TMY film and Xtol developer

[HartleyFalbaum]

I am just getting back to darkroom work after 30 years. I previously used Tri X and HC 110 in my 4x5. I was happy with the results and was able to make N-1,2 and N+1,2 corrections. So-if I try going to TMY and Xtol, will I have to change approaches? Is it controllable like Tri X? What can I expect? Other suggestions? Subjects mostly landscape and airplanes.
Thanks

[Peter De Smidt]

TMY and Xtol is a great combination, with high speed, small grain, and excellent tonality. TMY will respond more quickly to changes in development than Tri-x. So if tri-x needs, say, a 20% time increase for going from N to N+1, TMY will need a 10-15% change.

[Pere Casals]

I think Xtol is a very good choice, I use it with TMax films and with HP5.

About Xtol:

Low toxicity. Use distilled water for stock the dillution if your tap water is high in iron and you want to store it long time, iron content may cause "sudden death" of Xtol after a number of months, otherwise the stock solution do not change activity with time, as D-76 do.

Xtol is "full speed", so you can shot TMY at ISO 400, and still Xtol gives some 1/3 stop advantage in shadow detail.

Be careful with highlights (glare on airplanes...) Xtol has some slight tendence to blow higlights, also TMY is less resistant to strong highligts and saturates 1.5 stops earlier than Tri-X, if normal development.

So in case of strong higlights try to use dilution 1:1 (or beyond) with reduced agitation(every 3 min), in this way developer exhaustion will take control on highlights. I use 1:1 dilution by default, also cheaper... To dilute stock dilution to 1:1 I use tap water, at the right temperature that will leave the mix at the desired one.


What I do in case of strong highlights, if I make a N-2 development I pull one stop from reduced time and another one from reduced agitation.


Xtol is a fairly solvent developer, so fine grain, but strangely this do not decrease sharpness (Kodak says), as a solvent effect should do. Diluted 1:1 the solvent effect decreases a bit and you may see a very slight difference after x10 enlargements.


About TMY:
This is a great film, but with less forgiveness than Tri-X, so metering and development has to be more accurate. Small grain for 400, and very, very sharp, the same or more than TMX talking in lppmm.

One thing, TMY has more blue sensitivity than Tri-X, so to look the same a pale yellow filter is needed with TMY, or a pale blue with Tri-X, so if a Yellow filter is to be used it has to be darker in the TMY case than for TX to obtain similar result. (Spectral sensitivity charts at datasheets show it). This high blue sensitivity makes faces luminous under sunny illumination, if you don't like this effect, just place a pale yellow filter.

TMY negatives have to be thinner than Tri-X, and they will be easily printable aswell, do not try to obtain the same density that would be correct for Tri-X, because "standard" process delivers thinner negatives with TMax.


This is IMHO... of course.


Best Regards

[Kevin Crisp]

I second Pere's last point, though I don't disagree with any of his points. A properly exposed and processed negative will look thinner than you are used to. But it will print fine.

[Bruce Watson]

I previously used Tri X and HC 110 in my 4x5. I was happy with the results and was able to make N-1,2 and N+1,2 corrections. So-if I try going to TMY and Xtol, will I have to change approaches?

No. The Zone System still works just like it used to.


Is it controllable like Tri X?

Yes. If anything, it's more controllable. That is, it's more responsive. For example, if you change your agitation a little, you'll see it. With Tri-X, not so much. This can be a two edged sword of course.

TMY in XTOL (I used to use 1:3, but can't really see any real improvement over 1:1 -- you'll need over 15x enlargement to see it, and with 5x4 film, that's a heck of a print size) lends itself exceedingly well to rotary development. If you've got a Jobo system and a 3010 drum, you can play it like an instrument. It's really pretty cool.


What can I expect?

IMHO, you can expect better tonality than Tri-X, better linearity, and much better reciprocity behavior. Those shadows under the rocks in the river that Tri-X just can't render correctly with your 1/8 shutter (because only those shadows are going into reciprocity failure), show all the texture and nuance you could want with TMY and XTOL. It seems like a little thing, but for me it made a big difference.

I find that Tri-X makes me work harder for the print that I want, whereas if I do my job correctly with TMY, getting the print I want is easy. For me, TMY is less work and more enjoyment. Just sayin'.

The downside is that TMY needs more fixing, and more washing. Many people fix TMY for twice as long as they fix Tri-X. My TMY in XTOL exits the 3010 drum with a slight purple stain (http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/pink-magenta-stain-not-blue-which-is-a-different-issue.69462/). Nothing that effects printing/scanning. That said, it passed my residual hypo removal tests by coming up clean after just four water changes (washing in the 3010 drum). I add a fifth, longer wash cycle just for the last of the dyes.

One more thing -- if you're using Kodak Rapid Fixer, you don't need to add the hardener when you mix it up. TMY doesn't need it (hardly any modern film needs it), and leaving it out lets you do things like dilute to a working solution just the amount you need, when you need it. Which gets rid of yet another stock solution bottle in the darkroom.


Other suggestions?

I find that I want filters less with TMY. All those yellow, orange, and red filters just sat on my desk when I switched over to TMY.

So, welcome to the future -- TMY is perhaps the best film ever made. And XTOL is excellent at 1:1, so consider giving that a try. All the rest is pretty much how you remember it. Enjoy!

[peter schrager]

In medium format I do 1+2 13@68..intermittent shake...first@ 1 then 3 then 6 then 12...takes care if the highlights

[david@bigeleisenlaw.com]

I have been using x-tol for almost all of my development for quite a while. It's very reliable. I like x-tol with tri-x but I also like it with FP4+ and HP5+ as well. I like PMK too, but it takes a bit more effort. You won't go wrong with x-tol.

David

[Pere Casals]

Bruce, let me debate next points:


The Zone System still works just like it used to.

just in the same way, but with a difference... TMY has less silver than TX and additional care must be taken if we want a smooth highlight roll-off, in case of strong highlights there.

Even with lower silver content, TMY can reach same DMax than TX ( aprox 3.0 D), but TMY will reach DMax whith 1/3 of the light than in TX case, (this aprox 1.5 stops), so the shoulder is different. In TMY case it's more linear but it clips earlier. This suggests to me that TX has more cubic grains of the smaller size. (Note that TMY also has a layer of small cubic grains, being tabular grain type, and today's (2007+) TX also has Tabular grains, being "cubic type".

This may concern to how highligts are used, and how it's control is mastered...




Those shadows under the rocks in the river that Tri-X just can't render correctly with your 1/8 shutter (because only those shadows are going into reciprocity failure), show all the texture and nuance you could want with TMY and XTOL. It seems like a little thing, but for me it made a big difference.


When we meter shadows with TX we have to count for the reprocity failure to know in what zone shadows really are, if we expose for that shadows (accounting for reprocity failure) that will overexpose more the rest (say an additional stop) so we needed a N-1 we'll need a N-2, so TMY is to work better when reprocity failure inolved.

Anyway the very low reprocity failure film is Neopan (also the chromogenic BW400CN), but neopan is short toe, and shadows are very dark...



So, welcome to the future


We'll... let me point that (I think) TX it's also the future(if Kodak alive): it was the future in 1960, and also in 1990, and by 2016 it's also the future (I feel...).

TX for LF perhaps happens to have a weaker footpint than in MF, that's completely true, because grain...


Beyond this, perhaps the important thing it's not the tool, but mastering the tool one has.

Michelangelo made The Pietà with a bare hammer, and hitting that boulder with passion. He mastered how a simple hammer can make a Pietà!!

Those three armonies that sculpture has... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet%C3%A0_(Michelangelo)


Anyway even Michelangelo failed with the hammer once at least, he violently hit the right knee of the Moses statue with that hammer, shouting, "Why don't you speak to me?", a legend says... : )

Just to tell that perhaps all we sometimes complain about our tools, but not always are the tools, but something about us. This is the mystical point of view I try to have when I do not obtain a result, not always works... sometimes I buy a new camera, or worse, a new glass !!!! : ) As all we do : )

Regards !

[Pere Casals]

Other suggestions?

If with Xtol you want deeper (strong) shadows you have the option to mix some Rodinal in. Xtol and Rodinal are one of the few mixes of developers that make sense, IMHO.

I discovered it from photographer Mr Peter de Graaff:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterdegraaff/27811683644/in/dateposted/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterdegraaff/

Now he uses Delta, comparable to TMax, (a difference is that Delta has lower blue sensitivity than TMax (see spectral relative sens. charts in datasheets), but a filter can make them work mostly the same, IMHO).

A recipe is (for rotary) to take Xtol 1:2 (or 1:3) and just add from 1ml to 1.5ml of Rodinal concentrate for each sheet, use the standard times for the Xtol dilution in use.

You won't appeciate any fog with that mix, as some predict, but special shadows...

Rodinal is cheap and concentrate stays alive for years in the shelf, so nice to try if you like the look of Mr de Graaff genuine style.

[Bruce Watson]

TMY has less silver than TX and additional care must be taken if we want a smooth highlight roll-off, in case of strong highlights there.

Even with lower silver content, TMY can reach same DMax than TX ( aprox 3.0 D), but TMY will reach DMax whith 1/3 of the light than in TX case, (this aprox 1.5 stops), so the shoulder is different. In TMY case it's more linear but it clips earlier.

This is... odd. Everything I've read since TMAX came out in... what? 1978? shows that the Tmax films don't really shoulder at all, and I have no idea what you mean by clipping.

I remember reading a Kodak tech. bulletin from the 1980s where Kodak was reporting that Tmax (probably Tmax 100) was good for 20 stops linearly. In the lab. Because Kodak had lab equipment that could read through a negative that dense. You couldn't print it in the darkroom, nor scan it on a drum scanner. But Kodak said it was flat and linear out 20 stops.

The point they were making was that the Tmax films don't shoulder off. They have a short toe and no shoulder. The most linear films made. I can only think that TMY-2 is exceedingly linear.

[Bruce Watson]

Other suggestions?

Ah yes. XTOL did have a problem years ago that was traced in the end to excessive iron in the mix water. Search for "sudden XTOL failure" and you'll probably find those old threads. The cure for this is to buy a gallon or two of steam distilled water at your local supermarket and mix with that.

I've had XTOL stock last over a year when mixed with distilled water, and stored in old wine bottles using a Vacu Vin stopper (https://www.amazon.com/Vacu-Vin-Vacuum-Bottle-Stoppers/dp/B000GA3KCE). An excellent way to store stock developer; I've never had it fail.

[HartleyFalbaum]

Thanks for all the prompt help! Much appreciated.

[Pere Casals]

This is... odd. Everything I've read since TMAX came out in... what? 1978? shows that the Tmax films don't really shoulder at all, and I have no idea what you mean by clipping.

I remember reading a Kodak tech. bulletin from the 1980s where Kodak was reporting that Tmax (probably Tmax 100) was good for 20 stops linearly. In the lab. Because Kodak had lab equipment that could read through a negative that dense. You couldn't print it in the darkroom, nor scan it on a drum scanner. But Kodak said it was flat and linear out 20 stops.

The point they were making was that the Tmax films don't shoulder off. They have a short toe and no shoulder. The most linear films made. I can only think that TMY-2 is exceedingly linear.


Hello Bruce,

This is way easy to be clarified, just look datasheets and charts that show Lux·Second to Density, Lux·Second is in a logarithmic scale, so one unit more in the scale is x10 more in linear magnitude. See charts, please, the graphs just tell it.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

I like Kodak products because technical information is concise and exact. Another thing it's what aesthetic application one do with each film properties... of course !

Also see that T-Max has higher blue sensitivity in the spectral graph, this leads to something: by using a filter one can make work a film like the other in what colour to BW conversion concerns, and by placing a pale yellow with T-Max, or a pale blue with TX they will be similar in that sense, the graph explains it.

By clipping I mean saturating to DMax, so the point where highlight details cannot be recovered because the information is not recorded.

Regards

PD: 20 stops is with POTA developer, that one used to photograph nuclear bomb explossions, chart in pdf shows the lux·seconds range for common developers, and it is way, way far from 20 stops.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks for all the prompt help! Much appreciated.

Not at all, it was a pleasure to share it, anyway check all information : )

[Bruce Watson]

By clipping I mean saturating to DMax, so the point where highlight details cannot be recovered because the information is not recorded.

Not recorded? Just because you get to the edge of the graph doesn't mean that the physics stops there. Kodak is showing you what is practical to everyday photography. The curves continue well beyond the edges of the graphs.

I think your interpretation of those graphs and my interpretation of those graphs, are (very) different. My interpretation comes from reading what PhotoEngineer (Ron Mowry, teaching emulsion coating classes at Formulary's workshops in Montana last I heard) over on APUG had to say years ago. He straightened out some of my preconceived notions about what films will and won't do, t-grain films in particular. If you want, head on over to APUG and have a go with him. He's a retired Kodak research chemist. Loves to explain this stuff to anyone who asks.

My other main source (besides the usual of Haist, etc.) is emails I exchanged with Silvia Zadwicki and Dick Dickerson, KODAK research chemists (retired of course) who are generally credited with the creation of XTOL.

[Pere Casals]

Not recorded? Just because you get to the edge of the graph

Hello Bruce, I've also seen that the T-Max 400 curve was truncated at the edge of the graph and I asked my self if it was something beyond, if you look to T-Max 100 graph it is not truncated.

Let me explain why I made extensive tests, I'm focussed in reversal process to obtain slides for projection, for personal joy
and beyond contrast control I wanted to see how maximum static contrast could be obtained with projected images, this is something related to DMax and DMin... (Maximum Density will end in deeper projected shadows).

I reached maximum densities with well known exposures, calibrated with an Ocean Optics spectrometer (http://oceanoptics.com/product/usb4000-vis-nir/) and a Teflon target, perhaps with a 1% probable error, I use that at work.

Well... with TMax 400 there is nothing beyond what Kodak shows in their own datasheet, or very, very little, IMHO, as it can be guessed. Kodak, you know, gives precise and complete technical information.

This is why TMax 400 charts of Lux·second vs Density end 1.5 Stop before than Tri-X, IMHO.

At some 0.8 Lux·second T-Max has all of it's grains having lost electrons enough to be fully signaled for the developer reducer action. So at 0.8 Lux·Second TMax is well saturated, IMHO, when processed with common developers.

I'm talking about normal developers, we later can discuss what happens with POTA applied to TX and T-Max, even this developer is recommended for slow films, it looks.

I'm not saying TX is better than T-Max 400 or the counter: never, never, never: This is not like this...

But (IMHO) by grain formulation TX has an additional 1.5 Stops advantage over T-Max 400 with strong highligts, and both can work better highlights from their initial performance depending of exposure-process modifications from "standard usage".

Both have cubic and tabular grains (TX since 2007 also has tabular ones) but in different shares and total content.

[interneg]

(TX since 2007 also has tabular ones)

On the basis of what evidence are you making this claim?

[Pere Casals]

On the basis of what evidence are you making this claim?

"In 2007, Tri-X was extensively re-engineered, receiving the new designation 400TX in place of TX or TX400, and became finer-grained."

I had read that this finer grain was due, in its new grain formulation, to the grains of the bigger size being of the tabular type. I read that a couple of years ago and I don't remember the source, I remember that it was made clear to me, let me search it, also it is possible that I'm mistaken about this.

What is complete clear in that T-Max has a layer of small cubic grains, let me search for the other, this is something that's not in the datasheet...

[Pere Casals]

On the basis of what evidence are you making this claim?

I don't find the source of the information I had, I've posted a new tread to clarify this information, I'd like to know about it

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?132330-Tri-X-400TX-do-it-include-some-tabular-grains-since-2007-re-engineering&p=1341577#post1341577

[interneg]

"In 2007, Tri-X was extensively re-engineered, receiving the new designation 400TX in place of TX or TX400, and became finer-grained."

I had read that this finer grain was due, in its new grain formulation, to the grains of the bigger size being of the tabular type. I read that a couple of years ago and I don't remember the source, I remember that it was made clear to me, let me search it, also it is possible that I'm mistaken about this.

What is complete clear in that T-Max has a layer of small cubic grains, let me search for the other, this is something that's not in the datasheet...

Shanebrook's 'Making Kodak Film' has the image of the TMY emulsion I recall.

Many films today have some degree of mixtures of 'flat' and '3D' grain types - all part of controlled crystal growth technology.

http://www.harmantechnology.com/DotNetNuke/Technology/CrystalGrowth/tabid/180/Default.aspx

Re the TX change, I think you might be confusing it with the TMY to TMY II changeover - the TX change happened a few years before, and it'll almost certainly have some degree of crystal control technology in the emulsion.

Ron Mowrey (Photo Engineer) over at APUG might offer more precise enlightenment.

[sanking]

This is... odd. Everything I've read since TMAX came out in... what? 1978? shows that the Tmax films don't really shoulder at all, and I have no idea what you mean by clipping.

I remember reading a Kodak tech. bulletin from the 1980s where Kodak was reporting that Tmax (probably Tmax 100) was good for 20 stops linearly. In the lab. Because Kodak had lab equipment that could read through a negative that dense. You couldn't print it in the darkroom, nor scan it on a drum scanner. But Kodak said it was flat and linear out 20 stops.

The point they were making was that the Tmax films don't shoulder off. They have a short toe and no shoulder. The most linear films made. I can only think that TMY-2 is exceedingly linear.

I agree with Bruce. I have plotted curves for TMax-100 and T-Max with numerous developers, both traditional and pyro stain types, and in every case the curve was almost perfectly linear, with virtually no toe and no shoulder.

And if scanning these films with a drum scanner you can take advantage of a very long dynamic range.

Sandy

[Pere Casals]

And if scanning these films with a drum scanner you can take advantage of a very long dynamic range.
Sandy

Of course, TMax 400 is an amazing film, by looking the charts plotted by Kodak it renders some highlight detail until 10^0.0 = 1 Lux·Second, starting providing shadow detail at some 0.001 Lux·Second: these are some 10 stops of dynamic range, at least 8 of them render detail.

But think that Tri-X is even better in the ability to record highlight detail until 10^0.4 = 2.5 Lux·Second

In shadow detail T-Max has clear advantage over Tri-X, and if we are in reprocity failure this is even more important.


TMax changes the linear coefficient at aprox 0.1 Lux·Second, decreasing a bit the response until saturation at 1 Lux·Second, but last 3 stops are well linear.

Tri-X changes response by 1 Lux·Second, and then it comes a classic shoulder until saturation at 2.5 Lux·Second, those last stops are not linear, providing a smooth highlight roll-off of bright points and glare...

Also there is some spectral sensitivity difference...


But really the most important difference is grain, in 4x5 T-Max do not deliver much grain. In the other hand Tri-X has a well known grain structure that can be desired or not.

There is no doubt that there is an entire subculture about Tri-X grain. It's more than "salt and pepper", and some prominent photographers use this tool, and some hate it.


What I don't agree is that Tri-X is a worse thing than T-Max, both are equally excellent tools, IMHO.

[Pere Casals]

might be confusing it with the TMY to TMY II changeover - the TX change happened a few years before, and it'll almost certainly have some degree of crystal control technology in the emulsion.

Ron Mowrey (Photo Engineer) over at APUG might offer more precise enlightenment.

Thanks for the information, I was speaking about the Tri-X re-engineering of 2007, the information I read was just from Mowrey, I didn't remember the name...

By google I found the (link), but it is broken

Message #48 http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?85396-Possible-new-film/page5

"Here's what Ron Mowrey said about recreating Tri-X (link):"


I've rediscovered Mowrey, a powerful source of information, this night I've been reading him a couple of hours : )

Thanx