Help Reading A Negative Please

[IanBarber]

I am looking for a little help reading a negative.

I exposed this negative this morning as I wanted to test Pyrocat HD as a semi stand just because I am new to Pyrocat HD

Film: Kodak TMAX 400
ISO Used: 200
Developer: PyroCat HD 1.5+1+150
Time: 50 Minutes
Pre-Soak: 5 Minutes
Agitation: 60 seconds and then 15 seconds at each 1/4 interval using Paterson tank and Mod54 Holder
Water Sop bath
Ilford Fixer: 8 Minutes

To me, the negative looks a little on the bright side.

My initial thoughts is that I have probably over-exposed the negative by using ISO 200 not realising that Pyrocat HD maintains it's film speed but I am not that sure.

[tgtaylor]

It looks overexposed to my eye but the rebate is good indicating proper development.

Thomas

[IanBarber]

It looks overexposed to my eye but the rebate is good indicating proper development.

Thomas

Thanks Thomas. Looks as though I was on the right track. Might try moving the ISO to nearer Box speed when using Pyro

[Vaughn]

What process will you use to print? Looks like a fine alt process negative.

[IanBarber]

I dont have a darkroom or anything like that, I will print using an Epson printer

[Doremus Scudder]

The negative looks great to me. Overexposed by one stop should be no problem with TMY either. Just print a bit darker; your positive rendering looks "underexposed" to me. There should be more than one way to scan and render negative, or...? I could certainly make a fine darkroom print from that neg.

Doremus

[koraks]

The negative looks fine, albeit a bit contrasty. The two dense spots along the top edge of the negative are probably caused by a local difference in turbidity due to the clamps of the MOD54 holder. They are a difficult (impossible?) problem to solve with semi-stand or stand development. They're part of the problem why I gave up on it.

[Bruce Watson]

My initial thoughts is that I have probably over-exposed the negative by using ISO 200 not realising that Pyrocat HD maintains it's film speed but I am not that sure.

That looks quite overexposed to me. Probably a good two stops, maybe more.

For darkroom printing one generally wants the skin tones of a caucasian around zone VI. For scanning, even less than that.

Remember that scanning doesn't much like excessive density in a negative. Increasing density causes increase in graininess (grain clump size is a function of density), which causes an increase in Callier Effect (more silver -> more light scatter). Basically, excessive density compresses your highlight detail in an exponential fashion. The bottom line with scanning silver negative films is you want barely enough density to do what you need and no more than that.

The beauty of this is, you don't need to take my word for it. Try it yourself. Make a few exposures of the same scene, stopping down an extra stop each exposure. Develop them together. That way the only difference will be the exposure. Scan them individually, make prints, put them on a wall under a common light source. See what you think. It's likely one will look better than the others, and it may not be obvious why. Yet, it does. Hmmm.....

I spent years (drum) scanning TMY-2, and it really starts to sing when your negative has a dmax of around 1.0. Beautiful stuff. Best film ever made IMHO.

[Neal Chaves]

In my opinion Tri-X or HP5+ are better choices for portraits than TMAX400, but you have done quite well here. I simply adjusted density and contrast in The Gimp. Surprising detail in the wall paper background.

[IanBarber]

Thanks all for your feedback and all comments truly noted.

All comments seem to hinge around over exposure and not a fault with development so in some way this has pleased me.