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.

https://www.ianbarberphotography.co.uk/slush/pyrohd-test-semi-stand.jpg

[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..... :confused:

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 TMAX400,167552 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.

[Ken Lee]

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.


Film speed changes with developing time/temperature/dilution/agitation.

In my testing, normal dilution and development gives an ISO of 250 with TMY and Pyrocat HD. I have never found it to give box film speed unless development is extended.

How are you scanning the negative ? We can scan for the blank film edge but easily clip the highlights, depending on our settings. Depending on how we scan, our image can easily appear under/over exposed, under/over developed.

How did you expose it ? Just knowing the ISO we use, doesn't mean we exposed it correctly. In Zone System parlance, we can set our light meter to ISO 200 but then proceed to set the shadows on Zone IX or Zone I.

It may not be effective to test a film/developer combination with only one exposure and developing time: we have nothing to compare.

Shooting a test at close distance, we encounter bellows extension which affects exposure and requires compensation: did you account for that ?

You might find this article helpful: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.php

[xkaes]

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

I could not agree more. This would be EASY to correct in a "real" darkroom.

To the original OP -- did you really mean

<<<Developer: PyroCat HD 1.5+1+150
Time: 50 Minutes>>>

????

If true, you need to realize that "time is money".

[IanBarber]

I could not agree more. This would be EASY to correct in a "real" darkroom.

To the original OP -- did you really mean

<<<Developer: PyroCat HD 1.5+1+150
Time: 50 Minutes>>>

????

If true, you need to realize that "time is money".

yes this information is correct. I wanted to develop semi stand in a paterson tank to see if I got any streaking through minimal agitation

[IanBarber]

Film speed changes with developing time/temperature/dilution/agitation.

How are you scanning the negative ? We can scan for the blank film edge but easily clip the highlights, depending on our settings. Depending on how we scan, our image can easily appear under/over exposed, under/over developed.



Hi ken

For most of my scanning, I use VueScan.

I lock the exposure on the film edge to set the black point and then adjust the white point just below areas of clipping according to the "clipping warning" in VueScan. Other than that, I do make any other adjustments in the scanner software.

Ian

[Ken Lee]

Hi ken

For most of my scanning, I use VueScan.

I lock the exposure on the film edge to set the black point and then adjust the white point just below areas of clipping according to the "clipping warning" in VueScan. Other than that, I do make any other adjustments in the scanner software.

Ian

It's been a while since I've tested VueScan, so please correct me if I am wrong: if I understand correctly, this means that whatever value is the densest in your negative, is therefore set to pure white, or just below it. If the brightest item in your photograph is not intended to be white but merely gray (see the flower photo I use in my article), that approach will "stretch" it up to pure white anyhow, resulting in an unreliable interpretation of your negative. In my article I show a method to get around this problem.

VueScan is great because it works on so many scanners, but the EPSON scanning software provided with the scanner is more flexible in my humble opinion. As I say, it's been a while since I've tested VueScan: it may have improved.

[esearing]

Based on my experimentation the last year with Pyrocat HD you have some other things going on too.
* Developer: PyroCat HD 1.5+1+150 50Minutes
If you are going to use long develop times you need to dilute your developer more such as 1+0.6+175 (range 150 upto 200).
Your long development time expanded your contrast while at the same time exhausting in the highlights due to lack of agitation. A more dilute developer would have exhausted faster so your highlights would be more compressed.
Keep in mind density also builds with time so you could cut your times way back. 30-35 minutes may be more "normal" even for diluted developer.
Rule of thumb that seems to work so far - For dilute minimal agitation: take Sandy Kings suggested time (10 mins for TMAX) and multiply by 3 + your initial agitation, so 10x3+1= 31 mins would be near "Normal"
(I have settled on FP4 8:30 x 3 + 2Mins totaling 27.5mins @ 70* 3+2+500 for a single sheet in my SP445 tank for normal 5 stop scene).


Do your Fixer instructions indicate 8 Minutes Or are you using it 1:9 instead of 1:4?

[IanBarber]

If you are going to use long develop times you need to dilute your developer more such as 1+0.6+175 (range 150 upto 200)

Is this a dilution you have personally arrived at

When diluting Pyro do you always start with 1 of the A solution ?


Rule of thumb that seems to work so far - For dilute minimal agitation: take Sandy Kings suggested time (10 mins for TMAX) and multiply by 3 + your initial agitation, so 10x3+1= 31 mins would be near "Normal"

Are these times from http://www.pyrocat-hd.com/html/times.html


Do your Fixer instructions indicate 8 Minutes Or are you using it 1:9 instead of 1:4?

I am using 1:4 but I read somewhere that TMAX requires longer fixing to remove the coloring from the negative

[IanBarber]

VueScan is great because it works on so many scanners, but the EPSON scanning software provided with the scanner is more flexible in my humble opinion. As I say, it's been a while since I've tested VueScan: it may have improved.

I must confess Ken, I have never really tried the Epson Scan but I certainly will give it a try.


If the brightest item in your photograph is not intended to be white but merely gray (see the flower photo I use in my article), that approach will "stretch" it up to pure white anyhow, resulting in an unreliable interpretation of your negative. In my article I show a method to get around this problem.


When scanning your negatives Ken, are you aiming to produce a scan which matches how you visualised the scene or are you merely interested in trying to obtain a full tonal range in the scan

[xkaes]

yes this information is correct. I wanted to develop semi stand in a paterson tank to see if I got any streaking through minimal agitation

OK. I just wanted to check. It's good that you are using a daylight tank. I just hope you have a good stereo system and/or a bunch of crossword puzzles to complete. I can send you a copy of "War and Peace" if that would help. I remember, many years ago, developing one roll of film for 20 minutes -- and I promised myself never to do it again. Seriously, you've helped me add to my personal definition of "ridiculous".

[Pere Casals]

Ian, a bare scanned negative has no meaning, get an stouffer wegde and scan it at same time than negative, you will be able to compare the density steps.

To have to know what target density you want for the faces in the negative, and even for the different shades of the faces. You can print it anyway, but a consistent target density for faces may help it printing.

An "standard" way is placing caucasian faces in Z-VI, what determines an standard reference "desnsity", that can be used or not, of course.

[bob carnie]

Is that a black leather chair or a brown leather chair.....neg looks over exposed to me.

[IanBarber]

Is that a black leather chair or a brown leather chair.....neg looks over exposed to me.

It was a black chair

[IanBarber]

Ian, a bare scanned negative has no meaning, get an stouffer wegde and scan it at same time than negative, you will be able to compare the density steps.

Will a normal Stoufer do, the thin one or am I better buying a 5x4 Stoufer

[bob carnie]

It was a black chair

Then for sure the neg is overexposed as there is so much detail in the chair .

[Ken Lee]

When scanning your negatives Ken, are you aiming to produce a scan which matches how you visualised the scene or are you merely interested in trying to obtain a full tonal range in the scan

If we're testing our workflow, we want to obtain the full tonal range of the image. See the aforementioned article which shows how that's done.

If we're making a fine art photograph, we want to produce a scan which matches the intended print (or comes close to it, since if we want continuous tonality we want to limit excessive corrections).

You should polish your testing methods before drawing any hasty conclusions :o

[IanBarber]

If we're testing your workflow, we want to obtain the full tonal range of the image. See the aforementioned article which shows how that's done.

If we're making a fine art photograph, we want to produce a scan which matches the intended print (or comes close to it, since if we want continuous tonality we want to limit excessive corrections).

You should polish your testing methods before drawing any hasty conclusions :o

Sorry if my comment came over wrong Ken. I wasn't trying to be facetious in any way, I was just trying to ascertain whether you scanned an image to closely match your vision or whether you manipulated the scan later on in say Photoshop to match your vision if that makes sense :o

[Pere Casals]

Will a normal Stoufer do, the thin one or am I better buying a 5x4 Stoufer

I do all with the small one, model T2115, this is 21 steps, 1/2" x 5", https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/33551104771/in/dateposted-public/

As it is small you can make a test scan over glass (with area guide in the epson, without holder) with the wedge at the side of the negative. The wedge reaches 3.1D, so you'll have a very useful reference for the densities in the negatives. Disable any scanner image enhancing feature for that...

Regards

[xkaes]

Film speed changes with developing time/temperature/dilution/agitation.

For some reason, some people don't believe this. They are somehow convinced that there is only ONE TRUE speed for a film -- sort of like there is only one TRUE woman for a man. I don't get it.

[Ken Lee]

Sorry if my comment came over wrong Ken. I wasn't trying to be facetious in any way, I was just trying to ascertain whether you scanned an image to closely match your vision or whether you manipulated the scan later on in say Photoshop to match your vision if that makes sense :o

I didn't think you were being facetious: it's a very good question with no easy answer, because scanners do not provide a way to simply capture a negative and invert it. It's digital, yes, but we are taking a picture of a picture, and each version imposes its own contrast curve over the preceding step. Each step is "lossy" and each step amounts to an adjustment whether we want one or not.

This article may prove helpful also: Scanning Tips (with Epson and VueScan Software) (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/scanning/index.php)

[tgtaylor]

In a "Perry Mason" episode last night, Perry was holding a dark 4x5 negative emulsion facing against a white background and saying that the negative was too underexposed to make a determination. The scene lasted only a second or two and all I could make out was that the body of the negative was dark with something (a bird?) in its center. The rebate had 3 notches I think.

Thomas

[Michael R]

For some reason, some people don't believe this. They are somehow convinced that there is only ONE TRUE speed for a film -- sort of like there is only one TRUE woman for a man. I don't get it.

It depends on how you define speed. EI can change depending on how you choose to determine/measure it (Zone System for example), but film speed actually changes much less than people think with changes in development time/temp/dilution/agitation.

[ic-racer]

167556
If it prints well, then all is well. Absolute minimum exposure for the required scene and development for the lowest CI for a perfect print, are more dictums for negatives that will require significant enlargement (small camera & roll film). How big to you enlarge?

I am curious, because large format is frequently used to minimize the deleterious effects in the printed image related to enargement of film. Yet you are converting to digital, when digital cameras are available that don't show any deleterious effects of film enlargement.

[Pere Casals]

For some reason, some people don't believe this. They are somehow convinced that there is only ONE TRUE speed for a film -- sort of like there is only one TRUE woman for a man. I don't get it.


There is a single true way to get the ISO speed of a film, with an specified developer (Normally D-76). Depending on if color negative, reversal or BW norms are:

ISO 5800:2001
ISO 6:1993
ISO 2240:2003

These norms deliver a clear reference.

Beyond that... one can invent as much (non ISO) speeds as he wants.

What is inconsistent is saying that using -1/3 speed makes wonders, while not checking shutters with a shutter tester. Brand new shutters can have +/-30% accuracy in specs, so 1/60 can be 1/80 or 1/40 in practice. And this is a full stop.

[IanBarber]

You might find this article helpful: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.php

Interesting article Ken

Just tried the Epson Scan software and followed your instructions and I have to say I am rather impressed with the outcome

[Ken Lee]

Interesting article Ken

Just tried the Epson Scan software and followed your instructions and I have to say I am rather impressed with the outcome

Excellent. Does your image look different now ?

[Patrick13]

... new shutters can have +/-30% accuracy in specs, so 1/60 can be 1/80 or 1/40 in practice. And this is a full stop.

I find it amusing that most darkroom calibration texts I've read say to run the full test sequences for each lens+film combination you plan to use. Instead of standardizing on testing of each shutter to record the variance and applying that variance to just one full test sequence. If you work the second way you can account for shutter speed drift and CLA intervals...

I guess there's also the matter of F-stops not being T-stops, but that's getting kind of picky.

[Pere Casals]

I find it amusing that most darkroom calibration texts I've read say to run the full test sequences for each lens+film combination you plan to use. Instead of standardizing on testing of each shutter to record the variance and applying that variance to just one full test sequence. If you work the second way you can account for shutter speed drift and CLA intervals...

I guess there's also the matter of F-stops not being T-stops, but that's getting kind of picky.


There is no need to calibrate individually each lens+film combination, this would need a lot of calibrations. 3lenses x 3films x 5 (+/-)N development times result in 45 curves. Then if you want to make a calibration for every speed of the lens...


After a CLA you may still have a significative discrepance from marked speed to real speed. I reiterate, with a brand new shutter you have +/- 30% tolerance in specs.

Fortunatelly speeds are very repetitive.

Negative film is very tolerant, so overexposing a bit is a safety belt, for slide film there is a single choice: checking shutters with a personal shutter tester, this ranges from $12 (photocell connected to sound card + Audacity) to some $100.


The way to go is placing a label on the lensboard to write down real speeds for marked speed, and having a calibration for each film.

Beyond that, one should understand stray light, no problem with modern multicoated lenses, as flare is consistent and lower. For single coated lenses one has to estimate what level of flare will be there, this cannot be "calibrated" with film because every scene has a different amount of flare, for example if sun is in the picture frame vs it is a general dark scene: flare can be very different.

Ken Rockwell explains here the shutter tester need, he had been shooting some Velvia, so he tested his shutters:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/exposure-large-format.htm


Here you have a particular speed calibration from him:

Indicated vs Actual (Tested)
1.....1.2
2.....2
5.....5
10...12.5
25....30
50....50
100...100
250...160
400...200

With a shutter tester you also know when you cannot wait to do a CLA, this is when real speeds are not repetitive.

[xkaes]

It depends on how you define speed. EI can change depending on how you choose to determine/measure it (Zone System for example), but film speed actually changes much less than people think with changes in development time/temp/dilution/agitation.

I agree. I never said that there was a BIG difference in ISO from one process to another, but there is some. You can't get blood out of a stone, for sure. However, I'm suprised at how much difference there is with some manufacturer suggested ISO and another. For example, my tests with Agfapan 25 give me an ISO of 12 with my gear and paper, etc. But I shoot Agfapan 100 at ISO 20 using the same tests/developer/paper, etc. And with my tests, D-76 is noticeably faster than other developers I've tried -- like D-23 -- using the same gear/paper, etc.

[Pere Casals]

I agree. I never said that there was a BIG difference in ISO from one process to another, but there is some. You can't get blood out of a stone, for sure. However, I'm suprised at how much difference there is with some manufacturer suggested ISO and another. For example, my tests with Agfapan 25 give me an ISO of 12 with my gear and paper, etc. But I shoot Agfapan 100 at ISO 20 using the same tests/developer/paper, etc. And with my tests, D-76 is noticeably faster than other developers I've tried -- like D-23 -- using the same gear/paper, etc.


This explains all:


From C to A you allways have 3 1/3 stops, so toe (as defined by ISO) always starts at 3 stops underexposure in normal contrast conditions.

167583



This graphs shows that development time modifies contrast but toe position doesn't move much.

167584


It is true that you are to lose speed with some developers, and to gain some speed with others. ISO Speed norm allows to use any developer you specify for the film calibration, normaly it will be D-76 equivalent, that is largely agreed as the standard. Some films like ADOX CMS 20 (exceptions) require special developers so for sure CMS20 ISO rating it is not related to D-76.


Of course one can use personal speeds for own gear and process. I like more calibrating well own gear to be able to use the ISO speed as my reference.


At the end one should know what scene areas will be in the toe, and what contrast it will result, to have an easy printable negative to match our visualization.

Today, because a lot of scaning+PS and because variable contrast paper, a good choice is to place all in the linear part of the curve, and not using much toe, as it is always a risk.

[IanBarber]

Today, because a lot of scaning+PS and because variable contrast paper, a good choice is to place all in the linear part of the curve, and not using much toe, as it is always a risk.

Since I started placing the shadows on Zone 4 in the Zone world, I am seeing far better shadow detail than when I placed it on Zone 3

[Neal Chaves]

Since I started placing the shadows on Zone 4 in the Zone world, I am seeing far better shadow detail than when I placed it on Zone 3

When you do this you are effectively cutting rated film speed in half, a favorite Ansel Adam's "technique". The H&D curves of all TMAX films are skewed in the highlight values, they do not shoulder off like traditional films. This results in blocked-up highlights and poorly separated mid-tones. I eagerly awaited the release of the highly-touted TMAX films ( I think it was around 1986) and failed in my attempts to improve on my prints made from Tri-X negatives. Then I plotted the curves myself and saw the skews both in HC110 and in the special TMAX developer. I soon realized that nothing was improving the look of my black and white work more than the new new TMAX films and often said so, "other photographers using them".



Years ago I learned an excellent method to find the correct developing time and EI for any film. I think the source was an article by William Mortensen. Mortensen wrote some excellent books and articles about basic sensitometry. The last time I did this test was when I abandoned Tri-X and switched to HP5+ due to cost about five years ago. I proceed as follows.

I set up my trays with my favorite developer HC110B (1:31), now Ilfotec HC (1:31). I pull out a sheet from the package in the dark. and then when the package is sealed again I turn on the room lights. This part of the test is done under the lights. I cut the sheet into five strips and mark them 1-5 by punching holes with a paper punch. Lets say the recommended time is 5:00. I want to see 3:00, 4:00, 5:00, 6:00 and 7:00, so I throw all the strips into the developer and agitate as usual until 3:00 when I move the No.1 strip over to the stop bath. Then I pull No.2 at 4:00, No.3 at 5:00, etc. I fix, wash and dry the strips as usual. What we are looking for is the best usable film DMax value. Obviously the film has been fully exposed! When strips dry lay down a page of news print on a table in good light. Find the strip through which the news print is barely visible. That's your developing time. Now to find the film speed.

Go outside in unchanging light conditions and expose five sheets and expose one at the manufacturers rating and then the other four at one half a stop and one stop less and one half a stop and one stop more. In the dark, develop them all together for your newly derived time. Contact print them together exposing and developing the paper for maximum usable paper DMax value. Pick out the best-looking contact print and you have your film speed.

Because my 7:00 negative looked the best on the first test, I did the test again with 7:00 as the central developing time and found that 8:00 was indeed too dense. This HP5+ time was the same as the as the developing time I had been using for Tri-X and film speed was also the same, EI400. I have also switched to Ilfotec HC developer due to cost and availability and find it to be a clone of HC110.

Many of the last generation of B&W gurus favored a development time of 5:00 for Tri-X and suggested an EI of 64-100. You can do the above test backwards, developing for 5:00 minutes and finding the film speed. I like 100. The difference between negatives exposed at 100 and developed for 5:00 and those exposed at 400 and developed for 7:00 is quite subtle. Both could be considered "normal" or N negatives. The 100 negative has slightly greater shadow and highlight detail that only a careful, knowledgeable viewer could detect. This slight improvement might not be worthwhile trading for two stops in the field. I do routinely rate HP5+ at 100 under powerful strobe light in the studio and it produces beautiful skin tones.

From here, if you are still with me, you can derive expansion and contraction schemes for both the 100 and 400 "normal negs". I do this by changing dilution rather than time. Make sure you have at least 1 oz. of the concentrated sauce for each 8X10 sheet or equivalent. For contractions I found that 3/4 oz. concentrate to 31 1/4 ozs. H20 yields an N-1 neg at a one stop loss in film speed and 1/2 oz. concentrate to 31 1/2 ozs. H20 yields an N-2 neg at a two stop loss in film speed. For expensions, 1 1/4 oz. of concentrate to 30 3/4 ozs. H20 yields an N+1 neg at a one stop gain in speed and 1 1/2 ozs. concentrate to 30 1/2 ozs. H20 produces an N+2 negative with a two stop gain in speed.

If you look at the chart of Tri-X film speed in Phil Davis' BTZS book you can easily pick out the film speed in HC110B 5:00 as EI 64.

Don't apply reciprosity exposure and development corrections for long exposures (1/2 sec. +) based on published data. Test for yourself and you may be surprised. I wasted a lot of time and effort producing long exposure negatives that were thick and flat. When I finally tested, I found no compensation was required for TXP or now HP5+ out to one minute.

[IanBarber]

When you do this you are effectively cutting rated film speed in half, a favorite Ansel Adam's "technique".

Does this mean that if you rate TMAX 400 at 200 and then place the important shadow areas on Zone 4, in effect you could be over-exposing by 2 stops

[Neal Chaves]

Does this mean that if you rate TMAX 400 at 200 and then place the important shadow areas on Zone 4, in effect you could be over-exposing by 2 stops

If your development scheme gets a true 400 out of the film, that's exactly what you are doing.

Get Fred Picker's old newsletters from the late 80's and read all the nasty stuff he wrote about TMAX. If I repeat it here I'll be regarded as a troll by some. Remember, Picker was a guru who sold his followers their own personal E.I. for Tri-X for $5 when they sent him a test neg. His mentor, Adams just used the disclaimer "Of course your results could be very different from mine."

[Pere Casals]

If your development scheme gets a true 400 out of the film, that's exactly what you are doing.

Get Fred Picker's old newsletters from the late 80's and read all the nasty stuff he wrote about TMAX. If I repeat it here I'll be regarded as a troll by some. Remember, Picker was a guru who sold his followers their own personal E.I. for Tri-X for $5 when they sent him a test neg. His mentor, Adams just used the disclaimer "Of course your results could be very different from mine."

Neal, you mentioned interesting concepts.

I'd add that TMX represented a different approach in the way the whole photographic process is managed.

Something changed in 1978, the BW history made a leap forward:

"Multigrade was reintroduced in 1978. The quality issue had been successfully addressed such that Multigrade eventually (as now) came to be used by most all photographers involved in black & white printing."


The multigrade paper can be traced since 1940, but it started being very popular since 1978, thus openning new ways for printing control. A major advantage was burning some areas with a different contrast filter, than general exposure.

Graded papers were not a limitation for masters like YK or AA, YK mastered toe usage as an aesthetical resource, but Multigrade papers really changed rules.

IMHO TMX offers a very linear response for the capture, relegating tonal management to the print making. This is a very Pro approach, for people that want (with exceptions) to invest an effort in a particular cooking for every particular print.

The drawback is lacking shoulder, so highlights are blown in TMAX before than with classic shouldered films, like TX/TXP. For this reason one to has to be careful with TMX, if not.... glares can clip, or can go to too high densities, so highlight texture can be lost in contrasty scenes.

IMHO it is because this that TMX negatives are prefered thinner than with TX/TXP.

As it has been repeated, TMAX has to be metered more accurately, not only for the shadows, metering highlights it is also important. TX can stand additional abuse because shoulder is a safety belt.


So, IMHO, about placing shadows in Z-III or Z-IV, this will depend on the room we also want for highlights, beyond the way our metering works. Probably we'll need an -N development earlier than with TX case.

Also TX/TXP has changed over time, now also including crystal growth control, now it is closer to TMAX than in the 80s.


TXP deserves a special mention, contrary to TX it has longer toe and an bump in the curve for the midtones. That bump works like a tonal expansion, so if we place in that point the human faces we have wider shadings that deliver great volumes. But we have to nail the exposure of the face to be in the bump.

I find TXP a sound medium to make portraits, the long toe easy allows a great karshing of the shadows, while the midtone bump nails the face volumes, it just takes a true photographer to nail the illumination for the shadows and the exposure for the faces. Then the result will surface on its own. TXP + Accurate metering + Straight print = Great Portrait.

Same result can be achieved with TMAX, but in this case we have to cook the print from a linear capture, or we can scan and throw some mouse clicks to PS curves...


The great thing about YK is that he only needed Super-XX and the 14", nobody with a supercomputer and $40k digital back can beat him with his wooden gear :)

[IanBarber]

I wasn't aware of these facts for bot TMAX and TRI-X, very interesting and something worth making offline notes of in my book

Thanks Pere

[Pere Casals]

I wasn't aware of these facts for bot TMAX and TRI-X, very interesting and something worth making offline notes of in my book

Thanks Pere

Yes, Ian, but take it as a personal opinion, just check on your own the statements I make, as all that is subject to some controversy, and I'm still a learner

Regards !

[Neal Chaves]

"Also TX/TXP has changed over time, now also including crystal growth control, now it is closer to TMAX than in the 80s."

Although I stopped buying Kodak some time ago, when I did use the Tri-X films I found no difference between any of them in my own crude tests, even though Kodak published different speeds and wildly different development times for them. A Kodak rep once told me that the only difference between Tri-X Pan 400 and Tri-X Pan Professional 320 was that the amateur stuff was shipped right off the line, whereas the professional film was aged or seasoned a bit assuming pros would use it right away.

[Pere Casals]

"Also TX/TXP has changed over time, now also including crystal growth control, now it is closer to TMAX than in the 80s."

Although I stopped buying Kodak some time ago, when I did use the Tri-X films I found no difference between any of them in my own crude tests, even though Kodak published different speeds and wildly different development times for them. A Kodak rep once told me that the only difference between Tri-X Pan 400 and Tri-X Pan Professional 320 was that the amateur stuff was shipped right off the line, whereas the professional film was aged or seasoned a bit assuming pros would use it right away.


Hello Neal,

Kodak graphs speak on their own:

167647

For the TXP note the step section of the curve (marked in red) , this is a tonal expasion for mids, more or less for Z-IV to Z-VI, while shadows are clearly compressed. TXP also show a progressive and long toe, you can get a shadow compression with that. I feel this curve is ideal for studio portraits. ...while TX400 remained the ideal medium for a war photographer.


Sebastiao Salgado was shooting MF TXP for Genesis until around 2007 (before going digital). He wanted TX400, but it was only made in 120, he used 220 TXP only because longer rolls, but wanting the TX400 look his team had to adjust processing (Calbe A49) and printing. Also post 2007 digital shots were accurately processed to get the TX400 look, that included adding artificial grain with DXO film pack software, IIRC.


http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/09/dxo-film-pack-and-salgados-method.html

In spanish: http://www.leicanistas.com/foro/27/22597-decision-a-la-ligera-digital-o-analogico.html


Here Anchell (http://www.ssnpstudents.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Focal-Press-The-Darkroom-Cookbook.pdf) in page 36 speaks about TX vs TMAX and about TX evolution:

Tri-X is "now" a semi-flat grain
film with color-dye sensitizers. (In fairness to Kodak, the same treatment appears to
have improved Plus-X which was formerly noted for “mushy” grain.)
The end result is that while Tri-X remains a better fi lm than T-Max it has lost the
grainy, gutsy Tri-X look so prized by photographers. It now has a homogeneous appearance
with no distinct characteristics other than being a fast fi lm with “super-fi ne grain.”


When Anchell says color-dye sensitizers I gess he is saying than present TX is using new generation dye sensitizers that were discovered/developed industrially for color film, that received the most of the I+D investment. Just my interpretation.

[Neal Chaves]

"For the TXP note the step section of the curve (marked in red) , this is a tonal expasion for mids, more or less for Z-IV to Z-VI, while shadows are clearly compressed. TXP also show a progressive and long toe, you can get a shadow compression with that. I feel this curve is ideal for studio portraits."

You are looking at a 14 minute time for TXP 320 in HC110B and a twelve minute time for TX 400 in D76. I'm sorry but in my experience neither of these times will yield a negative suitable for printing of any subject matter. And what film speed would you suggest for those times?

[Pere Casals]

"For the TXP note the step section of the curve (marked in red) , this is a tonal expasion for mids, more or less for Z-IV to Z-VI, while shadows are clearly compressed. TXP also show a progressive and long toe, you can get a shadow compression with that. I feel this curve is ideal for studio portraits."

You are looking at a 14 minute time for TXP 320 in HC110B and a twelve minute time for TX 400 in D76. I'm sorry but in my experience neither of these times will yield a negative suitable for printing of any subject matter. And what film speed would you suggest for those times?

IMHO, the TXP curve S shape in the graph is mainly because emulsion structure, not because developer, in special the longer toe is always very clear. In the lower times you also have a difference TXP vs TX. And also curves will be different with same developer. I'm sorried that the Kodak graphs are not sharing the same developer, it would be good for a direct comparison.


But 320TXP has a slightly up swept curve and long toe (not many films are long toe). IMHO this is out of discusion...



This is my understanding about the technology used to make TXP different from TX:

An emulsion contains different grain sizes/shapes, depending on precipitation time (and other advanced techniques, tabular, epitaxial...), then the silver content can be distributed in a lot of low speed small crystalls or concetrated in a lower count of bigger crystalls. An industrial emulsion manufacturer can make a grain formulation by mixing a share of different emulsions with different (more or less) "monosize" grain sizes each, even with different sensitization for each share. Depending on that, they obtain the curve they want for the product. Also a lot of films have an inner additional emulsion layer (near film base) with slow emulsion to extend highlight latitude. They can place a greater share of small grains in the principal layer or in the back layer...

For example, by including a +20% of emulsion made with very long precipitation time you add an extended proportion of big grains than will deliver a long toe, like TXP. With the proportions of small grains you can obtain a shoulder or, instead, a linear response in the highlights.

Now, both TX and TXP are modern films sharing the same advanced technology and industrial process. Main difference is emulsion grain formulation, to deliver different curve shapes: the longer TXP toe and the bump in the mids are the clear TXP signature than comes from formulation. The longer toe is always there with TXP, the bump in the mids it is enhanced in some processing conditions.


Also, I'm not aware of any spectral sensitivity difference, Kodak datasheet shows only one spectral graph for both enmulsions, this is something that it would be interesting to be checked. A portrait film may have a suitable signature for the spectral sensitivity, in order to deliver a pleasing separation of skin tones without the need of using filters on lens.


Of course an skilled photographer can obtain similar result from different films, with more or less effort...

[esearing]

Ian, you will soon learn there is no right answer. Everyone has different workflows and expected outcomes.

Start somewhere that sounds reasonable to you. Change Time, temp, dilution, and agitation schemes until you find your method. It really helps if you know the real/average speeds of your lenses to begin with. And what you like today will change with experience or happy accidents.

[interneg]

1. There is directly comparable curve data for TX & TXP in the Alaris datasheet that those curves above were scraped from. Look for the curve sets for 135, 120 & sheet developed in a deep tank with D-76.

2. You don't need to be some ill-defined 'master' to get first-rate results out of any regular camera film, you just need to get adequate exposure into the shadows & not get the highlights super dense. Neal's reference to Mortensen's method for testing dev time is a nice, elegant & simple way to get this under control in a few minutes.

3. Fixed grade paper is nothing like as hard to work with as some people seem to insist.

4. Tri-X etc have been controlled crystal growth since the 1950s (all non K-grains are controlled crystal growth), sensitising & acutance dyes are chosen for useful behaviour, not because they are 'colour film dyes' or some weird assertion. And, yes, you can get crisply gritty grain out of current Tri-X, it just requires a little understanding about relationships between paper grade and visible grain & enlarger choices. You can get nice grit out of Delta 400 too, & it uses a highly sophisticated grain structure. Mostly it's a question of competent, relevant technique that may be outside of the narrow doctrine of what Adams regarded as a 'good' negative.

[Pere Casals]

True, for same developer/times curves are remarkably different.

167695


4: AA has not a "narrow" doctrine about how a negative is regarded as good, but a wide one. The Negative, Chapter 3:

" As our aesthetic and emotional reactions may not be ruled by simple numbers, we must learn how to evaluate each subject and understand it in relation to the materials used. "

"Even so, it cannot be taken for granted that a properly executed negative will ensure that printing will be an easy process"

These are not words from a narrow doctrine !!!!

Since The Negative publication new materials and techniques have been forged. Still with techniques described in The Negative and in The Print one has enough to make a Moonrise.


3: Incredible prints were made with graded paper. But Multigrade paper adds the capability to burn some areas (or masking) with a diferent contrast, by changing filtering for that operation.