Underexposed TMAX 100 is terrible. It looks flat.
NB23 can you send me some of these terrible negatives to analyze?
I wonder if you need to develop longer if the negatives are flat, or print on a condenser enlarger.
Heck no don’t underexpose TMAX100.
This, this this. We should be glad we have TMax 100/400, Delta 100/400, Acros 100.
There's a ton of people that think the old stuff is somehow "superior" with strange arguments such as "more forgiving in development" (if you want the highest quality, you need to be exacting in your development, dont' you think?)
Too much marketing and romanticising about Tri-X or HP5.
NB23 can you send me some of these terrible negatives to analyze?
I wonder if you need to develop longer if the negatives are flat, or print on a condenser enlarger.
Heck no don’t underexpose TMAX100.
This is tmx pushed too 400 in xtol
Do you miss TXP (Tri-X 320)?
If so, TMax 100 might be your friend. By underexposing TMax 100 two stops at EI 400, and then push processing in Xtol 1:1, you will get results that are confusingly alike the venerable Tri-X 320 (TXP). One of the frames below is Tri-X 320 processed in replenished Xtol, and the other according...www.photrio.com
this site is kind of funny all sort of people absolutely hate digital and photoshop yet they want their prints to look like they are high-gloss digital prints but made with film. more power to them ! I'd rather have my film and paper prints look like they were printed from ... film onto paper.
From personal experience 5 stop under exposed tmax100, developed in stock/undilute sprint print developer for 21minutes was ok, but it didn't look grainless, sharp and digital like people tend to want from tmax films, it will look like film.
(edited after cjbecker posted Thomas' sweet photos )
I will take advice seriously from people that have shot over 300 films in 2021, printed at least 16,000 prints during 2021, spent at least 2000 hours in the darkroom during 2021.
To those who do not qualify to the above, please know that I accept your opinions but they will not supercese my solid experience with this combo (that I dislike).
I don't have any preconceived notions of what film should look like, nope, I am not overly fond of grain or muted colors, lo fi cameras, I couldn't care less., I usually just use whatever camera I see in front of me that is lying around, im not rich so I don't have expensive prestige gear. I have hand-me downs or stuff that I could afford that was reliable, I not a fan of repairs or light leaks either. I have never used Rodinal / RO-9 or similar grainy developers, I don't Lith Print, but I do know that film grain and film "nuance" used to be until IDK 15 years ago a telltale recognition that something was made with film. For a few years now I have submitted things to vaulted archives that are required to be shot on high resolution 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10 film ( preferably something like Kodak Tmax100 ) shot at with a modern, coated, sharp lens at f16, processed in something like D76 and contact printed so there is nothing but hi-resolution no-grain perfection, a lot of film people love that stuff. Sharp, resolved, crisp, I guess that's quality?Well, maybe you think film photographs "must" look grainy, perhaps unsharp, low in resolution. Perhaps you think film "must" look low-fi, otherwise it's of no use, otherwise it makes no sense. Perhaps you have a pre-conceived idea of how film "should" look. Perhaps you like using expired film and getting muted colors, or perhaps you like light leaks, etc. Perhaps this is what you associate using film with.
But this is not the only way film looks. Film can also give a high-quality look. You call it "digital", but i have seen many B&W prints made using "digital" that look inferior to good B&W prints made from medium format and an enlarger.
I use film to get really high quality B&W content on paper. I could replicate the same stuff using digital equipment, but maybe at a higher print price. And using film is more enjoyable. Don't assume that film must look in a certain lo-fi way.
An.y chance you can show us the 5 stop underexposed TMax100 That's it at 3200. A 100 speed film capable of being OK at 3200 is pretty amazing.
I infer from the fact that it was a print developer that was needed to get an ok negative at 3200? Am I right with that inference? If so does that mean that you have not found a negative developer to achieve this or have not tried and would any print developer work in a similar undiluted state such as Ilford Multi-Grade or would it have to be a PQ type print developer?
However it may be that there is something about Sprint that renders is uniquely fitted to getting an OK neg at 3200 from TMax 100. If so what might that be?
A lot of questions, I know but its the only way I find things out or at least ensure that what I think I have read is what was meant
Thanks
pentaxuser
Which negative to send... you can also just buy one roll and test it against, say, fp4. Both in XTOL.
I use two focomat iic
I just want to see a negative that's bugging you to pick it apart. I trust you are the most experienced printer on the forum, but maybe sensitometry, densitometry, curves and contrast index aren't your forte... Maybe I can reverse engineer your problem.
If I develop TMAX100 in XTOL and get excellent results, it's not going to help you.
I will take advice seriously from people that have shot over 300 films in 2021, printed at least 16,000 prints during 2021, spent at least 2000 hours in the darkroom during 2021.
To those who do not qualify to the above, please know that I accept your opinions but they will not supercese my solid experience with this combo (that I dislike).
I will take advice seriously from people that have shot over 300 films in 2021, printed at least 16,000 prints during 2021, spent at least 2000 hours in the darkroom during 2021.
To those who do not qualify to the above, please know that I accept your opinions but they will not supercese my solid experience with this combo (that I dislike).
I will take advice seriously from people that have shot over 300 films in 2021, printed at least 16,000 prints during 2021, spent at least 2000 hours in the darkroom during 2021.
To those who do not qualify to the above, please know that I accept your opinions but they will not supercese my solid experience with this combo (that I dislike).
I don't have any preconceived notions of what film should look like, nope, I am not overly fond of grain or muted colors, lo fi cameras, I couldn't care less., I usually just use whatever camera I see in front of me that is lying around, im not rich so I don't have expensive prestige gear. I have hand-me downs or stuff that I could afford that was reliable, I not a fan of repairs or light leaks either. I have never used Rodinal / RO-9 or similar grainy developers, I don't Lith Print, but I do know that film grain and film "nuance" used to be until IDK 15 years ago a telltale recognition that something was made with film. For a few years now I have submitted things to vaulted archives that are required to be shot on high resolution 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10 film ( preferably something like Kodak Tmax100 ) shot at with a modern, coated, sharp lens at f16, processed in something like D76 and contact printed so there is nothing but hi-resolution no-grain perfection, a lot of film people love that stuff. Sharp, resolved, crisp, I guess that's quality?
I have no idea why others use expired film but I can't afford new film, they priced me out of the market. I have't bought film in IDK 3 or 4 years, I haven't bought new paper since maybe 2006, it really doesn't matter because it's just film and paper, and I don't buy into the whole has to be new or cold stored &c crap. Maybe I would if I lived someplace off the hook, but I don't live in an extreme climate so I just use it and develop it.
To respond to your other comments, IDK it's just a fact that modern film has a digital look to it, it is fine grained high resolution and images have a bland un-nuanced digital sheen to them. It doesn't matter to me, you don't need to believe me, you can imagine that I am somehow insulting you, but I'm not. If you actually look at prints 5x7 or 8x10 prints made with modern film and 5x7 and 8x10 prints made of the same subject using a digital camera, you won't be able to tell them apart ( and that goes for hyper real color film too ). Not really sure why film would have to look in a lo-fi way, but I guess they've achieved their goals? They can now compete in the digital marketplace with film that looks digital ...
I will look for the prints. I did it for a portrait gig for a lawyer and my light meter was set to the wrong setting. this was in 1991 .. I don't throw anything out so I should be able to find them. I still have the Agfa paper I printed them on, some orange box with 111 on the label, it saved me .. Sprint was the only paper developer I had and used at the time, some say its hypoallergenic dektol im not sure what it is but you can go to their website and look at the MSDS all I know is that it is good stuff. I have about 6L of it ( 4 in a liquid cube and 2 1L slugs ) that I currently am using for prints and peroxide reversals it's easy to mix and works as good or maybe even better than something like dektol ... I never had that problem again or "pushed" a film that much, it was a terrible feeling when you make that mistake for something that matters. I had to think on my feet because I couldn't re-shoot the client unless it was a complete loss, and I had to deliver it the next day.
added later
found the print, I didn't do anything but photograph it with my phone no levels, no contrast adjustment it's just found in a box of prints, pulled it out leaned it against a shelf, bad LED light and a quick snapshot.
View attachment 304687
Thanks for the reply and photo, jnamia. Looks pretty good to me for a 100 film at 3200. Andrew O' Neill was able to demonstrate how good D400 was at 3200 and so have you with a TMax 100
It makes me want to shake my head in sadness even more when I recollect the negativity I got when I posted a video about 14 months ago of someone who had also managed to get good negs and prints from D400, a film 2 stops higher in speed
pentaxuser
sorry to hear the negative nancy's put you through the mangle, sometimes people can be real jerks..
I assume they apply to you, rather than being a made up standard... so at 8 hours a day, you've just stated you spent at least 250 days in the darkroom, and over two months taking photos, and churning out prints at a rate most photo labs would envy.
I am a skeptic by nature, when someone tells me "that will never work" I realize most of the time they are just repeating what someone else told someone else who told ...
...maybe you think film photographs "must" look grainy, perhaps unsharp, low in resolution. Perhaps you think film "must" look low-fi, otherwise it's of no use, otherwise it makes no sense. Perhaps you have a pre-conceived idea of how film "should" look. Perhaps you like using expired film and getting muted colors, or perhaps you like light leaks, etc. Perhaps this is what you associate using film with.
...
I use film to get really high quality B&W content on paper. I could replicate the same stuff using digital equipment, but maybe at a higher print price. And using film is more enjoyable. Don't assume that film must look in a certain lo-fi way.
What’s the point of this thread then, really?...
The "problem" is that NB23 doesn't like the look of TMAX100 in XTOL, and others do, so they think he must be doing something wrong, and they have their densitometers at the ready to help out.
That addresses the crux of PHOTRIO's ongoing "debate." All the visual characteristics that "film purists" hold up as positives are, in reality, shortcomings of the medium. Since the beginning of photography, engineers/inventors strove to eliminate the shortcomings, namely, nonlinearity, grain, unsharpness, etc. When Kodak succeeded in going a long way towards accomplishing those goals with TMX, those whose aesthetic preferences for the old defects began to rail against the technically improved product. They disparage the images as being "digital" in appearance, as if that is an inherently bad thing.
In fact, some people's taste is for accuracy. Others' is for defects. There's no accounting for taste.
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?