What's your preferred EI for TMax100 in D-76?

For 35mm portraiture per se, I opt for normal 1:1 Perceptol if I want a bit more complexion softness with less conspicuous acuity, or else I stick with my customary PMK pyro developer to get the very most microtonality out of the upper midtones and highlights. For caucasian skin tones, TMX has a bit too much red response, so I find it helpful to add a light yellow-green Hoya X0 filter. But I've done 8x10 studio portraiture with TMax 100 too, since it's a film allowing me some special darkroom tricks otherwise unrealistic ever since the demise of Super-XX, which would have been too grainy for most portraiture in its own day.

DREW WILEY said:

For 35mm portraiture per se, I opt for normal 1:1 Perceptol if I want a bit more complexion softness with less conspicuous acuity, or else I stick with my customary PMK pyro developer to get the very most microtonality out of the upper midtones and highlights. For caucasian skin tones, TMX has a bit too much red response, so I find it helpful to add a light yellow-green Hoya X0 filter. But I've done 8x10 studio portraiture with TMax 100 too, since it's a film allowing me some special darkroom tricks otherwise unrealistic ever since the demise of Super-XX, which would have been too grainy for most portraiture in its own day.

Click to expand...

I talked with Eric Van Straten many years ago, surprised by his half-frame images: amazing definition. He told me there were three reasons: his better new scanner and scanning skills, but mainly TMX and metol only developers with that film. He uses or used Microdol-X or its Legacy Pro version... That was why I started using Perceptol after current Mic-X and even after a bag of sealed original Kodak Microdol-X.
Eric uses -as you say you do- 35mm TMX in 1+1... But he exposes at EI50, what in my opinion produces a tone that's a bit too open for my taste: I think your recommendation of EI100 makes a lot of sense... Ilford recommend half box speed for several films in Perceptol, but for TMX, EI100 is their only recommendation no matter the dilution... I'm not surprised about that for Perceptol 1+3, but that speed for stock is a surprise to me.
Possibly for portraits in MF in such a sharp film, stock can produce good results too when a photographic field (like portraiture) doesn't require the highest possible acutance, and benefits also from skins free of grain for women or children.
One more thing to try.

Ilford box speeds are generally too optimistic for me. I'm quite attuned to the shadow values, so generally rate Ilford films at half the box speed to give them more boost onto the straight line part of the curve. TMax films are different due to their longer straight line well down into the toe, so in most developers, I can trust box speed with TMax. But one should always test with their specific personal development regimen. I've done especially thorough testing of TMax as well as FP4, since I use these two products for very fussy lab applications as well as in the field. Shoot plenty of other films too; but not many are well designed for lab applications too.

But in terms of creative options, knowing exactly what a particular film will or won't do allows me to predictably break the rules if I wish, like exactly how much to underexpose and overdevelop TMax to get fully blacked out graphic shadows yet superb midtone tonality. Try that with a long toe film and all you get is a bunch of dark mush down there. Then there are the Ilford oddballs like Pan F and Delta 3200. Love those too, but only for certain snapshooterish outings.

DREW WILEY said:

...in terms of creative options, knowing exactly what a particular film will or won't do allows me to predictably break the rules if I wish.

Click to expand...

That's a great sentence.

Juan Valdenebro said:

I talked with Eric Van Straten many years ago, surprised by his half-frame images: amazing definition. He told me there were three reasons: his better new scanner and scanning skills, but mainly TMX and metol only developers with that film. He uses or used Microdol-X or its Legacy Pro version... That was why I started using Perceptol after current Mic-X and even after a bag of sealed original Kodak Microdol-X.
Eric uses -as you say you do- 35mm TMX in 1+1... But he exposes at EI50, what in my opinion produces a tone that's a bit too open for my taste: I think your recommendation of EI100 makes a lot of sense... Ilford recommend half box speed for several films in Perceptol, but for TMX, EI100 is their only recommendation no matter the dilution... I'm not surprised about that for Perceptol 1+3, but that speed for stock is a surprise to me.
Possibly for portraits in MF in such a sharp film, stock can produce good results too when a photographic field (like portraiture) doesn't require the highest possible acutance, and benefits also from skins free of grain for women or children.
One more thing to try.

Click to expand...

Juan, I was reading somewhere that Xtol is supposedly the best, I believe for scanning. Since I send all my film out to be developed in a lab, I'm never really sure what developer they use. I've checked. One lab in NYC says they use Xtol. Another in California uses D76 equivalent (Clayton F76). Both dip and dunk. So when I shoot Tmax 100 or 400, I shoot both at box speed. I don't push or pull. I figure that if I get the exposure right, I'd be able to adjust this way or that in post-editing.

Any recommendations?

Hello Alan,
Most films work relatively well in most developers: it's exposing each film correctly, and developing them the optimal way, what defines the best possible image structure.
But no matter if box speed can always be used (with extended development sometimes) with certain films box speed is not the optimal EI for some developers.
In general box speed is reached for sure with developers that offer a third or two thirds more speed than standard MQ developers: the common ones are TMaxDev, Microphen, Xtol, DD-X, etc. (Xtol and DD-X milder, TMaxDev and Microphen wilder).
Some TMax experts say TMax films were designed to look great in MQ developers like D-76, but giving them a bit more light than box speed, and then those films were offered for box speed use, with no extended development, by using other faster developers. But TMax films should be downrated a third or two in D-76, or if not, at least pushed a bit.
Xtol was promoted by Kodak as better than D-76 in speed, grain and sharpness, and for that sales intention they designed a graph with sliders to convince people on how great Xtol is. That graph isn't accurate... If it were, the sliders for those three concepts should be nearly idetically placed for Xtol and D-76 because their differences are very small, and not what the graph pretends. I've used Xtol with a few films and I don't like its tone for soft light as much as I like the tone of D-76: sometimes it produces a plasticky, flat, unreal tone in my opinion. And extending development adds contrast but it doesn't change tone character. I consider Xtol a very good developer for direct sunlight though, but anyway it's too sensitive to some types of water, and it dies without color change, so those are problems sometimes.
If you want to develop for wet printing, learning with D-76 is the best option in my opinion. If you want to scan, you'll be making a digital photograph from a negative, and the resulting new tone will be a different one depending on devices and software, so as you get away from film's real silver paper tone, it makes more sense (and it implies less hassle) using a digital camera instead of film.
Setting a darkroom is fun and it's not expensive, and the whole process of wet printing is a pleasure and it's an incredibly capable one.
If you prefer scanning negatives, Xtol stock or Xtol replenished with short development times are great options because you won't have very sharp grain and you'll work tone digitally after scanning. But remember your best negatives for scanning won't be, if in the future you're interested in wet printing, the best ones for silver paper in the darkroom.
Enjoy your time!

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Juan. Since there's really no way I can set up a darkroom, I'm stuck with scanning. So if I understood you correctly, should I give a little more light to Tmax whether it's developed in Xtol or D76 (or Clayton F76 which is supposed to be a duplicate of D76)?

The marriage of the introduction of T-Max with 76, and promoted by hiring John Sexton to make sample shots that way, was a conspicuous marketing ploy. Much later they did exactly the same thing trying to revive interest in Tri-X under the alleged "classic combination" of Tri-X and 76, basically a myth, but all under their own label. I've talked in person with certain people involved. All along, just like today, many people prefer to mix their own developers from scratch. But given something prepackaged for convenient retail sale, do you think Kodak was going to recommend an Iford product like Perceptol, or one of their own products like 76 or now Xtol ? They aren't a non-profit educational charity!

What commercial labs happen to use in their machines bears other potential parameters, like cost overhead, ease of replenishment, etc. One local lab develops in Xtol, scans in house, and then inkjet the prints for those many local customers who want at least some kind of film rather than digital look. It's a popular service. To be cost efficient, they have to standardize on something; but that doesn't mean it's necessarily the best option for everything, or even anything, just the most practical for them as a business, with a generally acceptable outcome. Otherwise, one can pay a substantial up-charge for certain optional b&w film developers. I only use them for their rapid reliable C41 color roll film development service. Nice folks, convenient.

But what developer might or might not work best for personal darkroom printing is a much more nuanced topic. And beware of "experts" who might indeed be otherwise highly competent, but got their paycheck from the Great Yellow Father. They gotta know what shirt and cap to wear when in the rooting section of a specific team. Doesn't necessarily make that team the winner of the game, however.

Alan Edward Klein said:

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Juan. Since there's really no way I can set up a darkroom, I'm stuck with scanning. So if I understood you correctly, should I give a little more light to Tmax whether it's developed in Xtol or D76 (or Clayton F76 which is supposed to be a duplicate of D76)?

Click to expand...

With Xtol you can meter at box speed (incident under soft light, reflected on middle values, or spot on grey card). With D-76 add half a stop or two thirds.

In your scanning situation, I'd use Xtol for hiding grain, and TMaxDev to enhance it.

DREW WILEY said:

beware of "experts"

Click to expand...

Our good friend silver paper doesn't lie: that's the safe road.

One of the best developers I've used with TMY and TMZ is TMaxDeveloper.
Superb clean tone, and very sharp visible grain. Beautiful negatives and prints. And how it lasts, even in half bottles with oxygen!
I have not tried it with TMX, though.

Juan Valdenebro said:

With Xtol you can meter at box speed (incident under soft light, reflected on middle values, or spot on grey card). With D-76 add half a stop or two thirds.

Click to expand...

Alan, I said that for TMax100... Lots of other films reach box speed in D-76.

TMax developer is not recommended for TMax sheet films, Juan, just for small format roll films. There was a different product, TMax RS developer for the sheet film versions; but it is no longer made. But large format shooter mainly develop things themselves and have a very wide selection of developers to choose from. I never got along with TMZ myself, and actually preferred to rate TMY at 800 for the same effect, or shoot Delta 3200 at 800 for a quite different effect. Neither TMZ or Delta 3200 are actually anywhere near box speed, but formally both around 1000 if you check the technical specs sheets, and just allow for faster speeds with some distinct penalty to shadow values. I do all of that kind of thing with pyro development.

Juan Valdenebro said:

Alan, I said that for TMax100... Lots of other films reach box speed in D-76.

Click to expand...

What about tmax400?

I’m pretty sure Kodak worked to make all their consumer black and white films look good at the same development time so they could be processed in batches together. At least it's a different world than having to make a different tank for Panatomic-X and Tri-X.

I don't understand TMax developer. I believe it came out the same time as TMAX films but wasn't directly designed to work "with" them.

Bill Burk said:

I’m pretty sure Kodak worked to make all their consumer black and white films look good at the same development time so they could be processed in batches together. At least it's a different world than having to make a different tank for Panatomic-X and Tri-X.

I don't understand TMax developer. I believe it came out the same time as TMAX films but wasn't directly designed to work "with" them.

Click to expand...

It was designed as the best option for uprating TMax films. Of course there's a bit more grain: but grain in TMY and TMZ is sharp and gorgeous IMO.

DREW WILEY said:

TMax developer is not recommended for TMax sheet films, Juan, just for small format roll films. There was a different product, TMax RS developer for the sheet film versions; but it is no longer made. But large format shooter mainly develop things themselves and have a very wide selection of developers to choose from. I never got along with TMZ myself, and actually preferred to rate TMY at 800 for the same effect, or shoot Delta 3200 at 800 for a quite different effect. Neither TMZ or Delta 3200 are actually anywhere near box speed, but formally both around 1000 if you check the technical specs sheets, and just allow for faster speeds with some distinct penalty to shadow values. I do all of that kind of thing with pyro development.

Click to expand...

Hi Drew, yes, the problem with dichroic fog (for TMax sheets only) is well known. Kodak have recommended avoiding TMaxDev for sheets for 20 years. The RS version or downrating a bit (for D-76) were the best Kodak options for LF. Honestly I have not used my Arca Swiss since 2006, but I hope that wasn't the last time!
I never expose TMZ at its real speed, because I like TMY better in that case (EI1000), but at 3200 in TMaxDev, both tone and grain are amazing. I don't like Delta3200 in 35mm.

Alan Edward Klein said:

What about tmax400?

Click to expand...

IMO the best film ever.
I use it up to EI1000 in D-76.
I love its tone and its sharp grain.
For acutance FX-39 (now it's called version II) is great, up to EI1000 too.
All this for wet printing.
At EI1600 I prefer Microphen stock or TMaxDev.
To me the sweet spot of all films and speeds for Street is TMax400 at EI640 with a 35 at f/11.

Yeah - TMY400 is perhaps the best all-round film ever. I shoot it in all formats from 35mm to 8X10, but certainly not exclusively. I get zero fog with TMY sheets. Clearest borders of any sheet film. But I don't use TMax developer. And there I am last week - only 3 boxes of 8x10 left in the freezer, and do I thaw one or not? Right now, I'm shooting the last of my 8X10 FP4, but sure wished I had TMY along for my one shot earlier this week. I'll have to mask FP4 to get an equivalent tonal separation in the shadows. I have plenty of 8X10 TMX100 on hand, but need it mostly for contrast masking purposes. Kinda lusting for a little HP5 back on hand in 8x10 too; it's no so competent with high contrast ranges or significant amounts of enlargement, but in some circumstances can really sing ! Just too many flavors of ice cream in the ice cream shop to choose from !

Given the present shortage and very high price of 8x10 film, I bought a bunch of 4X5 of both speeds of Tmax just before the price hike instead. 120 is still relatively affordable, but went up about ten bucks per 5 pack recently.
Can't complain; but can't carelessly shoot either. But it's 8x10 color film that really makes roadkill out of the ole wallet; gotta be real careful shooting that.

DREW WILEY said:

Then there are the Ilford oddballs like Pan F and Delta 3200.

Click to expand...

In what way do you find Pan F to be an oddball? I've never really shot much of it, so was wondering what makes it odd?

Pan F is a film with an exceptionally short straight line, more of an overall exaggerated S-curve, really, designed for about the same contrast range as color slide films. It can do lovely things in the soft light of fog or falling rain or snow, or fully shaded scenes, but is not particularly versatile otherwise. Speed is quite slow, and there are a few other idiosyncrasies. I shoot it from time to time. Has a unique look.

Dear Drew,

Thanks again for sharing with us your use of Perceptol 1+3 with Tmax100.

I did a few tests and yes, not only acutance is great, but also, tone is amazing. These days I processed TMX in four different developers, to check and write down dilutions and EIs, and your Perceptol 1+3 advice is now my favourite.

Before that, I was exposing TMX @80 for D-76 1+2, and @100 for FX-39II 1+9, and when light goes down, and only if I don’t have any faster film with me, @200 in Microphen 1+1, all three for sharp grain and high acutance. But beyond great grain and acutance there’s something about the tone TMX gets in Perceptol 1+3 I liked very much: it looks totally clean, with lots of tonal separation in all types of grays. When I saw the first contacts sheet I thought “this looks as it should always look”. I think it’s the best development for portraiture I’ve tried.

As TMX has very small grain anyway (I use and like ISO400 grain), and as I liked Perceptol 1+3 for TMX a lot, I didn’t try 1+1 for 35mm, only 1+3: I’m very happy with that dilution, even for the smaller negatives.

I guess because of my condenser enlarger I need EI64 for best tone, instead of EI100… For sure softer light enlargers give a little more speed. Finally, that mix of film and developer seems to work very well through a wide range: I did a test @25 and it’s also perfectly fine for wet printing: convincing and not too soft.

It’s been great help. Thank you very much!

I am currently shooting TMax 100 at EI64. The Dev Chart specifies 12 minutes for D-76 1+1:


However, the same mixture for EI100 indicates only 9.5 minutes. My question is: since EI64 is basically a pull processing, shouldn't it require less time than EI100? And what would be a correct time for D-76 1+1, based on your experience?

Apologies for reviving a dead thread, just don't think my question is worth starting a new one.

I use 80 just to err a tiny bit on the overexposure side.