Exactly what this "better" means is what I would like to figure out.
Ian has commented on this while I was composing this post, (I peaked!) and what he wrote, combined with what I extracted from a glance at one of the two data sheet links you posted, along with your own statements about T-max performing "better" in a developer tailored especially for T-grain films, seems to be in harmony in pointing to a slower ISO speed for T-max films in D-76 than in T-max developer. (I still have not checked what formula was the used as the ASA or ISO standard film developer formulas but I suspect it was something close to D-76) Now, Was that speed the same as Tri-X in D-76? Perhaps, I don't know. PE seems to be saying it was. If true, what does all this indicate?
Ray
EI? ... EI! ... OH!
The ASA standard test developer was close to Agfa Ansco 17 [Agfa (Germany) 44] than D76 and almost identical to Adox Borax MQ, and both these developers give approx a 1/3 of a stop more film speed than D76 with most films.
Ian
Ray;
Those two data sheets show little difference between Tri-X and TMAX in D-76 and that is my point. I have heard that they differ substantially, but the curves and my experience say otherwise.
PE
Some photographers think so.OK.
But does that mean you feel T-max developer offers no tangible advantage to T-max films?
I suggest you look at the MTF data in those references, for example, to see if there are any valid changes.
PE
The whole launch of Tmax was a flop in many ways the expected widespread shift only partially materialised. Many had chastised Kodak for introducing T grain technology and neglecting B&W films and when Tmax arrive it didn't meet the expected acclaim.
Many of us liked it & loved it but others just still can't be persuaded. Tmax developer definitely offered big advantages over D76, the early Tmax films gave such poor effective speeds in D76 and a drop in sharpness, surprising to many at the time it gave outstanding results with Rodinal which brought out the iherent qualities of the emulsion, superb fine grain, sharpness and tonality.
Ian
Some photographers think so.
I would tend to take the word of the photographer whose work I liked the best, and who's technique I would most like to master/emulate.
BTW, is it just me or is there a "hidden" face in your avatar ?
But It can be misleading judging only from the finished print. Adam's Moonrise over Hernandez was poorly exposed but he saved it in the printing.
TMY and D-76 1+1 is a very good combination. John Sexton seems to like it as well.TMax-400 and D76 1+1 is all I do these days. Am I missing something and don't know it?
The whole sensitometric/zone system thing sort of falls down when one considers that with all the previsualizaton and zone placement going on, dodgeing and burning in still has to be resorted too.....
A highly inaccurate statement, IMO.
If you are under the impression that using the ZS (i.e., testing, zone placement, refinements in development, etc...) is supposed to provide you with a negative that does not require burning and dodging and other print contrast controls to achieve the visulized final print-----------then you should rethink your own understanding of it.
Chuck
...The whole sensitometric/zone system thing sort of falls down when one considers that with all the previsualizaton and zone placement going on, dodgeing and burning in still has to be resorted too... not to mention the fact that non-zoners are also making excellent prints! Perhaps it is not necessary for everyone to be a technician. Trial and error works too...
...In fact, what I said was a rib at the ZS because even with all that thought and effort, it doesn't eliminate the need for such additonal methods.
If it could do that then that would really be impressive...
TMax-400 and D76 1+1 is all I do these days. Am I missing something and don't know it?
The link I posted which features John Sexton and Kodak`s Scott DiSabato mentions that TMY2 was compared with a competitors equivalent (the rival manufacturers film was not mentioned) using the D-76 process. That is why I think that Kodak still use D-76 as their ISO standard developer.No because the films have evolved since their release in the 80's particularly TMY, and the comments people made about Tmax and D76 back when it was first released where with the developer used Full Strength, which was the norm in commercial darkrooms, and it was only the earlier Kodak Tmax data-sheets that recommended Tmax developer and Xtol in preference to D76.
As Keith pointed out with his links many felt D76 at 1:1 gives significant improvements, but it's all back to personal EI's and work practices.
In addition the early comparisons between Tmax100 and films like FP4 were quite different to Tmax400 and Tri-X or HP5, and in many ways it was Tmax400 that gave the biggest increase in quality compared to equivalent conventional films.
Ian
I knew that line would get me in trouble!/QUOTE]
There are many who have that same "line" of thought about the ZS and as a result will always fail to see the big picture.
But like Ralph so eloquently put it, the ZS was never meant to eliminate the those controls------his statement should be an "eye opener" to anyone who thinks abouit the ZS in that way, IMO.
Chuck
I knew that line would get me in trouble!/QUOTE]
There are many who have that same "line" of thought about the ZS and as a result will always fail to see the big picture.
But like Ralph so eloquently put it, the ZS was never meant to eliminate the those controls------his statement should be an "eye opener" to anyone who thinks abouit the ZS in that way, IMO.
Chuck
I agree with Chuck and Ralph. The Zone system, and BTZS, use applied sensitometry but were never meant to obviate the need for other controls such as dodging and burning, nor were they meant to replace common sense and practical experience. For example, although your Zone or BTZS charts may tell you that it is possible with a given film and developer to make negatives that capture extreme subject brightness ranges practical experience teaches us that it is not possible to make aesthetically pleasing prints with such negatives without dodging and burning and/or split contrast filtration. I have seen (and made some myself) many pt/pd prints where the negative density range and process exposure scale match perfectly but the print is flat, usually in the shadows or mid-tones.
Sandy King
...I have seen (and made some myself) many pt/pd prints where the negative density range and process exposure scale match perfectly but the print is flat, usually in the shadows or mid-tones...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?