Zone III meter or print down.

[Taija71A]

... because I rate and shoot tmy2 at 100. I find that the film generally handles this well but often requires extended development to reach a paper white highlight...

__

Let me see...
Not only do we have 'Over Exposure'... But now we also have 'Over Development'.
_________

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

__

What are you shooting? "Black Cats in a Coal Mine"?
Are you able to attach an Image?

Thank-you!
_________

[Drew Wiley]

Forget about "latitude". That is a term intended for amateur films who don't know how to use a meter. The shadows in TMax drop hard, but that is what gives them good separation and allows you to make low placements for shadows, easily down to Zone II or even I. IF you meter is accurately used, and if you are making placements for Zone III, it sounds to me like you are overexposing the film four or five stops!!! If true, you are not just skinning the cat, but making ketchup puree out of it. But lets just say that I routinely make outstanding prints with TMax films, have done hundreds of actual densitometer plots with various developers (incl 76), and will categorically state that you fail to understand how this film works. That's not intended as an insult. I just know this film very very well. Andyour ideal of a dense negative is counterproductive. That's probably one significant reason you're having problems.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I don't have a proper scanner unfortunately. Overexposure is a relative term depending on how its processed, how it was meters, I'm sure you know all this.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Forget about "latitude". That is a term intended for amateur films who don't know how to use a meter. The shadows in TMax drop hard, but that is what gives them good separation and allows you to make low placements for shadows, easily down to Zone II or even I. IF you meter is accurately used, and if you are making placements for Zone III, it sounds to me like you are overexposing the film four or five stops!!! If true, you are not just skinning the cat, but making ketchup puree out of it. But lets just say that I routinely make outstanding prints with TMax films, have done hundreds of actual densitometer plots with various developers (incl 76), and will categorically state that you fail to understand how this film works. That's not intended as an insult. I just know this film very very well. Andyour ideal of a dense negative is counterproductive. That's probably one significant reason you're having problems.

Drew no offense taken. I admittedly am in the knows only enough to get myself in trouble category. However I am still in school and this is a method widely and quite adamantly preached with good results.

[Drew Wiley]

You're the one having trouble with this film, not me. Go figure.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I'm only saying that as a point of reference as in I didn't make this up myself on a whim and you're right I am having trouble that's why I'm on here and doing my own research to see what might help.

[Bill Burk]

Carefully think through advice you consider adopting as your own. You might double-correct. Or there might be unintentional side effects.

Double correction? Because you rate TMY-2 at 100, you probably already "place your shadows on Zone IV" without knowing it. You are already doing what Bruce Barnbaum is saying you should do: You give the film generous exposure. Because you already give enough exposure to place exposure on the straight line, you do not need to place shadows on Zone IV.

Side effect? I don't see any steps in Bruce Barnbaum's plan regarding where you place the high spotmeter reading. If I were to Spot Shadow, place on Zone IV (instead of Zone III)... I would also shift my high reading, for example Spot Highlight, place on Zone IX (instead of Zone VIII). This corresponding highlight placement would effectively shift the exposure without changing the "subject brightness range" or development.

Simpler way to increase exposure: It would be simpler to rate TMY-2 at 100 to increase exposure than to rate at 400 and place shadows on Zone IV.

[Taija71A]

... However I am still in school and this is a method widely and quite adamantly preached with good results.

In School...

The old 'motto' was... "Over Exposure and Under Development".
--
This of course is...
Because beginners tend to 'Under Expose' and 'Over Develop' everything.

[Michael R]

I actually want more of my exposure into the shoulder. I think people have given TMY2 a bad rap about being finicky. Let's say I like really dense negatives.

Keep in mind TMY-2 doesn't have a gradual shoulder. In my experience it has a very long scale without a loss of contrast until a relatively abrupt shoulder is encountered. Something like TMX would be the opposite, with a longer, more gradual shoulder.

As long as you don't run into the shoulder, extra exposure (more overall density) is fine from a sensitometric perspective. The trade offs (assuming there is "wasted" density) are in image structure and definition. Whether those losses are trivial or material depends on magnification and subjective considerations.

[jp]

If you don't have a scanner and someday hope to scan, super dense tmax 400 may have the detail and contact print fine, but it's going to be difficult to scan.


I love tmy2. I shoot it box speed, incident meter, and develop in pyrocat hd. D76 1:1 is also very good. I'm not sure what paper white hightlight means. I like detailed highlights. How white they are depends on how they are printed. If you want highlights without detail, get some cheap 400 speed film and overdevelop it, or shoot with a blue filter.