XTOL + TMX = sucky.

[NB23]

Tri-x in XTOL looks ok. But Tmax 100? Nightmare.

Something about the straight XTOL curve, the fine grain and the long shadows, in combination with this great but dull film...

Geez, I hate ALL my prints involving this combo. All of them. They all lack the crunchiness, the punch I need.

Too much shadow detail means no blacks, or very little.

Damn, all the lost time, the lost money, the lost papers, so many of those prints would have been GLORIOUS if it was shot on TRI-X, or developed in anything else than XTOL.

I dislike this combo. Tmx in a
xtol, perceptol, is just amplifying what TMX really is. Dullness overkill.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Someone overexposed their film and needs something to blame...

Xtol (unlike so many pointless and toxic concoctions vigorously promoted here and elsewhere) actually increases shadow speed a bit - maybe 1/2 stop or so.

 

[NB23]

Someone overexposed their film and needs something to blame...

Xtol (unlike so many pointless and toxic concoctions vigorously promoted here and elsewhere) actually increases shadow speed a bit - maybe 1/2 stop or so.

What does “increasing shadow Speed” mean? More dense? Less dense?
In other words, Darker? Lighter?

In the case it means “lighter shadows”, “more dense”, thus “increased speed”, I’m not sure it’s desireable in a 100 iso film (let alone tmax 100), this digs into the blacks and ends up looking dull.

For faster films, I can see the need for more shawod detail. But not for slow spee film as they alteady have plenty of shadow detail Built-im already on their own.

 

[jnamia]

NB23
sorry for your loss, it must be the vitamin c

 

[NB23]

Someone overexposed their film and needs something to blame...

Xtol (unlike so many pointless and toxic concoctions vigorously promoted here and elsewhere) actually increases shadow speed a bit - maybe 1/2 stop or so.

Now I’m wondering, how can I magically only overexpose my tmax 100 films while not magically over-exposing my pan-f/tx/hp5/tmz films.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Increase your development time after you check your light meter.

 

[NB23]

Guys, please. I’m not asking for advice.

I was merely informing you on this particular combo’s outcome. Who actually likes TMX + XTOL? And why?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Guys, please. I’m not asking for advice.

I was merely informing you on this particular combo’s outcome. Who actually likes TMX + XTOL? And why?

Wouldn't you rather get unwanted advice then getting your bottom kicked?

 

[MattKing]

Guys, please. I’m not asking for advice.

I was merely informing you on this particular combo’s outcome. Who actually likes TMX + XTOL? And why?

I do. But I wouldn't be looking to use it to do the sort of work you prefer:

Plus-X Heritage - MSA February 2022

• MattKing
• Feb 23, 2022
• 4

After using my last roll of 120 Plus-X, it was time to remove all the Plus-X box ends from my...

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

TMY + XTOL, now that's a much more interesting combo.

To be honest, I always found that TMX was a tool rather than a pictorial film. It's got this very linear response, so you need to work hard to bend the curve to your liking. This can actually be an advantage for some photographers, depending on workflows.

 

[NB23]

I do. But I wouldn't be looking to use it to do the sort of work you prefer:

Plus-X Heritage - MSA February 2022

• MattKing
• Feb 23, 2022
• 4

After using my last roll of 120 Plus-X, it was time to remove all the Plus-X box ends from my...

Very nice image. Is that TMX + Xtol?

 

[MattKing]

Very nice image. Is that TMX + Xtol?

Yes - replenished X-Tol (development number "38"). It is a scan with faux toning added, but it is pretty close to how I would print it. Not much manipulation (other than the toning) but density and contrast were chosen very carefully.
There is diffused, open sky through a window light coming from above and behind, with light from a warm white LED ceiling fixture providing a bit of fill from the front and above.
No filter on the camera - a Mamiya 645 Pro with the 80mm macro lens.
The film and developer works well for me, but paying close attention to the light matters.

 

[jnamia]

Guys, please. I’m not asking for advice.

I was merely informing you on this particular combo’s outcome. Who actually likes TMX + XTOL? And why?

it works great with all films, you just need to scan the film tweak the levels or use a contrast filter on paper to give it the punch you need, you won't find the crispness in the negatives, ascorbate developers seems to be like that some people love them, some people not so much. try mixing some print developer in there, whatever it is that you have lying around ( 20cc /L ) it should help. Les McLean and Ed Buffaloe (unblinkingeye) both add a little rodinal into their xtol maybe you need to too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Wouldn't you rather get unwanted advice then getting your bottom kicked?

I use replenished XTOL and Tri-X.

 

[NB23]

I could see this combo to be good for scanning thanks to it’s long grayscale. But I print, strictly.

And no, there is no filtration that dials the contrast and tonal relations I need. This combo simply does not look good to me.

TX or TMZ + XTOL looks fine. And TMX + D76 (for example) looks fine. Just not in XTOL. I can’t get a proper print that I like.

I went through 200 11x14 signed fb prints that I have to store (probably never to be seen again) and there is none that made me go “damn, love those tones” while this happens regularly with prints involving TMZ.

 

[Helge]

Guys, please. I’m not asking for advice.

I was merely informing you on this particular combo’s outcome. Who actually likes TMX + XTOL? And why?

I do. You need to be exact with exposure though. Almost as much as with slide.
No problem with a good modern SLR. But meterless or spot meter only cameras can run into problems if the operator is in a hurry or not experienced with metering.

 

[MattKing]

Here is another type of image - also 645 Pro using TMax 100 and replenished XTol, although this film was really old.

Woodward Water Wheel Governor

• MattKing
• May 28, 2019
• 5

A detail from our darkroom group's recent visit to the Power House at Stave Falls Demonstration...

 

[McDiesel]

I have written this comment and deleted it thinking some may be offended, but I found a better way to deliver my thought

T-Max films appear to be a technological marvel, the pinnacle of photo engineering coming from Kodak at their peak.

When developed in a modern "gamma 1" developer like Xtol, they produce clean & crisp accurate life-like images. A scanned T-Max negative gives you great shadows and highlights, no grain, good sharpness, basically looks very much like a desaturated DSLR output.

Matt's example above says the same thing. Looks like some of us like it, while others want more picturesque rendering.

The only thing I don't quite get is the TMX vs TMY difference. IMO they both are "digital", but TMY has a bit more range which is typical for faster emulsions.

 

[Lachlan Young]

But I print, strictly.

And no, there is no filtration that dials the contrast and tonal relations I need. This combo simply does not look good to me.

TX or TMZ + XTOL looks fine. And TMX + D76 (for example) looks fine. Just not in XTOL. I can’t get a proper print that I like.

Here's what happened: Xtol gets TMX about 1/2 stop faster & shoulders quite a bit earlier compared to D-76. Thus if you're a bit generous exposure-wise with TMX in D-76, you'll be mostly OK, still on the straight line & you won't get into a fight with the paper curve - however Xtol kicks your shadow speed up & with a bit too generous exposure to begin with, you've gone far enough up the curve to have compressed your highlights enough that getting them to print well is going to be a pain. This is what you are seeing (BTDT with Delta 3200). The other emulsions you name don't have the same early shouldering in Xtol. So, as I said, it's an exposure question, not a fundamental flaw - and the effect helps to stop people with process control problems completely screwing up their highlight density & then whining about that.

 

[jnamia]

Here's what happened: Xtol gets TMX about 1/2 stop faster & shoulders quite a bit earlier compared to D-76. Thus if you're a bit generous exposure-wise with TMX in D-76, you'll be mostly OK, still on the straight line & you won't get into a fight with the paper curve - however Xtol kicks your shadow speed up & with a bit too generous exposure to begin with, you've gone far enough up the curve to have compressed your highlights enough that getting them to print well is going to be a pain. This is what you are seeing (BTDT with Delta 3200). The other emulsions you name don't have the same early shouldering in Xtol. So, as I said, it's an exposure question, not a fundamental flaw - and the effect helps to stop people with process control problems completely screwing up their highlight density & then whining about that.

Hi Lachlan
I figure I'll ask you since you know what you are talking about more the typical Xtol junkie. ...
I've had troubles for years with xtol and have never been able to get it to give me any semblance of good negatives, no matter the film, no matter the development no matter the dilution, no matter the water supply. I've bracketed like hell ( 3 or 4 stops each way ) and my cameras have always been CLA'd . I've bracketed development like hell too sometimes developing 2x the recommended time, eventually started using it full strength because dilution got me no where, and neither did stock. I found it to be hands down the worst developer I have ever used. This isn't me being green and having no idea how to process film, this is after 20 years of steady daily processing, for a living. thankfully I never developed anything that I needed in it... It never really printed anything less than grade 4 paper, #4 or 5 filter either, to give you an idea of lack of density and bite. I used 4 different water supplies, I think I even used distilled water at one point but it's been 20 years don't hold me to that ...

 

[cjbecker]

Hi Lachlan
I figure I'll ask you since you know what you are talking about more the typical Xtol junkie. ...
I've had troubles for years with xtol and have never been able to get it to give me any semblance of good negatives, no matter the film, no matter the development no matter the dilution, no matter the water supply. I've bracketed like hell ( 3 or 4 stops each way ) and my cameras have always been CLA'd . I've bracketed development like hell too sometimes developing 2x the recommended time, eventually started using it full strength because dilution got me no where, and neither did stock. I found it to be hands down the worst developer I have ever used. This isn't me being green and having no idea how to process film, this is after 20 years of steady daily processing, for a living. thankfully I never developed anything that I needed in it... It never really printed anything less than grade 4 paper, #4 or 5 filter either, to give you an idea of lack of density and bite. I used 4 different water supplies, I think I even used distilled water at one point but it's been 20 years don't hold me to that ...

If it makes you feel any better, the best I could do with xtol-r was grade 3 under a diffusion enlarger, never could make a good grade 2 print, thats with either hp5 or tmy-2. D23,130, hc110 all took very little time and testing too give beautiful straight prints under grade 2. I finally gave up on xtol-r for other reasons and went back to hc110 in the deeptank. Still getting times nailed down but this roll prints great at grade 1.5.

 

[Helge]

Hi Lachlan
I figure I'll ask you since you know what you are talking about more the typical Xtol junkie. ...
I've had troubles for years with xtol and have never been able to get it to give me any semblance of good negatives, no matter the film, no matter the development no matter the dilution, no matter the water supply. I've bracketed like hell ( 3 or 4 stops each way ) and my cameras have always been CLA'd . I've bracketed development like hell too sometimes developing 2x the recommended time, eventually started using it full strength because dilution got me no where, and neither did stock. I found it to be hands down the worst developer I have ever used. This isn't me being green and having no idea how to process film, this is after 20 years of steady daily processing, for a living. thankfully I never developed anything that I needed in it... It never really printed anything less than grade 4 paper, #4 or 5 filter either, to give you an idea of lack of density and bite. I used 4 different water supplies, I think I even used distilled water at one point but it's been 20 years don't hold me to that ...

What exactly is the problem(s) you have with the negatives?

 

[Helge]

I have written this comment and deleted it thinking some may be offended, but I found a better way to deliver my thought

T-Max films appear to be a technological marvel, the pinnacle of photo engineering coming from Kodak at their peak.

When developed in a modern "gamma 1" developer like Xtol, they produce clean & crisp accurate life-like images. A scanned T-Max negative gives you great shadows and highlights, no grain, good sharpness, basically looks very much like a desaturated DSLR output.

View attachment 304571

Matt's example above says the same thing. Looks like some of us like it, while others want more picturesque rendering.

The only thing I don't quite get is the TMX vs TMY difference. IMO they both are "digital", but TMY has a bit more range which is typical for faster emulsions.

If you do macro and stitch, then far higher resolution than any DSLR. And with zero quantization errors.

 

[NB23]

Here's what happened: Xtol gets TMX about 1/2 stop faster & shoulders quite a bit earlier compared to D-76. Thus if you're a bit generous exposure-wise with TMX in D-76, you'll be mostly OK, still on the straight line & you won't get into a fight with the paper curve - however Xtol kicks your shadow speed up & with a bit too generous exposure to begin with, you've gone far enough up the curve to have compressed your highlights enough that getting them to print well is going to be a pain. This is what you are seeing (BTDT with Delta 3200). The other emulsions you name don't have the same early shouldering in Xtol. So, as I said, it's an exposure question, not a fundamental flaw - and the effect helps to stop people with process control problems completely screwing up their highlight density & then whining about that.

So... I should rate my TMX @ iso 200 for when I plan to use XTOL, and rate it @
Iso 100 for when I plan to use any other developer? Weird.

 

[MattKing]

So... I should rate my TMX @ iso 200 for when I plan to use XTOL, and rate it @
Iso 100 for when I plan to use any other developer? Weird.

Why would that be weird?
You would do the reverse if you were using something like Perceptol - not that I would expect you to use Perceptol and TMax 100.