Why do people think TMAX is unforgiving?

I've heard it over and over that TMAX and other modern films are 'less forgiving' than older films and that beginners should use Tri-X or something. I'm just wondering in what ways people feel that it's unforgiving, compared to say, Tri-X or HP5.

I've found that TMAX responds to changes in development readily, so I actually do not alter my development when I shoot it; I develop everything 'normally' and just deal with the results in the darkroom. The thing is, it's really forgiving this way, since under- and over-exposing it doesn't seem to change the midtone contrast. I can underexpose by 1-2 stops, and I lose some shadow detail, but the tones and contrast don't really change, so I don't bother increasing development for mild underexposure scenarios. I can overexpose by a LOT and the only penalty is a bit extra grain. It seems like no matter how I expose TMAX, the 'look' I get is very consistent for a given development regime.

I don't know, I look at them as being different. I shoot Tri-x for some things and shoot Tmax for others. When it comes to processing I do think you have to be more exact with Tmax then a film like Tri-x. When Tmax first came out, many people got less than stellar results because their processing technique was a little on the sloppy side. If you are precise in processing then there should be no problems. A lot of people say a lot of things, what works for you is the most important thing.

It is unforgiving in development for exactly what you say ("responds to changes in development readily"): Minor variation in processing leads to a greater change in contrast than with other films.

So, it is unforgiving of the variation that occurs in a relatively loosely-controlled process and/or in the hands of a relatively technically inept photographer (which is a totally different thing than being a bad photographer, don't get me wrong)...but the same thing gives someone with a tightly-controlled process very fine control!

It is very forgiving as to how under or overexposure affects contrast! Much more so than other films.

However, this is actually why I usually prefer other films for most things. Given a standard process, under and over exposure are usable to change tonal relationships in very subtle ways. Using the relatively long toe and shoulder regions of non-T-grained films to compress tones is one of the controls that I feel gives me a very high amount of control.

I use T grained and "regular" films for different things, and usually in different ways. I am glad that both exist, ad I hope neither of them go away.

I mostly use T-Max for low-contrast light, and for low-light shooting that is also flat. I use Delta 3200 for low light that is high in contrast. I use T-max 100 for long exposures...or used to, before I discovered that Acros 100 is even better. For most everything else, I use "regular" films.

I've found T Max 100 a very forgiving film - probably because the development times are so long compared to conventional films..

Exposure wise it's maybe not as forgiving as other films. Then again has there ever been a film that responds well to over/under exposure (except maybe Agfa Vario XL - remember that - you could be 2 stops off and get great results)...

I remember when T Max was introduced in Australia - it was sold to the press as the ideal film for machine processing - and I have to admit the films I shot back then that were machine processed were stunning...

What I have found is that you need to get to "know" all the T Max films. They are all films that you can process as per the instructions for any developer and get good results, but to get the best results you need to customize the processing to suit your own techniques....different developers gave very different results

One other thing I've found - films processed in Technidol RS (not the regular Technodol) were far better than films processed in "standard" chemicals, and correctly exposed, or slightly underexposed negs gave the best results....

I felt the same way about Ilford Delta films - I was never really happy with my results. I'd use the odd roll every now and then, but the tonal range wasn't quite right....I finally got good results using Ilford DDX developer....

I have to admit that I'm now a DDX fan - I love the results I get out of all brands and speeds of film. And it doesn't ever seem to go off - I've used the black sludge from the bottom of a bottle and gotten perfect results....

I find it 'forgiving' in expossure. It has a long, relatively straight curve. There is about a 6 stop latitude (thought at a 'box-speed' rating all 6 stops are on the overexposure side).

BetterSense said:

I've found that TMAX responds to changes in development readily- - -

Click to expand...

Exactly - it was designed specifically to have that characteristic. And the result is that it requires careful exposure and processing.

By contrast, Tri-X has more exposure latitude. Some people choose to call that 'forgiving'.

Tri-X has more exposure latitude. Some people choose to call that 'forgiving'

Click to expand...

I don't get it, because I don't find this to be the case at all. What does that MEAN? I don't see how it could have more exposure latitude than TMAX by any measure, so people must mean something else when they say "more exposure latitude".

I am finding, Tmax100 and Tmax400 behaves very differently. ISO400 version appears to react more critically to development time/temp than 100. I am also finding, 135mm version is far more critical than 120 version. I can't explain why but this is what I am seeing.

This is entirely comparing apples to oranges but using TriX400 with D76 and pretty rough process control, I was able to get mostly acceptable image. Using Tmax400 135mm and XTOL and being very careful with strict control, I am still struggling with getting what I want. When I happen to hit the right combination, Tmax appears to give me clean/contrasty/clear image but it's so hard to get. On TriX images are not as-so but I get usable images almost every time.

Still trying....

I also find that the 100 and 400 are different.

The 400 film is like a never ending straight line, while the 100 shoulders faster.

The trick, for me, to work with the Tmax films (mostly 400) has been to control agitation and agitation intervals. With those introduced as contrast controls, I have learned to get very consistent results with the film. But it takes some effort to eke the most out of any film, mostly in printing the negatives often and be critical about how to make improvements.

So I find that the Tmax is more malleable and flexible in wringing better quality of light from a scene than most any other film I've tried. With Tri-X I got good negatives every time, but never as brilliant as with Tmax, no matter how hard I try.

What do you call that? Flexibility? Adaptability?

BetterSense said:

I don't get it, because I don't find this to be the case at all. What does that MEAN? I don't see how it could have more exposure latitude than TMAX by any measure, so people must mean something else when they say "more exposure latitude".

Click to expand...

I think, people are talking about overexposure latitude, but all B&W films have a lot of that. 6-stops of overexposure latitude is nothing.

Dear BetterSense,

"Why do people think TMAX is unforgiving?"

Look, we're humans and we love to whine about things. I try not to but there is just a certain pleasure in it. ;>)

Neal Wydra

I wonder, how much of this is psychological.... I define "right" as images looking like what I used to see 25 years ago. I'm guessing the films used in those days were probably Pan-X or Tri-X processed in D76. Contrast were lower - black not really pitch dark black, white not that bright white, somewhat grainy so that edges are not as well defined.

Trying to get this using Tmax400 has been an issue for me. Maybe I'm using a wrong film if I wanted Pan-X/Tri-X look....

I like T-Max 100 and or 400. I have using them for a while. Enjoy using them.

Jeff

Good Morning,

"I've found that TMAX responds to changes in development readily,"

Exactly--as others above have already noted. To me that's one of the best qualities of T-Max, particularly T-100. For context, remember that when T-Max was first introduced back in the 1980's, a common observation, as reflected by letters to the editor in various photo magazines, was that the film was difficult to process. It quickly became apparent that some of those with that complaint had apparently become rather casual (read: careless) about processing technique due to the forgiving nature of films such as Tri-X; using a similar approach with T-Max often lead to disappointing results. Thus, I think, the growth of the "T-Max is hard to develop" myth.

After processing my first few rolls of T-Max and being delighted with the results, I simply concluded that some of the complainers had forgotten why we have thermometers and timers and why we need to be consistent in our processing technique, especially with agitation, when using any film. The reward, minimal graininess and flexible contrast, in T-Max negatives, is extremely worthwhile.

Konical

From my experience of T-Max, the highlights block up pretty fast souped in HC-110 B. But a well processed neg make beautiful prints. It's a temperamental film.

Since learning I have to be careful with processing with Tmax, I have been extremely careful. My temperature control is within +/- 0.5F as indicated my thermometer. Timing is within +/- 5 seconds depending on how fast developers pour in and out. Agitation schedule is 5 time initially and 2 times every 30 seconds. Even with this, I am struggling to get what I define good results. My thermometer is not calibrated to any known standard but comparing to what I have, they agree within 1 degrees. At least it's consistent, if not accurate.

I am STILL struggling.

I don't find the development finickiness that dramatic either. I do use a 20C water bath, but If I developed for 8 minutes or 10 minutes instead of 9, I would probably only notice that I needed to use a different contrast filter when printing...that's pretty normal, I mean it's not like I have to say a magical incantation to get printable negatives if I change processing. Oh well.

2 times every 30 seconds is ONE way of agitating. Try something different. If you have runaway contrast, slow down. Agitation is a tool, not just a routine. Try 10s every 2 minutes and see what happens.

My longest agitation interval is every 5m, which I use in extreme contrast situations. My shortest is every 30s. It all depends on what's in front of the lens when you photograph, what the lighting conditions were, and how you want the print to look.

Be adventurous, test, experiment, break rules, find the limit, exceed the limit, see what happens. That's how you learn. You don't learn much by doing the routine exactly the same every time.

tkamiya said:

Since learning I have to be careful with processing with Tmax, I have been extremely careful. My temperature control is within +/- 0.5F as indicated my thermometer. Timing is within +/- 5 seconds depending on how fast developers pour in and out. Agitation schedule is 5 time initially and 2 times every 30 seconds. Even with this, I am struggling to get what I define good results. My thermometer is not calibrated to any known standard but comparing to what I have, they agree within 1 degrees. At least it's consistent, if not accurate.

I am STILL struggling.

Click to expand...

Photographers used to films with distinct shoulders claimed than Tmax films created 'blocked highlights'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Tmax films are capable of very linear no-shoulder response. This means highlight density will build beyond the contrast range of the paper. This can happen because scene contrast was not controlled or film development wasn't reduced to compensate. Overdeveloping will increase negative contrast and will exacerbate the highlight contrast 'problem'.

All the highlight detail you could ever want is in a TMax negative and can be retrieved with careful highlight burning. The same is not true of traditional films where there is no highlight detail and burning the highlights just produces a featureless grey.

The same criticism is made for Tech Pan - again highlight burning will reveal the detail.

Kodak publication f-4016 has curve (er, line) information.

To give an idea of the magnitude of TMax range: film density can reach 4.0 OD (12 stops of density) with no shouldering while grade 2 paper has a 4 stop straight-line range, 5 stops toe to shoulder.

tkamiya said:

I am struggling to get what I define good results.

Click to expand...

Try reducing developing time by 20% and exposing a 1/2 stop more - that can give negatives that are much easier to print.

I would leave the agitation as you are doing it now - following Kodak's directions. Some people are enamored of reduced agitation but I am not one of them. I find the most consistent development is in a Jobo drum undergoing constant agitation/rotation.

If you look at the curves, both TMAX 400 and Tri-X 400 have very straight lines and a short toe. So both films can be "forgiving" in terms of exposure; when you look at curves according to development times, TMY remains very straight as dev time increases, whereas Tri-X will gently build a highlight shoulder.

So TMY can lead very easily to hard to print (though not blocked) highlights, whereas highlight contrast with Tri-X slows down as you augment dev time.

I too have never had any problem with TMY, and use it regularly as my sharp film in 120.

There are many ways to get to the end result. I think what I was trying to achieve was to motivate experimentation. If one method doesn't work, try something else. It will work, if you try hard enough, basically.

Nicholas Lindan said:

Try reducing developing time by 20% and exposing a 1/2 stop more - that can give negatives that are much easier to print.

I would leave the agitation as you are doing it now - following Kodak's directions. Some people are enamored of reduced agitation but I am not one of them. I find the most consistent development is in a Jobo drum undergoing constant agitation/rotation.

Click to expand...

Thomas Bertilsson said:

There are many ways to get to the end result.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Some people get great results with contrast control by varying agitation.

As one of those casual practitioners of the craft which others have unkindly called "inept" and "careless", I find TMAX forgives over-exposure errors but does not forgive a relaxed approach to processing. This, as compared to conventional emulsions like FP4+ or Tri-X.

I find conventional emulsions allow one to not be so burdened with exactness of process.....something in which I have little interest. I do photography for fun. The obsessed pursuit of perfection is not fun to me. Good enough is perfect. I make prints and share 'em with friends and family. Sometimes they even get framed and hang on the wall for a while. I have no use for materials which demand more of my time and effort.

TMAX are fantastic films but, I'll stick with FP4+, HP5+, Tri-X deved in D-76 or D-23 (summertime when temps cannot be controlled) thanks. I prefer RC paper too - for the same reasons.

BradS said:

I find conventional emulsions allow one to not be so burdened with exactness of process.....something in which I have little interest. I do photography for fun. The obsessed pursuit of perfection is not fun to me. Good enough is perfect. I make prints and share 'em with friends and family. Sometimes they even get framed and hang on the wall for a while. I have no use for materials which demand more of my time and effort.

Click to expand...

The funny thing is, Brad, that when you're used to working with a specific film, and you don't think about the alternatives out there, it's easy with any kind or brand.
I don't do anything differently with Tmax 400 than I do with Tri-X. And all I have done is some rudimentary testing with contact prints and full blown prints, and produced three basic processing times and agitation schedules that are applied based on the lighting conditions. I don't even think about what I'm doing when I process film anymore. I just write on the roll whether I need plus, minus, or normal development. Then I gang films that need the same treatment in piles, and grab as many as the tank will hold every time I process. It doesn't take any extra time out of my day.

Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ are amazing films, and if they work for you, then you really don't have a reason to change it up. I like how you focus on making pictures. I do the same.