TRI-X 400 in D:76 vs TMAX 400 in TMAX Same scene prints at different exposure. Why?

[lhalcong]

I shot the same scene with two different films, under same lighting conditions only minutes apart from each other. Exposure metered exactly same. Trix-400 was processed in D76 1:1 and TMAX 400 was processed in TMAX Developer 1:4 , both normal process. When printing on same paper , same grade , I figured since same conditions they would both print at the same exposure. To my surprise the TMAX frame printed with 2/3 less of exposure to produce similar prints. How come ?

As a third test , I clipped the TMAX 400 and this second piece same scene with same conditions but this time I processed in D76 1:1 to compare grain. This printed at same exact exposure as the previous TRI-X frame. Uhm ? So I learned that the developer will affect grain which affects directly the exposure at printing. Did I make sense in my test ? Am I correct ? Also noticed that while the TMAX 400 processed in TMAX dev. Produced a significant smaller grain less contrast print, but the TMAX 400 frame processed in D:76 produced a grain about similar characteristics of the TRIX-400 processed in D76, similar contrast print , same exposure. Does this also make sense ?

If you wonder how I compared the grain, I viewed the 8x10 print with a 8X loupe.

i feel like I have moved to level 2.

 

[dorff]

You say the TMax in TMD printed with 2/3 less exposure, i.e. 1/3 of the exposure time of the Tri-X? Or is it 2/3 of a stop you refer to? Did they print to the same contrast? I'd find it hard to believe your TMax neg is 3 times less dense than the Tri-X.

TMax Dev is intended to preserve shadow detail and especially for developing high speed film and pushing TriX/TMax 400 into the stratosphere. It is not a particularly fine-grain developer, nor is it particularly special in any other way, but it certainly does help to increase the speed. It is a valuable developer, and expensive. Unless you are swimming in the stuff, I'd rather save it for high ISO purposes and develop normal ISO 400 stuff with D76/Xtol or similar. YMMV.

 

[gone]

I'm assuming that you used the same camera for the tests. If not, all bets are off due to shutter speed variables and who knows what else. Just because a shutter says 1/250 doesn't mean much w/o testing it w/ a tester. It really doesn't surprise me what you found. When you change film AND developers lots of stuff can happen. I had a Canon A-1 that I tested the speeds on, the meter looked accurate, etc, and when I developed the negs in Acufine they looked pretty grainy (on some shots). The same day I had been shooting the same film in a Nikon camera, and when I developed those negs, the same day as the Canon, they looked perfect.

 

[markbarendt]

Yes level 2, lhalcong.

Grain does not directly affect enlarger exposure, density does. Try a little more development with T-max developer or a little less with D-76 next time that may even them up. (Kodak's instructions provide a really good starting point, but they aren't "rules" you have to follow.)

So did both prints have the same "snap" or was one a bit more gray than the other?

Did one have better detail than the other; overall, in the shadows, in the highlights?

I'm talking about your opinion at normal viewing distance not with the loupe.

Keep practicing, remember what does what, what you like and what you don't. Over time the relationships will become more clear.

 

[lhalcong]

You say the TMax in TMD printed with 2/3 less exposure, i.e. 1/3 of the exposure time of the Tri-X? Or is it 2/3 of a stop you refer to? Did they print to the same contrast? I'd find it hard to believe your TMax neg is 3 times less dense than the Tri-X.

TMax Dev is intended to preserve shadow detail and especially for developing high speed film and pushing TriX/TMax 400 into the stratosphere. It is not a particularly fine-grain developer, nor is it particularly special in any other way, but it certainly does help to increase the speed. It is a valuable developer, and expensive. Unless you are swimming in the stuff, I'd rather save it for high ISO purposes and develop normal ISO 400 stuff with D76/Xtol or similar. YMMV.

Sorry, I meant aprox. 2/3 of a stop. In other words. Tri-X was 60sec @ F/8 and TMAX was 40Sec @ F/8 . They did not have the same contrast, the Print from the TRI-X was more contrasty, makes it look sharper. The TMAX is smoother on the skin. I guess I can post the scanned samples tonight.

 

[lhalcong]

I'm assuming that you used the same camera for the tests. If not, all bets are off due to shutter speed variables and who knows what else. Just because a shutter says 1/250 doesn't mean much w/o testing it w/ a tester. It really doesn't surprise me what you found. When you change film AND developers lots of stuff can happen. I had a Canon A-1 that I tested the speeds on, the meter looked accurate, etc, and when I developed the negs in Acufine they looked pretty grainy (on some shots). The same day I had been shooting the same film in a Nikon camera, and when I developed those negs, the same day as the Canon, they looked perfect.

Definetely, same camera. Exact same exposure. I also made sure I was under the same lighting conditions. I was metering a gray card in the picture with a Sekonik.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I shot the same scene with two different films, under same lighting conditions only minutes apart from each other. Exposure metered exactly same. Trix-400 was processed in D76 1:1 and TMAX 400 was processed in TMAX Developer 1:4 , both normal process. When printing on same paper , same grade , I figured since same conditions they would both print at the same exposure. To my surprise the TMAX frame printed with 2/3 less of exposure to produce similar prints. How come ?

As a third test , I clipped the TMAX 400 and this second piece same scene with same conditions but this time I processed in D76 1:1 to compare grain. This printed at same exact exposure as the previous TRI-X frame. Uhm ? So I learned that the developer will affect grain which affects directly the exposure at printing. Did I make sense in my test ? Am I correct ? Also noticed that while the TMAX 400 processed in TMAX dev. Produced a significant smaller grain less contrast print, but the TMAX 400 frame processed in D:76 produced a grain about similar characteristics of the TRIX-400 processed in D76, similar contrast print , same exposure. Does this also make sense ?

If you wonder how I compared the grain, I viewed the 8x10 print with a 8X loupe.

i feel like I have moved to level 2.

You can move to level 3 when you realize that it's pointless to compare film developers unless you develop the negatives to the same contrast and density (something that you control).
Once you have that under control, you are making worthwhile comparisons.

As Mark has said, the negative density will affect printing time, and two things affect density:
1. Film base fog, which can change based on what developer you use.
2. Negative density, which is affected by:
- Film exposure (overall density from shadows to highlights increase with increased exposure)
- Film development (increases the contrast of the negative for more dense highlights and mid-tones)

 

[lhalcong]

Yes level 2, lhalcong.

Grain does not directly affect enlarger exposure, density does. Try a little more development with T-max developer or a little less with D-76 next time that may even them up. (Kodak's instructions provide a really good starting point, but they aren't "rules" you have to follow.)

So did both prints have the same "snap" or was one a bit more gray than the other?

Did one have better detail than the other; overall, in the shadows, in the highlights?

I'm talking about your opinion at normal viewing distance not with the loupe.

Keep practicing, remember what does what, what you like and what you don't. Over time the relationships will become more clear.

I didnt think or even imagined that the grain would affect exposure. I am with you. However, I was very intrigued to find what I saw. Since you mentioned Density, the TRIX Negative in D76 1:1 has Fb+f = 0.29 while the TMAX Negative in TMAX has Fb+f = 0.25 , not sure if that amounts to the difference I saw in exposure . (see earlier posting for exact exposure used). It was interesting to see as well that the second clip of the TMAX negative what was processed in D76 1:1 printed at the same exposure of the TRIX 400 negative in D76 1:1 that had been shot earlier during the test.

AT Normal viewing: The two prints did not have the same snap. The TRIX print is more contrasty, looks sharper. the TMAX print is smoother on the skin, didn't have the same snap.

 

[lhalcong]

You can move to level 3 when you realize that it's pointless to compare film developers unless you develop the negatives to the same contrast and density (something that you control).
Once you have that under control, you are making worthwhile comparisons.

Thank you. I am on my way to level 3 . Anyway. how would you make sure you develop negatives to the same contrast and density ? See my posting in terms of how I shot the scene. Did I not make sure I had same conditions ? I did know that different developers with different process times would yield different densities, I posted densities earlier. My ultimate goal was to learn which developer I would use in which image. I concluded that I would prefer to use TMAX on portrait (skin seems smoother), while TRIX on D76 is more snappy in landscape. (of course this is for me, my case and wanted to hear opinions to make sure I am on the right track).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thank you. I am on my way to level 3 . Anyway. how would you make sure you develop negatives to the same contrast and density ? See my posting in terms of how I shot the scene. Did I not make sure I had same conditions ? I did know that different developers with different process times would yield different densities, I posted densities earlier. My ultimate goal was to learn which developer I would use in which image. I concluded that I would prefer to use TMAX on portrait (skin seems smoother), while TRIX on D76 is more snappy in landscape. (of course this is for me, my case and wanted to hear opinions to make sure I am on the right track).

TMax developer yields more shadow detail (film speed) than D76 1:1. Therefore, to get the same shadow density in both negatives, you must bracket your exposure (in the smallest increments possible) with both developers and compare until you know what exposure yields the same shadows for the same film in the two different developers.
Then, after that is accomplished, you expose more frames, at the correct exposure index for each developer, and now you must learn to control developing time to yield the same highlight density (contrast).
After you accomplish that you can compare grain, sharpness, and tonality.
It is likely that D76 gives you more base fog than TMax, so your exposures will likely be longer after you accomplish the above.

I think you'll be surprised at how similar the grain will be.

 

[lhalcong]

Regarding print times, even if you expose and develop the two films identically, this does not guarantee the same exposure time. In order for this to be the case, the two films would have to have identical characteristic curves, and identical film base+fog densities. We know Tri-X and TMax 400 do not have the same curves, nor film bas+fog densities.

Furthermore, the question arises as to how one determined the print exposure for each negative. Was it based on a key highlight, midtone, shadow, etc? Hint - don't use a very dark tone or "max black" time.

If you wanted to start simple in understanding why the print times are different, simply process a frame of Tri-X and a frame of TMax 400 without giving any exposure. Then print each of these blank frames at the same enlarger exposure time. You'll probably see two different tones of grey when you compare the prints. That means the two films have different film base+fog densities. If you wanted to take it even further, simply fix two frames which have been given no exposure and no development. This will eliminate fog density. Repeat the print test. If you still get different tones, you know the film bases have different density.

If you have a densitometer you don't need to do the print tests and instead you can simply read the negative densities directly. It has been a long time since I used Tri-X but if memory serves it has a higher film base density than TMax, which would help explain at least part of the difference in exposure times.

Thank you Michael. This makes total sense. I did measure with densitometer. This explains the difference in print exposures I found. Yes, although I do not mean to be exact to the millisecond as to comparing the two, but this explains pretty clearly what I found. I haven't done film curves and probably won't . my goal was to determine what I should use in which case based on what I like. Based on what I have seen in my past prints, and what I found out in this test, I do like TMAX in TMD for skin tones and TRIX in D76 for landscape.

 

[MattKing]

Thank you. I am on my way to level 3 . Anyway. how would you make sure you develop negatives to the same contrast and density ?

It is useful to try to fine-tune your procedure in order to be able to develop two different films to the same contrast - at least around the same reference tone.

But you may find that if you evaluate the contrast at different points on the characteristic curve of the different films, the contrasts may match at some points, and differ at others - due to the differences between the films.

And it really isn't useful to try to match densities between two different films, because some films are more dense than others. That difference is dealt with by just varying the print exposures.

 

[markbarendt]

Thank you Michael. This makes total sense. I did measure with densitometer. This explains the difference in print exposures I found. Yes, although I do not mean to be exact to the millisecond as to comparing the two, but this explains pretty clearly what I found. I haven't done film curves and probably won't . my goal was to determine what I should use in which case based on what I like. Based on what I have seen in my past prints, and what I found out in this test, I do like TMAX in TMD for skin tones and TRIX in D76 for landscape.

A significant part of what you are seeing so far is fully adjustable with either film, for example using less development with TriX and D76 may very well make the TriX tones print more like the Tmax in Tmax did.

The other way to play with this is by adjusting the paper grade. Try the TriX you did in D76 at Grade 1. Try the Tmax in Tmax at grade 3. See what you get.