Zone III meter or print down.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I just watched a very informative lecture on the ZS. The lecturer brought up an interesting point. He mentioned that metering shadows to zone III often can create a flat print even when properly developed.

His solution or workaround is to meter shadows higher let's say zone V. Which forces the entire exposure up into the characteristic curve. Then he prints the shadows back down into zone III. He states that doing this increases shadow detail and adds depth to the print since at zone III we do not get as much separation as zone V.

I think he makes sense and with an N-2 development you could still retain the highlights. However this is contrary to anything else I have read as well as going against what Ansel himself taught.

What are your opinions on this technique?

[Michael R]

This will all depend on the film, exposure index, how you meter, process, and the amount of flare (which flattens the lower part of the characteristic curve), not to mention how you print. Remember, it is difficult to really say where each "zone" ends up falling on the characteristic curve, so depending on many variables, placing shadows on zone II or III or IV or even V may give you anything ranging from a safety factor to higher shadow contrast. Luckily, most current general purpose medium/high speed films have long scales with significant latitude on the overexposure side (assuming the scene is not excessively contrasty).

I would say try it. Make some duplicate negatives at different exposures and print them. However I would not recommend reducing development time based solely on the higher overall placement. Reduced development does not necessarily result in "retaining" highlight detail. In fact, it can do the opposite. The effects of reduced development on highlights are frequently misunderstood aspects of systems such as the Zone System.

Hope this is of some help.

[Jim Noel]

I taught the Zone System at the college level for over 20 years. There are a lot of people out there professing to teach the Zone System and introducing their modifications who really don't knew how to fully utilize the system. If they knew, they wouldn't have to modify it. Placing shadows on Zone V basically is over-exposing them by two stops, then they are taken back down by over-printing. Maybe it works for him, but it certainly does not produce the best print. My suspicion is that he knows little or nothing about controlling contrast in the negative and places heavy reliance on variable contrast papers.

[cowanw]

see this
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum48/36157-bruce-barnbaum-expose-shadows-zone-iv.html

[Drew Wiley]

Everything depends on the specific film, developer, and lighting ratio. In other words, some blanket formula like this is essentially meaningless without specifying the parameters further. One needs to employ the Zone for their own needs and not visa versa. But personally, I never meter shadows on Z III except with Pan F, because this particular film has an exaggerated S-curve with a very brief straight line, which requires shadow placement relatively high (not the best choice of a film for high contrast scenes). Some sheet films will give you good shadow separation way down into the shadows, others so-so. So it all depends. Let me reiterate that the Zone System is not a religion, but simply a tool you tailor to your own typical requirements. But in general, if you overexpose, you risk either blowing out the highlights with normal development, or will have to resort to some kind of reduced development to rein them in, which will compromise midtone texture and microtonality.

[Drew Wiley]

... Let me clarify that - with sheet film film like TMY400 or TMX100, I general meter shadows in contrasty scenes around Zone I because these film have a reliable
steep toe. With films with a gentler toe yet relatively long straight line, like HP5 or FP4, I'll generally use Zone II. Metering shadows for something like Z IV or V
seems ridiculous. Even color transparency film has more latitude than that !!! Methinks someone's light meter doesn't work very well.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I am interested in all of your opinions 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. For me this theory was interesting because it means additional stops near the shoulder where I am having issues, though I am also experimenting with N+ development and recently acquired a spiratone spii to replace my DSLR spot meter, hopefully it will be more accurate and my exposures can benefit.

Generally I find printing down a tone causes global muddiness in print which is unpleasant.

[Drew Wiley]

TMY @ 100 ?? What on earth developer are you using? Unless you're metering is way off, that seems like horrendous overexposure to begin with.

[ic-racer]

A scene has no zones, it has EV values. You give it zones. 'Metering shadows to zone III..." is an ambiguous statement. What is a "shadow"? If you say "Zone III" that is a tautology. If it is a certain EV value then there is no defined connection to any zone. We know what zone III is in a print but in a scene it can be any value. If you print is flat, you underexposed the negative because you made a mistake determining what value of the scene was the darkest part that needed detail in the negative.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Drew, that is what it would seem like but its actually well within the films latitude. Using D76. There is more than one way to skin a cat. 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.

[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"? :p
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. :eek:

[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.

[RodinalDuchamp]

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.
Paper white specular highlights. Zone X.

[Bill Burk]

Michael R points out the shoulder is at the end of a very long scale, so exposing TMY-2 at 100 is fine, sensitometrically.

While we are talking sensitometrically, Drew is also right. I think you can expose TMY-2 at 400 and place shadow on Zone II and still land a density around 0.20 which is on the straight line.

I've shot TMY-2 at 64 and the resulting negative was a treat to print, because I could dodge the black trees and make them look like they were lit by full sunlight. So that is a specific advantage that overexposing gives, which you do not get when you "expose properly".

jp thanks for pointing out the potential issue with scanning, though I wonder - since scanners are designed for slides, which easily have DMAX over 2.00, why would there be any issue scanning a negative where the highlight density might be around 1.40? Just curious.

[jp]

I don't think a 1.4 density would be difficult to scan, but it is easy to have very overexposed B&W negative film that is tough to scan with the epson, which excels with normal and thin negatives.

[Doremus Scudder]

This entire discussion about placing a "shadow" here or there is meaningless unless we decide what a "shadow" is.

Adams' original descriptions of Zones are a good guide, but still just approximations. I make Zone Rulers (a lá Zakia and White in the New Zone System Manual) for all my film/developer/developing combinations. This is based on first finding an effective film speed for my own cameras, lenses, meter(s) and enlarger.

Then, when I look at a "shadow," I can make an informed decision about how I want it to reproduce in the final print. Sometimes, like Drew, I'll place a shadow in Zone II or even lower. Other times, I'll choose Zone III or Zone IV (this latter for luminous shadows in landscapes is often quite gratifying. Note, however, I'm NOT expecting this value to print "black"). For shadowed snow, I'll sometimes place the shadow in Zone V... It all depends on visualization, which is what the Zone System is good for.

But, this all has nothing to do with overexposing the film intentionally to get more shadow separation by moving the entire range of densities farther up the curve. Flare combined with the toe portion of many films can (and does) result in compressed shadow values. This is not necessarily bad. I like 320Tri-X for just this reason for many applications. I trade a bit of compression in the shadows for more mid-tone separation. However, I don't want that all the time, so I will often, intentionally, overexpose this particular film in order to move the shadow values up the curve and get more separation. This is a conscious decision based on what I want for a particular photograph, not a blanket "always overexpose and everything will be better" approach. Resulting negatives are a bit dense, but print fine.

With TMY, I would generally never do this, and rarely, if ever, with TMX. Both these films seem to work really well with just enough exposure to get shadow values to record where you want them in relation to the "max black" clear film base+fog. Overexposing them, as long as you don't hit the shoulder, will, as Michael says, have little effect on the overall distribution of tones in the final print, but results in more grain, longer printing times and, worst of all, slower shutter speeds for the initial exposure. A bit of overexposure as a safety factor in a hard-to-assess situation is good, IMO. Still, the best negative is the one that has the distribution of tones you want with the least amount of exposure.

So, I'd advise doing your homework, finding your personal E.I. based on minimum exposure and go from there. And, why don't you just go out and make a few test exposures. It's pretty easy to set up a shot and expose it at box speed, a stop over, two stops over, three stops over (heck, why not four stops over, since that is what you seem to want to do with your rating the film two stops slower than box speed and then wanting to place the shadows high...). Then, make your best print from each of them and compare shadows and highlights. Then you'll know.

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

We're dealing with a beginner here, so don't want to utterly confuse him. I personally do break the rules with TMax sometimes myself because I know exactly
what will happen under this or that situation. For example, there have been instances I have deliberately underexposed and overdeveloped it to get totally black
shadows and extreme midtone expansion. But both flavors of TMax have very different personalities than films with moderately upswept toes like Tri-X or HP5.
If you overexpose and dev in 76 you actually get an upswept curve at the top of TMax which makes it very difficult to print the highlights. These are completely
the wrong films for that kind of "thick negative" thinking, at least with conventional silver papers. It's easy to blow out the highlight, even if you employ pyro
developers which rein in the highlights with the stain. The topic of scanning just complicates this whole discussion because then you introduce the variable of
amateur scanners. I won't even go there. But in terms of printing, shadow values that are barely discernable to the naked eye on a lightbox will exhibit good
gradation. TMax sheet film should have very little fbf. Instead of a lightbox, assess the negative with an inspection light at a 45 degree angle. You start seeing
the detail actually present in the shadows. But this is a bit easier with a tanned image like pyro achieves.

[Drew Wiley]

Doremus, in classic ZS lingo, one would not dramatically change the ASA of the film under different contrast parameters, but the placement on a particular zone, annotated by the category or degree of development. In the real world, we can use or not use these conventions any way we wish. But in terms of explaining the System it can be a bit confusing to mix apples with oranges, technique-wise. I personally ignore the whole nine yards, because by now I almost subsconsciously and instantly visualize the actual placement on the curve of any number of film/developer combinations. But I try to be consistent explaining this or that when dovetailing with traditional common-denominators of technique. The other sticking point with the lingo is that the selection of films and papers has changed quite a bit since the classic literature was written. And now you've got scanners too. I have the same problem with friends who want darkrooms but don't have them yet, so use changing tents and light-tight film dev tanks, and then try to evaluate the results via scanning. At some point, they just have to get to a rental darkroom to see if they're on track at all, or if their negs are going to end up recalcitrant, which seems to be the case in this particular thread.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I ran a test today with lows at zone V it's drying let's see what happens when it gets to the print stage.

[Corran]

For a long time I was overexposing T-Max 100 due to bad metering technique and/or a poorly calibrated meter, as well as overdeveloping since I was doing rotary processing and no one told me to underdevelop with constant agitation development processes. It was giving me fits. Especially scanning but also printing. Find whatever works for you but if it were me, I'd be questioning an EI of 100. It might be your meter. Or your subject (since you like night shooting, perhaps you are unconsciously adding for reciprocity).

[Bill Burk]

Not to be critical but just to explain the lesson I think this will teach you...

If you did this while also using EI 100, you double-compensated by mixing advice from two different people.

Your teacher (or you) decided an exposure index of 100 gives you good shadow detail

And then you followed the advice of Bruce Barnbaum to place shadows on Zone IV or higher because he recommends doing that to get good shadow detail.

You did two things to get good shadow detail. You only had to do one of them.

Taken alone, each piece of advice is good. But put together you double-correct in the same direction to accomplish the same thing.

It's like driving a car at 72 miles per hour in a 65MPH zone because you know you can always get away with it.

And then going 78 because a friend tells you he always gets away with going 6 miles per hour faster.

You will get caught with a shadow density on the negative probably around 1.50

[Doremus Scudder]

Drew,

I'm 100% in agreement with you. I was trying to stay with traditional Zone-System parlance and just say that I sometimes gave more exposure than my personal (tested) E.I. to put the whole scene a bit higher on the curve. This, however, only occasionally and only for a specific purpose. Hopefully I didn't muddy the waters too much...

The OP seems to have the idea that lots of extra exposure is a good thing. Let's hope we've convinced him otherwise by now :)

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

With TMax sheet films (not roll films) you can easily obtain shadow gradation with a Dmin (threshold density) of 0.15. Now you might not trust your metering skills quite that much, or might not have a scene high enough in contrast to warrant that low of a placement. But this fact should at least make you think. And yes,
I have done TMax shots in caves and tunnels. Same rules.

[Bill Burk]

I think we might be talking about reducers pretty soon.

RodinalDuchamp,

If the print takes 4 minutes exposure you will know that it was overexposed... If you don't like that long a print time, then you might decide to cut back on exposure. If you like that long a print time (or if my guess is wrong) - then more power to you.

I am sure the print you make from the recent negative will be fine.

I think choosing camera exposure based on print time is an excellent plan, and if I decided to work that way, I would want to aim for a print time around 30 seconds for my 11x14 Ilford Galerie paper on one of the stable brightness settings of my enlarger.

[Bruce Watson]

He mentioned that metering shadows to zone III often can create a flat print even when properly developed.

Countless excellent darkroom printers would say that he just doesn't know how to print. Be careful who you take advice from; be careful whom you call an expert. Many people who call themselves expert, clearly are not.


His solution or workaround is to meter shadows higher let's say zone V. Which forces the entire exposure up into the characteristic curve. Then he prints the shadows back down into zone III. He states that doing this increases shadow detail and adds depth to the print since at zone III we do not get as much separation as zone V.

He doesn't understand something -- either the Zone System or a film's characteristic curve. Learn how to find your personal exposure index. This guy clearly doesn't know how; he's not the guy to teach you how to do it.


I think he makes sense and with an N-2 development you could still retain the highlights. However this is contrary to anything else I have read as well as going against what Ansel himself taught.

Because... it's wrong.

Here's the deal: Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. It worked before Adams, Adams/Archer explained why it worked and how to work it and called their explanation the Zone System, and it still works today no matter what you call it. It really is that simple. Even if it takes most of us a few decades to really "get it". And some of us (your lecturer might be among them) never actually get it.

[Thom Bennett]

In his book, "Using the View Camera," Steve Simmons has an easy to understand method to establish your own personal Exposure Index (EI). Once you go through the exercises you come away with a practical, real world way of metering, exposing, processing and printing to get the results you want. The book is out of print but is available as an ebook on the View Camera Magazine website: http://www.viewcamera.com/.

[BetterSense]

This is my favorite illustration of how tolerant TMY is to overexposure. The same scene shot at normal exposure, versus the same scene exposed several stops more, then printed down, resulting in remarkably similar prints. Although you cannot tell much from this boring scene and low magnification, it illustrates what you can get away with sensitometrically.

With 35mm this level of overexposure sacrifices sharpness and brings out the grain which is also not the prettiest grain in the world. In 4x5, this kind of overexposure latitude is what gives us meterless hacks with old shutters nice - looking prints. Sunny 5.6 gives nice shadow detail indeed; not recommended with PanF or Foma. This is an amazing property of modern film that I feel overly technical modern shooters fail to exploit. One man may be excited to skillfully place his most important shadow at 0.2. To me, unless you truly need the speed, that's just limiting future interpretation possibilities.

Notice for the top contact print, even the rebate text prints completely black.

http://chazmiller.com/projects/powderflash.html

[Sal Santamaura]

There's lots of discussion in this thread about TMY, but Barnbaum uses 320TXP. All toe. So, if one doesn't expose higher, the low values dump. Adding exposure won't hurt high values, because the curve keeps rising. Lots of separation, almost regardless how how you place them, even if development is a bit excessive. Of course, I wouldn't enlarge much, unless you like grain and a lack of sharpness. :)

[Doremus Scudder]

There's lots of discussion in this thread about TMY, but Barnbaum uses 320TXP. All toe. So, if one doesn't expose higher, the low values dump. Adding exposure won't hurt high values, because the curve keeps rising. Lots of separation, almost regardless how how you place them, even if development is a bit excessive. Of course, I wouldn't enlarge much, unless you like grain and a lack of sharpness. :)

Sal,

That's exactly the point I was trying to make: with a film like 320TXP, you have several curve shapes at your disposal depending on how you expose. Often, the reduced shadow separation you get when the film is minimally exposed ("dumped shadows" as you refer to them) are desirable, especially when the interest of the scene is in the mid-tones and you then get a lot of separation there. On the other hand, if you want to make 320TXP work like a straight-line film, then you need to intentionally "overexpose." This is really not overexposure, but simply placing the whole scene higher on the curve. There are a lot of possibilities to manipulate the shape of the part of the curve that you end up printing by adjusting exposure.

With other films, like TMY, this simply isn't needed and has no appreciable effect. The mistakes many make with Barnbaum's recommendation to place shadows higher is to assume 1) that this is somehow a "standard Zone System practice" and applies to all films and 2) that when you place the shadows high, you then somehow need to control the highlights with development contractions, etc. instead of letting them climb higher up the curve as well (which, as you point out, keeps rising for several Zones above Zone XI).

Overexposing TMY a stop won't make a whole lot of difference in the final print, especially a larger negative, but it is simply isn't necessary and has no real purpose, since the curve shape stays much the same.

Best,

Doremus

[dsphotog]

I think a lot of people using spot meters get into trouble.
Incident metering is a lot simpler.

[bob carnie]

A big plus one to this post


I think a lot of people using spot meters get into trouble.
Incident metering is a lot simpler.

[Michael R]

With other films, like TMY, this simply isn't needed and has no appreciable effect. The mistakes many make with Barnbaum's recommendation to place shadows higher is to assume 1) that this is somehow a "standard Zone System practice" and applies to all films


But this IS what he says (I'm referring to his book, not the youtube video which is just an excerpt for a workshop). He says Zone III is wrong - period. In my opinion that's a teaching problem (not that I'm defending Zone III etc.). He has his way of doing things, and is obviously an excellent worker, but he shouldn't make authoritative statements about things like this. Based on his working methods, he can't know where Zone III or IV falls on the curve for TXP or any other film. He gives lots of exposure (down-rating the film and placing shadows higher), but we don't know how much of the "overexposure" actually improves tone reproduction vs just adding density.

[Doremus Scudder]

But this IS what he says (I'm referring to his book, not the youtube video which is just an excerpt for a workshop). He says Zone III is wrong - period. In my opinion that's a teaching problem (not that I'm defending Zone III etc.). He has his way of doing things, and is obviously an excellent worker, but he shouldn't make authoritative statements about things like this. Based on his working methods, he can't know where Zone III or IV falls on the curve for TXP or any other film. He gives lots of exposure (down-rating the film and placing shadows higher), but we don't know how much of the "overexposure" actually improves tone reproduction vs just adding density.

When I watched the Barnbaum video about a millenium ago (haven't read the book), I got the impression he was talking about placing "important" shadows on Zone VI, which I understood as "really detailed" or "luminous" or whatever :) and which makes sense to me for landscapes, etc. If Barnbaum really thinks Zone III is somehow unusable, then that's just plain wrong... Trying to squeeze all the scene in between Zones IV and VIII just yields a flat, dense neg... Since his photographs are impressive, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt at this point. At least he's not underdeveloping, and overexposing isn't hurting things much!

In any case, I'll say again, a shadow is not a shadow and one simply places a chosen low value or values where they want it to turn out in the final print, be it Zone I, III or V. There is no "place the shadow in Zone XXX" rule; it depends on visualization. How much "extra" exposure above what is optimum that placement gives depends on how we have tested our materials (or not) and what we want from the process. How a shadow placement fits on the characteristic curve of any particular film is even more of a refinement. We are way into "nuance territory" for most beginners in the Zone System by this point. Most beginners are content with printable negatives and a basic grasp of the workings of the photographic process.

Doremus

[BetterSense]

129687

http://www.fotoimport.no/images/filmtest/korn%20og%20kurve/Tmax400-Tmax-7m.jpg

The blue reference line covers 7 stops of density that generally "fits" onto silver gelatin paper. If you believe this result, you may conclude that one could overexpose TMY by 6-7 stops with minimal tonal changes except oodles of recoverable shadow detail. It should be noted that the authors opted to stop measuring density at 2.5. We can see that the film is not even shouldering at 2.5, so we have to speculate how much additional latitude there is beyond the graph.

[djdister]

... a shadow is not a shadow...

Absolutely right. Not all shadows are equal. For example, do you think a white tree in a shadow should be rendered the same as a dark gray tree in the same shadow? As an umbrella term, "shadow" is ridiculous. The rendering of objects that are not in direct sun (in "the shadow") should not be lumped into one bucket. What if 90% of your shot is in a shadow area - you wouldn't treat that as one zone, would you?

[Michael R]

Attached is an additional curve for TMY-2 if it helps. This one is in XTOL, which usually produces slightly lower extreme highlight contrast than D-76. Note this is not representative of TXP.

129689