TMAX Film - What's so bad about it?

Greetings experts! After going through a tour of various films, I've found plenty of uses for TMAX 100 and 400 in my kit. Fine grain, great tonal range on the 100, great speed on the 400. I don't use TMAX developer; just Ilford DDX with it. While it doesn't seem to produce nice negs for POP or alt process easily for me, for silver and scanning uses I'm very pleased with it - more pleased than traditional films for many types of subjects. Okay, so it's not the best DR5 film set either.

Over the years, I've heard all kinds of comments deriding TMAX in general, so I never really tried it for myself until lately. By avoiding TMAX all these years I really missed a good addition to the palette. I feel that I might need reality check here, so here goes:

Would anyone care to enlighten me as to why TMAX has such a bad name? Anything that you, in your experience really hate about the stuff (aside from cost)? Which methods gave you bad results?

I don't think there is anything at all bad about the film, although I have not used it in many years.

I think some of the bad rap came about due to it's reputation as being somewhat difficult to develop correctly as it needed careful control in development ( time and temp) to achieve the full benefit of the film. Other traditional films were a bit more forgiving of user error in development.

Using the developer you are using ( which I beleive is similiar to TMax RS) it should be a great film. Heck, many very well known photographers swear by it so it can't be all bad!

Tmax400 is by far my favourite B&W film - simply amazingly flexible, fine grained and fast. I used to shoot a lot of Tmax 100 which is incredibly fine grained, but also has a stubby toe (sort of, now you see it, now you don't). I use it far less now since they changed the base to a UV resistant material which makes it useless for alt processes. Still great film for silver though.

I'll get you started fwiw. I've revisited Tmax 400 more than once and no matter what, I can't live with the grain. It's just nasty to my eye. Tmax 100 I dismissed early on as I was going down the PMK Pyro road and other films worked better. I never liked the straight line curve that can be so very unforgiving of overexposure. mia culpa. But that said, after I switched to PyroCat HD I have re-visited Tmax and find it excellent in the Pcat. Now the only thing that puts me off is the price. I've got 1000 feet of Efke 100R Cirkut film that will ultimately make 1500 8X10 photographs at roughly 55 cents apiece. If I happen to luck into some Tmax, I enjoy it.

My opinion is that T-max got a bad reputation with many people, who tried it when it was a new product, and used T-max developer and exposed and developed at the published times. This results (for me) in awful negatives. I stopped using it for years, until I tried developing it in D-76 1+1, and then I liked it a lot.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with it. I think that the other posters hit on the issue. A strength and weakness is its response to differences in time and temperature. It makes it easier to expand and contract. If you are not careful with these variables, then things can get away from you.

Another great thing about Tmax is the fact that it responds to light like a traditional film with a pale yellow filter on it. That saves using a filter in many situations, and so eliminates the filter factor.

A third great thing is that it has outstanding reciprocity characteristics.

All that being said, its good that there are lots of films around, because I cannot stand either Tmax 100 or 400. I can't explain it. I just can't stand the way my photos look with either film. Give me FP4+, HP5+, Delta 100, Tri-X or other films and I am happy. I just don't like the look I get. I see photographs by other photographers who use Tmax films and they look great to me. I can't explain it, but I stopped fighting it. My favorite is HP5+.

Like Jim I didn't much care for it until I tried it in pyrocat, and now don't care for it because of the price and availability issues in odd formats, not to mention the uncertainty of Kodak in general. But, all other things being equal, it would be the only film I'd ever need.

I don't care for the spectral sensitivity of the T-max films. They look like B&W video or straight digital B&W to me, though in some situations it can work. I also don't care for the grain pattern on T-Max 400 in smaller formats, but in large format this isn't an issue.

T-Max 100 has a UV filtering layer in its current version, which makes it unusable for alt-processes that require UV exposure.

On the other hand T-Max 100 is extraordinarily sharp and both TMX and TMY have a very long straight line curve, so they are handy for work in contrasty lighting.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/dv1.jpg

Nuttin' bad about it.
Fine grain + linear response: what else do you need ?

I have tried every sheet film available over the last few years in many developers and I honestly believe that when shooting 8x10 and larger, T Max 400 is without question the best film made. And it is not just about its excellent tonal response that draws the praise. It scores in the top of its class as it relates to reciprocity correction and the ability to use its full film speed is a God send in the field with large sheets of film.

Develop it in DDX, T Max RS or Pyrocat and it provides a linear film density curve. Stand develop it with Pyrocat or use Pyro and it gives you the classic "S" film density curve. Simply as good as it gets. It is the only film that I have used for the last year and I am sticking with. No reason to use anything else. As a silver contact printer T Max 100 does nothing for me.

However, if I was projection enlarging I would not hesitate to use T Max 100 as long as I was developing it in a JOBO. That is where it got its bad rap as T Max 100 mandates the precision inherent in temperature controlled mechanical rotary processing. Try to cut this corner in any way and the results dimish dramatically to mediocre at best. Sexton tested it when it first came out and continues to use T Max 100 with exemplary results in a JOBO. Without a JOBO I would use FP4+ exclusively.

Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/dv1.jpg

Nuttin' bad about it.
Fine grain + linear response: what else do you need ?

---

Lovely shot Ken.

For years many photographers complained that the old-time films afforded more flexibility in terms of plus and minus development, push/pull, etc. than the newer films. So Kodak came out with TMax, which is very sensitive to minor changes in temperature, time, and agitation (i.e. it has a lot of flexibility for plus and minus development, push/pull, etc.). So then photographers said TMax was no good because it was sensitive to minor differences in time, temperature, and agitiation (i.e. photographers decided they really didn't want to take the time and effort necessary to deal with the sensitivity and flexibility they thought they wanted).

All great comments so far. For 8x10, I found that the TMAX 400 was plenty fine grained - much more fine grained than my experiments with Efke 100; but then again, it's more like "what grain?" in 8x10. And yes, for speed in dimmer light - the 400 is very nice to have. For alt process I like Acros and Efke 25 for my POP printing as well as my other silly experiments. It's just that I happen to like the spectral sensitivity, fine grain, and ability to use in contrasty light of TMAX 100. I thought "how could this be?, a 100 film finer grained than a 25?" But then again, that's without much special in the way of processing. I like the tonality possibilities of the two TMAXes very much so far. So far, in a half dozen boxes of each of the stuff (400 on 8x10, 100 ReadyLoad on 4x5), I find the films to be quite forgiving, especially compared to slide film!. I do use a Jobo if that helps.

One aside regarding 4x5 holders - I did have a mishap by using a Fuji Quickload holder for some shots in a pinch - all of those shots came out neatly as 4x4", apparently due to a band on the Kodak Readyload, which hung up inside the Quickload holder when pulling the "dark slide" for exposure. Otherwise, it did work. I know that most people would not try using a Readyload in a Quickload holder, but I was in a bind and had heard that it works. Perhaps the other way around works, but I'm not going to try it.

Interesting to hear other's comments, and Ken, nice photo. Thanks so much to all. Anyone care to specifically and completely bash the stuff? Can you spot a print made from TMAX a mile away?

Hello! I'm not sure how much pull/push ability TMax has. At 1:7 dilution at 68 degrees or 1:9 at 75 degrees, I can push it 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 stops with 16 minutes of development with continuous rotary development and pull it about 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 stops with four minutes of continuous rotary development. Even with 1:3 at room temperature, I can get about 1 2/3 stop, (the insert lists two stops push/pull ability). I don't bother about the couple of degrees that the house may differ in temperature from one day to the next - that may equal about 1/4 (?) stop, at least, from the time/temp curves that Kodak published for the film.
At least with continuous rotary agitation with a reversing continuous speed unicolor drum, the film seems a no-brainer wit development. Best regards.

Mike

I am a color negative photographer, but I am exploring b&w for a project that I am considering. I use Portra 160VC, and it has this wonderful straight line characteristic curve which produces excellent detail from the deepest shadows to the brightest highlights. This is an attribute of the film that I have come to love.

I would think if TMX also exhibits a similar straight line characteristic curve when developed in TMX RS developer, then this is good rather then bad. Films with CCs that have pronounced shoulders and heals result in loss of detail at the extreme values. I am personally drawn to images with deep rich shadows and brilliant highlights all having subtle passages of detail. Only films with straight line CCs permit these kinds of images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Willard

I use Portra 160VC, and it has this wonderful straight line characteristic curve which produces excellent detail from the deepest shadows to the brightest highlights. This is an attribute of the film that I have come to love.

I would think if TMX also exhibits a similar straight line characteristic curve when developed in TMX RS developer, then this is good rather then bad. Films with CCs that have pronounced shoulders and heals result in loss of detail at the extreme values. I am personally drawn to images with deep rich shadows and brilliant highlights all having subtle passages of detail. Only films with straight line CCs permit these kinds of images.

---

I want to add a couple of my observations to the above statement from Willard.

First, each and every B&W film inherently has unique (beginning) toe and (ending) heel H&D characteristics that defines each emulsion. But the same film in one developer (or developing technique) that exhibits its characteristic straight line density curve could affect the middle section between the toe and the heel to be anything but a straight line with another developer. For example Pyrocat in TMY 1:1:100 or 2:2:100 will be the well documented straight density curve mentioned. However, TMY when using extreme mininal agitiation with Pyrocat or with pyro the middle section of the density curve drops and the toe gets modestly extended. The important point here is that the film curve does not "top out" but continues to build density at the heel end. The difference in the two curves from the same film with different developers (or developing techniques) is the visual "esthetic" that each photographer finds works for them. Just another tool in the tool box for the B&W photographer to explore and utilize.

Second point that I want to make is that your selection of a film is dictated by the requirements of your printing materials (silver, Azo or alt process) and the exposure and developing your photographic subject requires to meet these requirements for density range. The marvel of both T Max 400 and 100 are that they simply do not top out at the high density end and have enormous "potential" for the photographer to work with if they need it. FP4+, Efke PL100 and Efke 25 along with Tri X are also great films relative to these variables. It is my personal experience that Bergger 200 and HP4 fall short when you need to reach high into the curve for usable density.

Cheers!

Hello! During my astrophotography days, I seem to recall that TMax was considered to have a high blue sensitivity, much like Tech Pan was considered to have a high red sensitivity. Best regards.

Mike

T-Max 400 is possibly the best film ever made. Learning how to use it in T-Max 1:4 developer unleashes amazing potential. I have shot the 400 anywhere between 100 and 6400 with predicitable results. Anyone who tells you otherwise is the kind of person who does not persist with it.
In terms of LF. It is a real shame 3200 TMZ isn't available same with rollfilm as the grain is really the most spectacular found. Pictorial not intrusive. The 100 can be almost chromogenic looking as the grain is so small.

All in all if you have a lightmeter with incident reading capabilities, exposing for B&W is easy and all you need to do is work out whether you push or pull slightly for the print you want to make, or if to be scanned do exactly as it says on the tin, most scanners like a punchy neg due to aliasing of digital etc .. which T-Max normally is.

I would hand on heart say if I could be left with only one film for the rest of my days it would be Tmax 400 and the T-Max developer. It is simply that good.

Steven

I have never found TMX difficult to process or nearly as picky as some would have you believe.

If you can follow a recipe to bake cookies, you can process TMX...

I also don't know what to make of this comment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scrichton

most scanners like a punchy neg due to aliasing of digital

---

Most people like a low contrast neg for easier scanning...and where does aliasing come into play here?

The best thing to do when you hear tales of this film being difficult and that developer doing whatever, is to just try them out for yourself, read as much as you can online, read the data sheets, use your common sense and then go to work and shoot some pictures...and learn from your experience. There are so many variables in the processing game that you have to do it for yourself and see how it works under your conditions

All I can say here with any certainty is that using T-max100, rated at ASA 50, developed in trays using HC-110 (diluted 1:60 from the concentrate) gave me excellent negatives to print 16x20 on Ilford Gallery and Agfa Portriga Rapid 111. But that was 15+ years ago.

Vaughn

I tried it when it first came out, but I had processing problems of an unusual nature. I got these little marks that looked similar to static electricity, but not exactly. Kodak and I checked it all out and finally decided that I was heavy handed. Apparently TMAX is mechanically sensitive and whatever it was that I did, I mechanically exposed the film, either in the tray development or the sheet film holders.

Oh well.

To reply.

Aliasing is just the tonal ends not having information, even 32 or 16bit can be tricky in scanning as scanners being digital they clip. Punchy negs have a nice even contrast range but with definite areas of tonal definition, therefore mentally we make up for the missing areas our vision. Other end of the scale tonal gradients Mach Band. Flat negs give far too much work in photoshop / (place post production tool here).
In the same way CD's are mastered off of heavily compressed 48khz audio for punch. Imagery is the same. Providing it isn't clipping there is a much better chance of getting a fast turnaround and more rewarding image. If the neg is exposed well a punchy neg will scan better than a flat one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scrichton

...If the neg is exposed well a punchy neg will scan better than a flat one.

---

I must disagree. I thought this too once, but extensive experiments proved me wrong.

For context, I'm drum scanning 5x4 Tri-X. What I found was that the scanner makes a better scan from a negative that is somewhat thinner than a negative optimized for darkroom printing. Say a Zone VIII of about 1.0, or in Zone System terms, an N-1 negative.

I speculate (I'd have to do actual science to form a theory ;-) that the prime reason for this is the Callier Effect. As negative density increases, so does light scatter from the metallic silver. In the scan, this results in differential local contrast across the negative's density, with highlight areas (high density) getting lower local contrast than shadow areas (low density). This is very similar to what happens with a darkroom enlarger. For both systems, optimization is toward thinner negatives. These thinner negatives have considerably less differential local contrast, and the resulting scans require less correction in Photoshop in my experience.

I've done a little work with a consumer flat bed and found similar results.

All this said, there's really no reason for anyone to believe either of us. It's too easy to do the experiements for one's self and find out what works best for one's own workflow.

I've had very good results with 8x10 Tmax 400, and I'm pretty cavalier about processing film. The reciprocity characteristics make it my favorite film for nocturnal shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Watson

I speculate (I'd have to do actual science to form a theory ;-) that the prime reason for this is the Callier Effect. As negative density increases, so does light scatter from the metallic silver.

---

Sounds right to me. And it's probably dependent on the nature of the light source, how collimated is the beam... if there is a beam at all.

I would guess that most flatbeds use a diffused light source, while "negative scanners" for small and medium format probably use a "straighter" source.

What do drum scanners use - or do they vary from model to model ?

On a related note, would film developed in staining formulas be more, or less susceptible to this influence ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Watson

I must disagree. I thought this too once, but extensive experiments proved me wrong.

context, I'm drum scanning 5x4 Tri-X. What I found was that the scanner makes a better scan from a negative that is somewhat thinner than a negative optimized for darkroom printing. Say a Zone VIII of about 1.0, or in Zone System terms, an N-1 negative.

I speculate (I'd have to do actual science to form a theory ;-) that the prime reason for this is the Callier Effect. As negative density increases, so does light scatter from the metallic silver. In the scan, this results in differential local contrast across the negative's density, with highlight areas (high density) getting lower local contrast than shadow areas (low density). This is very similar to what happens with a darkroom enlarger. For both systems, optimization is toward thinner negatives. These thinner negatives have considerably less differential local contrast, and the resulting scans require less correction in Photoshop in my experience.

I've done a little work with a consumer flat bed and found similar results.

All this said, there's really no reason for anyone to believe either of us. It's too easy to do the experiements for one's self and find out what works best for one's own workflow.

---

To follow up Bruce's experience with a recent one of my own:

I recently dosed a batch of Tmax400 negatives with developer (Pyrocat HD) that was on it's way out, so they ended up a thin (about 1/2 to one stop thinner than normal) and flat - at least .2 less in ES. Silly - I new the developer was getting on for a year old. However, despite the thinness and lack of contrast, they scanned extremely well on a consumer flatbed - basically, if you just have a sliver of silver in the shadows, it still translates into good shadow detail. In my experience, the same negatives would just print with completely blocked shadows in the darkroom, but the scans work fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

Sounds right to me. And it's probably dependent on the nature of the light source, how collimated is the beam... if there is a beam at all.

---

It's like condenser vs. diffuser enlargement. Both exhibit Collier Effect, but one a bit more than the other. So one wants a little more density than the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

I would guess that most flatbeds use a diffused light source, while "negative scanners" for small and medium format probably use a "straighter" source.

What do drum scanners use - or do they vary from model to model ?

---

Most drum scanners use highly collimated light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

On a related note, would film developed in staining formulas be more, or less susceptible to this influence?

---

One would think (oh, be careful there!) that a staining developer would give you a negative that is easier to scan. The reason for this is that only part of the negative's density is from metallic silver. The rest if from stain, which is translucent and won't exhibit Callier Effect.

I'm wondering what effect the color of the stain would have, and whether it would be worth it to capture this color in the scan. I can imagine that scan color would change the response of the individual channels (RGB). What I can't image is what this would mean to the final print. Getting these questions answered would take some experimentation for sure.

The only way to be sure is to make some photographs of the same scene, develop these films to different densities, scan the negatives, and see which one gives you the "best" file, however you choose to define it.

I personally find very contrasty negatives difficult to scan!

While my observation is more from experience than analysis, I find that a somwhat compressed tonal range in a negative scans best with lower end scanners like mine. This is probably due in part to the limits of the device. Creating more contrast later is easy, but restoring lost detail or capturing more range than the scanner can do in one scan is a problem. It is the compression of tonal range that 100 TMAX seems to do very well indeed - it puts things within range of the scanner. Most of what looks like grain in an 8x10 scan is scanner noise from what I've seen (sure, probably some aliasing effects too, but not a lot). When the scanner is operating in its optimal range, the apparent grain/noise is less. Films that build up a lot of density yet retain detail in that density are difficult to scan for me, but easier to print contacts from. In DDX at least, 100 TMAX does not seem to build up density very fast, yet film speed seems good enough to give shadow details. Best negs seem to be those that are exposed for shadows and then slightly underdeveloped to normal development for 100. I'm sure that people enlarging the same negative might not like it as much.

I can't afford a drum scanner. Like most. So a punchy neg on a transparency hood is ok. Due to an inherently low DMAX over a true transmitted light scan. Sorry for bringing this up. I have found a punchy well exposed (not blocked) neg will be fine. As I said use lightmeter on incident and average out well enough you will find it very easy to produce a neg that will scan well on a reasonable scanner such as a V700/750 with tranny hood. Low contrast negs compress the black to a point of aliasing or produce bad midtone grey blocks due to mach banding.

I had ortho film last week where the highlights were blocky and lo and behold they didn't scan well. Last week some stuff which had punch but no overexposure. Scanned nicely.

I'll end this debate here. Flatbed + Punchy (not overexposed neg) = easy scan with little post. This is dependent on overall skill in both processing and general computer imaging. I taught for adobe last year and have been processing black and white for 8 years so I have found my perfect combination for my subject matter, as with focus etc expericience will let you know. Look for your own combination.

I'll re-iterate though t-Max 400 will see you right as long as you follow lab results as kodak have made, in their own developer going for an "average density", if you think the subject will be high contrast underexpose by a stop or otherwise for excessivly low contrast. Just remember and fix for at least 10 mins in normal fix. This will clear up all the usual T-Max issues. Then sit back and enjoy a grain free world without loss of speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scrichton

Low contrast negs compress the black to a point of aliasing or produce bad midtone grey blocks due to mach banding.

---

Really? You get grain aliasing in the least dense part of the negative, where there is the least grain?

I didn't know there were any scanners out there that had such bad electronics that they would produce Mach banding. Human perception does this all the time, but most electronics have sufficiently well damped response to eliminate this. That aside, I would think that increasing local contrast (making it "punchy") would increase the incidence of Mach banding simply because you'll create more opportunity for it since Mach banding is created by the juxtaposition of light and dark regions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scrichton

I'll end this debate here. Flatbed + Punchy (not overexposed neg) = easy scan with little post. This is dependent on overall skill in both processing and general computer imaging.

---

And I'll reiterate that your experience differs from most. That doesn't mean it doesn't work for you. What it means is that most people find the opposite works for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scrichton

...if you think the subject will be high contrast underexpose by a stop or otherwise for excessivly low contrast.

---

Underexpose? And loose my shadow detail? Not on your life.

What works for me, and seems to work for most of us, is to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. If you do that, I agree that 400Tmax will serve you well.

Like everything else, you will find people who don't like something. Unfortunately, I suspect that some of those people never even tried the things they criticize. They may have read something and then passed it along as fact. For example, Fred Picker was critical of Tmax films but anyone who knew Fred knows that, in Fred's mind, there was his way and the wrong way. There was no in-between with him. Ironically, he used to blast VC papers but near the end he "discovered" them and sung their praises. I really do think that a lot of the criticisms you read about any product are by people who are just passing along something they heard or read from someone else as fact.

Tmax100 has been my primary film of choice since it first came out. It's a wonderful film. I don't use Tmax400 but I never really gave it a chance. Strange as it may sound, I use slow films for large format and fast films for 35mm. I tested both Tmax100 and Tmax400 in 35mm when they first came out and Tmax100 became my slower film of choice in that format from then on. I also tested Tmax400 in 35mm and I just didn't see any big advantage to it. I prefer TRI-X or HP5+ in 35mm. However, I never really did extensive testing with Tmax400 so I never really gave it a chance. I did just enough testing to make me believe that it wasn't much, if any, better than standard films of that speed. However, I know other photographers that swear by it in all formats.

I almost always develop Tmax100 in HC110 and it works beautifully. Strangely, the old version of the film was incredibly NON-responsive to development time differences but the new version is much more responsive. I was always amazed by how everyone said Tmax100 was so "touchy" because it was just the opposite for me. Then I talked to someone at Kodak and they confirmed that Tmax100 really wasn't responsive in HC110 and they explained why that was but I have forgotten what they said. But the did confirm what my own experience had shown. But when I tested the new version, I was surprised to see that it responds quite well to development time changes now. It's not touchy, though. Just responsive. And I like that because N- and N+ development is much easier to attain with the new emulsion in HC110.

It's great stuff!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Watson

I'm wondering what effect the color of the stain would have, and whether it would be worth it to capture this color in the scan. I can imagine that scan color would change the response of the individual channels (RGB). What I can't image is what this would mean to the final print. Getting these questions answered would take some experimentation for sure.

---

I explored this a while back in an informal way, when I first started using PyroCat HD, which gives a brown-colored stain with the films I used. That is to say, it looks brown to the eye.

• If you scan for the stain alone, you get an image with greater contrast or density range than if you allow all the colors into the scan. This is because the stain is absorbed at a proportionately greater rate than silver as the luminosity gets higher.
  
  
• When you scan all the colors, you get an image with a mild compensating effect, because the presence of the stain in the higher values has "blocked" as it were, the presence of the silver. High values can't get too highly saturated with silver, so they look creamy rather than blocked.
  
  
• If you scan for all the colors except the stain, then you get a maximum compensating effect, since all you are scanning now is the silver, whose activity has been tempered by the stain, such that high values are lower than they "should be".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

I explored this a while back in an informal way, when I first started using PyroCat HD, which gives a brown-colored stain with the films I used. That is to say, it looks brown to the eye.

• If you scan for the stain alone, you get an image with greater contrast or density range than if you allow all the colors into the scan. This is because the stain is absorbed at a proportionately greater rate than silver as the luminosity gets higher.
  
  
• When you scan all the colors, you get an image with a mild compensating effect, because the presence of the stain in the higher values has "blocked" as it were, the presence of the silver. High values can't get too highly saturated with silver, so they look creamy rather than blocked.
  
  
• If you scan for all the colors except the stain, then you get a maximum compensating effect, since all you are scanning now is the silver, whose activity has been tempered by the stain, such that high values are lower than they "should be".

---

Ken,

That is a really interesting post. I have thought a lot about these issues but never separated them out as well as you did here. You really should consider writing this up for publication.

BTW, the flower imaged posted earlier was just "lovely'. Your control of tonal values is wonderful.

Sandy King

Thank you Sandy -

Whatever I said, was just a paraphrase of what I learned from you on this subject !

I will try the experiment again, and post the images.

Re response #18, Michael; Tmax has lower sensitivity to blue than "conventinal" films, higher to red.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

BTW, the flower imaged posted earlier was just "lovely'. Your control of tonal values is wonderful.

---

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/masters/murdoch.jpg

Although Fred Picker went on to become "controversial", I was tremendously fortunate to learn from him as a friend, one-on-one, in the years prior to Zone VI and his relocation to Vermont.

One thing he recommended to me, was to explore how tones affect one another when adjacent. In some images, the tonality of each component can be quite dull - but their juxtaposition can yield a marvelous result.

Another of Fred's recommendations was to study the work of Paul Strand. His 1954 portrait of Murdoch MacRury nicely illustrates the above point. In Strand, seeing in tones reached an exalted degree.

Ken,

Sandy is right on all three counts - that really is a very interesting post, on several levels, the tonality of your botanical images are extraordinary and you really should write publicly about all of it.

My most immediate (and pedestrian) question at the moment is: how do you scan stained negative for stain or for silver only?

Thanks,

Marko

Thank you very much Marko. I just scan the negatives in VueScan as b&w negatives.

Sometimes I add a little contrast in Photoshop, since I find that shooting close to 1:1, images get a bit dull. In some images, I have to burn-in the background, since I use a spare dark-cloth for the background, which isn't always dark enough.

The rest is just the beauty of the flowers and large format.

I am not sure I saw any mention of Xtol in this thread. Tmax in Xtol 1:3 is very forgiving of minor time and temp problems, while still being amenable to + and - development, and it scans very well.

And another vote for Xtol! I use Xtol 1:3 to push Tmax 400 to 3200. Sure, it takes 30min in the soup but I like it.

T-Max films are quite beautiful especially when developed in XTOL developer. What I like about about T-Max 400 is that the straight line of the curve travels up seemingly forever. It does not seem to shoulder out. There is detail in the highlights even with overexposure. No more burning in highlights only to get dull grey tones!

www.4photolab.com

I found out last night through actually making up the powder (after 5 months of putting off mixing up 5 litres of it :D ) That TMAX 400 in ID-11 at 1+3 rated at 400 and exposed for the shadows with adjustment for heavy highlights gives great tonal quality. Plus works out incredibly cheap on processing about 17 pence per 4 sheets (30 cents)

Enjoy.

I'll post a sample when I'm not in work.

I've found pushed TMY, even stand developed in XTOL, very capable of producing highlights that have detail, but are well beyond the reach of a CCD scanner, even a Polaroid 120, which has a much less collimated light source than the LED Nikons. That, probably more than LF, was what led to me buying a drum scanner.

Drum scanners can see further into dense highlights because a PMT intrinsicly has a lot more dynamic range than a CCD. Not the "bit-counting" dynamic range nonsense scanners manufacturers like to advertise, but actual range between the brightest and darkest things resolvable.

The drum scanner is also mechanically dead-accurate, the Polaroid took me two returns to get one that was even vaguely mechanically accurate, and it still wasn't really right--it had color misregistration that came and went in regular intervals during the scan. Even scanning color and only using one channel thin diagonal lines were noticably wavy. If you scanned fine-grained b&w as normal grayscale (combining all three colors) you could watch the grain come and go in bands.

Drum scanners have gotten seriously cheap, I got a great Screen 1045ai for a little past $2000 a couple of years ago (over $50k new in 1995), I'm guessing they're even cheaper now.