XTOL + TMX = sucky.

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Underexposed TMAX 100 is terrible. It looks flat.

 

[jnamia]

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.

I don't think either any film is "superior" they are what they are, same goes for developers, most of them are pretty much exactly the same and there is some sort of cult following regarding certain films and certain developers. me personally I like film and developers that ad some sort of nuanced character to an image, but that's me. 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.

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.

bill the negatives are flat because it was processed in xtol. LOL
Lachlan said on page 1 with much more shoulder and toe fluency than I have or understand it's what makes xtol so great, it makes things flat so people won't have trouble printing it. underexposed tmx? you can underexpose TMAX100. I do it and it looks fine ... the problem for people who love xtol is, if it's done you can't might not be able to develop it in ascorbic / xtol, because the film won't might not have any contrast -- it will might be flat and lifeless , but it will be fine with 30-50% more processing time or whatever one's personal tests and preferences / tastes suggest / FSTOP. 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 )

 

[cjbecker]

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

 

[jnamia]

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

totally flat and lifeless!

 

[NB23]

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).

 

[flavio81]

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.

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

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 )

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

 

[MattKing]

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).

Unless you have an identical twin living the same life as you, I think this means that you won't take advice from anyone.

 

[jnamia]

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.

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 ...

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

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

TMax 100 is a film I would use with Xtol to produce smooth tonality prints that are sharp and grainless per standard development. It can also be tweaked to produce different tonality by changing film exposure; because Xtol lifts shadow values a bit it can be made to have a different tonality in those low tones without losing much detail at EI200 or 320, and similarly the contrast curve can be changed to produce something different in the highlights by altering processing time and/or agitation. I've made it look like Tri-X 320 years ago, tonality wise, but you will never ever get a gritty look from this combination. It's just the wrong combination of stuff to produce something that has that perceived sharpness that a sharp and prominent grain can give. This changes when we start making very large prints, as TMX is very sharp on the micro level, so at 16x or more enlargement, that will begin to become obvious.

Thanks to those who said welcome back. I'll probably stop by now and then to read a bit and maybe post a little here and there, but my photography these days is relegated to shooting only sporadically, and often not with film. It's kind of fun to be remembered, so I'm flattered that you do, and it's entertaining to read these old posts about stuff I don't really remember how to do anymore. These days I use primarily Fomapan 400 in 120 format, but also a bit of FP4+ and Kentmere 400, processed in PMK Pyro or FX39. That gives me tonality and grain I like very much. Relating that back to the thread - maybe the OP is simply using the wrong materials for what they wish to achieve.

 

[NB23]

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’ll be glad to send it to you, pm me your address.

 

[grat]

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'm not an expert on film or development, but I'm pretty good at math, and your numbers are terrifying-- and I do not mean that in a positive way. 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.

What do you do with these prints? How do you possibly have time to examine them carefully, do test exposures, vary your process?

 

[Helge]

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).

What’s the point of this thread then, really?
Some kind of advanced humble bragging?

Empirically and historically, I know of plenty of examples of people who have done something to death, without really grokking it deeply. Only getting deep into one single aspect.

The problem with a specialist is often that they don’t understand and can’t sympathize with the good generalist.

 

[jnamia]

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).

a few years ago I probably did more than that, ebb and flow has put me in a different place I shot maybe 4 rolls the past 2 years, but I've made probably 20 -25,000 prints you gotta go where the spirit takes you.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

 

[jnamia]

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

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 ... and they never did it themselves and they have no idea what they are talking about. also, lots of people are searching for something other than what I am searching for, maybe the results I got were unacceptable to them?
sorry to hear the negative nancy's put you through the mangle, sometimes people can be real jerks..

 

[pentaxuser]

sorry to hear the negative nancy's put you through the mangle, sometimes people can be real jerks..

What is worrying or should be for a forum that is here to respond to and investigate openly photographic phenomena is when anyone does something that is even slightly outside of the "book of norm" it produces a collective form of denial as a first reaction

pentaxuser

 

[Mr Bill]

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.

Another way to look at this would be roughly 1 roll per day. If a mix of 135-24 and 135-36 rolls, this would be like double prints out of the roll. Was a time when the place I worked owned a large mini-lab chain, this would have been roughly $12 to $15. Hardly worth turning on the machine that day. It would be a losing proposition all the way.

On the other hand, if these are hand-made prints selling for say $10/ea (or more) then it's maybe a feasible business. And a lot of work to hand-process, dry, and dust spot, etc.

My own experience? I spent a number of years as the QC manager in a chain studio lab, with 5 or 6 people in my department. One was a full-time product inspector, a couple of photk techs who spent about half their day dealing with "process control," about 40-50 control strips per day, a full-time lab tech or chemist in our chem lab. Obviously I just had my feet propped up on my desk smoking cigars all day, right? High-production facility printing nominal 8x10" size "packages," color balanced by hand, to a spec, all inspected and dust spotted. Over 300,000 color 8x10s per day. If you could stack em all up... well, figure 1/100 inch thick paper...

But I haven't shot any film for at least a handful of years.

 

[Mr Bill]

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 ...

I didn't start out as skeptical, I sort of trusted people with more experience. But over time, via the school of experience (or hard knocks, whatever one wants to call it), that a substantial amount of what I "knew" was just not so. So, I did develop similar skepticism, especially with younger photographers. I'm sure a lot of people got tired of me asking, "How do you know?" And, "Are you sure?"

I discovered a great way of finding out how sure people were about things. I'd ask them, would you bet a beer on that? Usually the answer is yes. Then I ask, would you give me ten to one odds on that? Often there is now some hesitation about this, as they now realize they are not quite as certain as they first thought. You don't actually have to make the bet... the whole thing is to get someone to consider how certain they are. Funny thing is that most of these people would not mind buying a round of beers at the local tavern. But... to HAVE to do from losing a bet? It's strange how strong the urge to not lose the bet is.

 

[faberryman]

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. I think everybody ought to look at some of NB23's prints he has posted, and ask themselves whether it really looks like TMAX100 in XTOL is the right choice for him, because I'm not seeing fine grain. long tonal scale, zone system, technically perfect images. The next thing you know we'll have Drew on here telling NB23 his problem is that his temperature is not controlled to 0.10 degrees and his enlarger isn't braced with steel beams that will withstand the apocalypse.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...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.

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.

What’s the point of this thread then, really?...

The OP revels in stoking controversy. That's the only possible point. Unless it was in response to another, old thread about TMX and Perceptol/XTOL to which I recently added a post. Tweaking me has become a favorite pastime for some here.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I am so so so glad I learned to TMax films long before any of the nonsensical talk which seems to dominate this thread, and before people owned digital cameras allowing them to make ludicrous comparisons to that. Xtol wasn't around yet, so I have no need to worry about that either. As far as Perceptol goes, it does wonderful things with TMX100 at 1:3 dilution, and rate it at 100.

 

[MattKing]

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.

It may be more accurate to say that the problem is that NB23 doesn't like the look of TMAX 100 in XTOL - which he is perfectly entitled to do - but that the result of the combo is "dullness overkill", which description people are perfectly entitled to disagree with.

 

[flavio81]

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.

Thanks Sal. Yes, it all boils down to "There's no accounting for taste."