Yes, it should, all else being equal. The information on the Massive Development Chart is "all over the place." Those with way more darkroom experience, than I have, may be able to give a correct time for D76 1:1.My question is: since EI64 is basically a pull processing, shouldn't it require less time than EI100?
I didn't know that, but I'll keep it in mind, thank you.when shooting black and white negative film at “less than rated speed”, you don’t have to think of it as pulling.
The issue I'm having with Tmax 100 is that negatives are pretty contrasty (more so, than anything else I have developed) and while they print nicely, they don't scan well. And of course even though I print 2-3 photos from the roll, I do scan an entire roll. That's why I thought of overexposing - maybe I'll be able to reduce contrast. That and also - agitate fewer times.With black and white negatives you can make up for the greater exposure in camera by printing down in the darkroom.
The issue I'm having with Tmax 100 is that negatives are pretty contrasty (more so, than anything else I have developed) and while they print nicely, they don't scan well. And of course even though I print 2-3 photos from the roll, I do scan an entire roll. That's why I thought of overexposing - maybe I'll be able to reduce contrast. That and also - agitate fewer times.
What kind of enlarger do you have (diffusion/condenser) and what grade paper (or multigrade filter) are you having to use for a typical print?
That info can help you feedback to yourself whether you want to cut down developing time because the negatives are too contrasty.
If you print on grade 3 already, you are on the edge of needing more development time. If you print on grade 2 you could cut down development time. Somewhere in between is a good balance, so that sometimes you need grade 2 and sometimes you need grade 3. And that should be good for scans too.
Are your shadows coming out with good detail and are the highlights detailed as well? If so, the exposure is fine, and you have room to cut back a bit on development to tame contrast.
Shadows are alright, but highlights suffer - they are blown, more often than not.
Then leave the exposure as it is, and cut the development a bit.
It would be worth your while to expose a couple of different scenes at both an EI of 100 and something lower, and then develop the roll with slightly reduces development. That way you can compare the results, to see what you prefer.
I figured that much and shot several different scenes at EI100 and EI 64. It's just, the roll is at frame No. 9 so there's still a long way to go. Also: photos turn out to be good if shot in overcast/cloudy weather, but in high contrast situation (sunny days), it all goes to waste.
All the (bracketed) shots on a roll will have the same contrast as each other.
I wish this was better understood.
The bulb I am using, while not frosted, has a matte finish. Would that do the trick too, or it has to be specifically a frosted one?For the negatives you already have with blown highlights, you could look for a piece of frosted (opal) glass to put above the negative in your enlarger to "turn it into" a diffusion enlarger and maybe bring down some of the burn.
To my shame, right now a roll of Tmax resides in Olympus 35RC, which is rather primitive. I should stop being lazy and take a hand-held meter with me.You also might try changing how you meter the scene in contrasty conditions. Unlike many here I tend to either use incident metering or key my readings to mid-tones. That tends to result in better mid-tone and highlight rendition, which is what I prefer.
Same for me. Never had a problem. I've shot 20 year old expired TMAX at 100 , very seldom had problem.
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?