Understanding EI???

[Photo Engineer]

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

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

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

EI? ... EI! ... OH!

Nah! That`s not quite right. It should be "Old McDonald had a farm, E.I....E.I.. i.s.O".

 

[Ray Rogers]

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

OK.

I will see if I have a copy of the standard in my library.
I doubt it but it is worth the look.

If I can't find it, perhaps I can get a copy of the formula from you ?

 

[Ray Rogers]

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

OK.

But does that mean you feel T-max developer offers no tangible advantage to T-max films?

I had heard something about a silly drive to maximize the "MAX" suffix, adding it to perhaps too many things unnecessarily, but that was just one person's take.

Do you know if this was actually the case?

 

[Ian Grant]

Ray, I don't have the literature handy & it's over 20 years since I last looked at it but I think it was (fairly sure it was very close to):

Metol 2 gm
Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) 80 gm
Hydroquinone 4 gm
Borax 4 gm
Potassium Bromide 0.5 gm
Water to 1 litre.

This was a formula a group of us used commercially in the late 70 until the mid 80's, there was also a replenisher, I used it in inversion tanks at home and deep tanks at work. It gave full box speed (normal use) with all Ilfors & Kodak films, finer grain, better tonality and sharpness than D76/ID-11.

There's a photographer in Australia using it currently who reports it's slightly better all-round than D76, I think the reduction in Sulphite is the key and that 100gm per litre was more than the optimum, Ilford dropped the level back for Microphen/ID-68

Agfa 44 (Agfa Ansco 17) is

Metol 1.5 gm
Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) 80 gm
Hydroquinone 3 gm
Borax 3 gm
Potassium Bromide 0.5 gm
Water to 1 litre.

It could be argued that the Agfa formula is close to D76 with increased Borax, but then Kodak played for years with D76 variarions, trying to get better results.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

IDK. I merely point out the similarity where there is a reported difference. I suggest you look at the MTF data in those references, for example, to see if there are any valid changes.

PE

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

OK.

But does that mean you feel T-max developer offers no tangible advantage to T-max films?

Some photographers think so.

 

[Ray Rogers]

I suggest you look at the MTF data in those references, for example, to see if there are any valid changes.
PE

OK.

I will take a look.

Thanks.

 

[Ian Grant]

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

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

TMax-400 and D76 1+1 is all I do these days. Am I missing something and don't know it?

 

[Ray Rogers]

Some photographers think so.

And thats often the bottom line isn't it?... Sometimes when the correct answer is not clear to me and strong opinions are being hotly debated, I often wish I could just see the work produced by the posters... 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 ?

Ray

 

[Stephen Benskin]

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.

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.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

BTW, is it just me or is there a "hidden" face in your avatar ?

Too much acid, Ray... ;^)

 

[Ray Rogers]

Too much acid, Ray... ;^)

Oh, thats Silly, Sally!

 

[Ray Rogers]

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.

Yes, of course.

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.

But still, there is a powerfully compelling yet silent voice that can only be heard by being seen....

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

TMax-400 and D76 1+1 is all I do these days. Am I missing something and don't know it?

TMY and D-76 1+1 is a very good combination. John Sexton seems to like it as well.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressCenter/presentationsPodcast/player.jhtml?pq-path=11792&node=1

 

[Chuck_P]

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

 

[Ray Rogers]

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

I knew that line would get me in trouble!

No. I don't think that at all. 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.

The Zone System is merely a derrivitive application of basic sensitometry.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...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...

Ray

I'm with Chuck on that one.

The Zone System and its visualization process don't eliminate dodging and burning and never promised to do so. Instead, they promote dodging and burning from rescue attempt to creative manipulation! Creating art is a conscious process. Trial and error is not, but sometimes it's blessed with serendipity.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...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...

Ray

This statement still comes from the wrong angle, because it implies that eliminating dodging and burning is something to aim for. It isn't!

The Zone System gives you a negative, where dodging and burning does not rescue tonal values anymore but makes it possible to emphasize what you want to express with the image. Film exposure and development can only control two points on the film characteristic curve, the rest of its shape is mostly material dependant. Making the best straight print from a perfect negative depends on proper paper exposure and development. That's all craftsmanship and can be learned. But the initial setup or subject selection, the lighting and the right moment, and not to forget dodging and burning, they are all part of the individual creativity that turns the straight print into a fine print. Let's not ask the Zone System to do what is wasn't designed to do.

The negative is the score, and the print is the performance.
Ansel Adams

 

[Ian Grant]

TMax-400 and D76 1+1 is all I do these days. Am I missing something and don't know it?

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

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

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

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.
Like you said, some photographers found the early T-Max films a bit finicky and not particularly forgiving of slight under exposure errors with empty shadows. The T-Max developers were designed to boost shadow speed, but some photographers didn`t consider T-Max developer to be the optimum developer for T-Max films despite the name of the product, hence the other link I posted.
I have no personal angst towards T-Max developers.
The current T-Max films are an improvement and I`m sure they are capable of excellent results in a wide range of developers.

 

[Chuck_P]

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

 

[sanking]

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

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...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...

Quite true. This is the typical beginner mistake of many Zone System users, me included! Initial attempts are usually concentrated on capturing the entire subject brightness range onto the negative. That's a misunderstood goal. More often than not you want a negative where everything from highlights to shadows does quite fit into the paper density range, and you use dodging and burning to pull them them back in, because that strengthens local contrast. I often print at a slightly higher contrast to get lively midtones and 'rescue' shadows and highlights later. Nothing is worse than a print with battleship-gray midtones.

‘The production of a perfect picture by means of photography is an art. The production of a technically perfect negative is a science.’

Ferdinand Hurter & Vero Driffield


The three areas of print quality are:

1. Brilliant Highlights
2. High-Contrast Midtones
3. Deep but Detailed Shadows