detail will be awesome, but other than that, it won’t hurt it much if at all.

Helinophoto · Apr 12, 2018

jnanian said:
helinophoto
i have tried and tried and was never able to get dense negatives with xtol - 3-4 stops over exposed over processed by 2-3x
that is the "anti bullet proof" developer ...

yeah i know, sometimes i feed trolls and regret it later ...
quack quack

Thanks for the great tip, I have both X-Tol and a nasty habit over overexposure =)

Patrick Robert James · Apr 12, 2018

You might try a tanning/staining developer to limit the highlights. I dramatically overexpose film and develop it in Pyrocat. Never blown a highlight yet. Even when shooting straight into the sun.

Tnax3200 exposed at iso 100

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency