Retain highlights with Tmax 100

[rpagliari]

I usually rate Tmax at 50 and develop 20% less, with Ilford DDX 1+4 (Stop and Fixer also by Ilford).

Since it's usually mid-day (overcast or cloudy), they sky is significantly brighter than the rest of the scene. I can pull it down in photoshop but was wondering if there are better alternatives for retaining highlights.

[Paul Ron]

graduated nd filters .

[Sal Santamaura]

Expose at EI 64 and develop in XTOL 1+1. The curve will naturally roll off exactly where you need it to. See the characteristic curve here:


http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkxtol.html

[Oren Grad]

Expose at EI 64 and develop in XTOL 1+1. The curve will naturally roll off exactly where you need it to. See the characteristic curve here:


http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkxtol.html

+1. Try XTOL 1+1 or D-76 1+1 to put a gentle shoulder into the curve.

[rdeloe]

Expose at EI 64 and develop in XTOL 1+1. The curve will naturally roll off exactly where you need it to. See the characteristic curve here:


http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkxtol.html

This is an interesting site. Someone did a lot of work to create this.

I use Tmax 400 and I've landed on XTol 1+1, but also tried HC-110 in Dilution B. Both of these combinations were testedat this site, and it provides the full resolution JPG versions of the small portions that are shown for each combination. I downloaded the ones for TMax 400 in Xtol 1+1 and HC-110 Dil B so that I could compare them side-by-side in Photoshop. The curves for these two developers on this film look quite different. How does that shake out in a side-by-side?

Long story short in this comparison the differences are not dramatic. However, I don't think the author of this test used a scenario that stresses the highlights. I did a similar test that focused on highlight preservation, and it confirms what the curves show. In my test, I had a test scene that had even lighting over most of it, but I put a white object with lots of detail in one corner and shone a spot light on it to create something really bright. XTol 1+1 preserved those highlights much better than HC-110 Dil B, which is why I chose XTol 1+1 even though it's not as easy to use as HC-110.
Having said that, if HC-110 was my only choice, I could make it work too.

[Bruce Watson]

I usually rate Tmax at 50 and develop 20% less, with Ilford DDX 1+4 (Stop and Fixer also by Ilford).

Since it's usually mid-day (overcast or cloudy), they sky is significantly brighter than the rest of the scene. I can pull it down in photoshop but was wondering if there are better alternatives for retaining highlights.

Retaining highlights? IIRC, TMX is linear out more than 20 stops. This could result in highlights so dense that it can only be seen in the laboratory. But it's there -- all that image information is retained. So the real question is, can you get to it? Perhaps more properly, can you print it? (or scan it?)

And for that, we always return to the basic truth of chemical photography: Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. If you feel that your highlight density is too high, develop less.

[Larry Gebhardt]

An issue I have with the "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" approach is that developing less reduces contrast across the full range. Picture an outdoor scene with a normal subject in diffused light. Two cameras are setup and fired at exactly the same time with the same settings and film. In one shot a long lens is used and the sky is excluded. With normal development this produces a perfect print. In another a wide angle lens is used and it captures some bright clouds. If developed the same as the first the foreground subject will print identically to the first picture, but the clouds will be blown out on the print. If developed less using that old truism the clouds will now print on the paper with a straight print because the contrast was reduced, but the rest of the print will look flat since all the contrast was reduced. You will then need to fix that with other tricks.

I don't think there's one right answer, but if the offending extreme highlight is going to be easy to burn in I'd rather give normal development and fix it during printing.

Having a film that rolls off in the highlights is another way to handle this. You get variable contrast on the film based on exposure.

[Corran]

The above is correct.

If your global contrast is too high, pull development. If the local contrast/brightness is too high (sky), use GND filters.

FWIW, I dilute DD-X 1:9 for T-Max and have been happy with the results. Rodinal is another good option. I think an EI of 50 is a bit low.

[Drew Wiley]

TMax films have a long straight line that digs well down into the toe, so if you meter shadows carefully, you'll get excellent shadow separation at full box speed of 100 with many developers. And yes, expose for the shadows and dev for the highlights. But don't overexpose the shadows. I find conflicting advice counterproductive.There's less toe on T-Max films than, say, Ilford films. They're different. I routinely get wonderful results with both speeds of TMax in numerous formats, but careful metering is important.

[rpagliari]

TMax films have a long straight line that digs well down into the toe, so if you meter shadows carefully, you'll get excellent shadow separation at full box speed of 100 with many developers. And yes, expose for the shadows and dev for the highlights. But don't overexpose the shadows. I find conflicting advice counterproductive.There's less toe on T-Max films than, say, Ilford films. They're different. I routinely get wonderful results with both speeds of TMax in numerous formats, but careful metering is important.

So you rate it at 100 and put the shadows in zone 3? Is there any difference, in practice, versus rating at 50 and under developing?

[rpagliari]

graduated nd filters .

Thanks for the suggestion but I do mostly architecture and a grad filter would interfere with the buildings.

[paulbarden]

I have found that nothing beats Xtol for holding back and retaining "difficult" highlights.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Thanks for the suggestion but I do mostly architecture and a grad filter would interfere with the buildings.

If you are happy with the contrast in the rest of the scene, as you alluded to in your original post, using a developer like xtol 1+1 along with fixing the sky in photoshop, if more compensation is needed, is probably the best option. Grads only work in some situations.

Test your film speed to determine the correct exposure index.

[rpagliari]

do you have any experience with tmax and ilfosol 3? I'm asking because I prefer liquid developer.

[Bruce Watson]

An issue I have with the "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" approach is that developing less reduces contrast across the full range.

Except that it doesn't. The exposure anchors the shadow end of the contrast curve. Development anchors the highlight end of the contrast curve, and therefore determines the slope of the curve. Development can not normally translate the curve in X or Y dimensions. It only changes the slope.

Or are you talking about something different?

[Larry Gebhardt]

Except that it doesn't. The exposure anchors the shadow end of the contrast curve. Development anchors the highlight end of the contrast curve, and therefore determines the slope of the curve. Development can not normally translate the curve in X or Y dimensions. It only changes the slope.

Or are you talking about something different?

I'm saying by developing less (which reduces the slope) you are affecting all tones in the image. To fit more subject brightness range into the same film density range (as "develop for the highlights" implies) you will make the image flatter (lower slope).

[Larry Gebhardt]

do you have any experience with tmax and ilfosol 3? I'm asking because I prefer liquid developer.

I think DDX is the closest liquid developer to XTOL.

[Oren Grad]

IIRC, TMX is linear out more than 20 stops.

Unlike TMY, TMX curve shape is highly dependent on developer choice. In diluted XTOL or D-76 it starts to shoulder far, far before 20 stops.

[Keith Fleming]

There is lots of good advice in this thread, but I have faced film-exposure situations here in the Pacific Northwest that are extreme. In November and December, the sun does not rise high in the sky and the clouds are low and thick. Contrast can be very low, and I mean LOW. It's counter to orthodox procedures, but I take a reading using an incident meter, open up 3 stops (either on the lens diaphragm or the shutter speed) and then give "normal" development.

Not a perfect solution, but better than a print that resembles a gray card.

Keith

[Bruce Watson]

Unlike TMY, TMX curve shape is highly dependent on developer choice. In diluted XTOL or D-76 it starts to shoulder far, far before 20 stops.

I'll take your word for it. I just remember reading in one of the Kodak Tech Pubs back in the mid 1980s (?) when TMax first arrived that it would stay linear past 20 stops. But I was still a "Tri-X man" at that point and didn't pay a lot of attention to it, and certainly couldn't be bothered to test it to find out. Which was a major loss on my part, but I've got to own my own stupidity. Sigh...

[Oren Grad]

I'll take your word for it. I just remember reading in one of the Kodak Tech Pubs back in the mid 1980s (?) when TMax first arrived that it would stay linear past 20 stops. But I was still a "Tri-X man" at that point and didn't pay a lot of attention to it, and certainly couldn't be bothered to test it to find out. Which was a major loss on my part, but I've got to own my own stupidity. Sigh...

Just as you can put a shoulder into TMX via choice of developer, you can also give it a very long straight line via different choices. (There are other, stranger curves, useful only for very special purposes, that can also be achieved.) So TMX can be an excellent film for those who want a straight line as well.

[Drew Wiley]

Heck NO. If it's a high contrast scene I place the deep shadows on Zone 1. Like I said, it has a long straight line further down into the shadows than most other films. I don't place shadow value on Z3 for ANY film except Pan F. It doesn't make any sense. Remember, I'm speaking of high-contrast scenes where you want to get the most out of the USEABLE film curve. With low contrast scenes you have some wiggle room or latitude options. But overexposing @50 and underdevelopment does NOT provide the same result. It starts scrunching tonality between endpoints. And there will be no benefit to shadow reproduction, but with this particular film, the opposite. If you want to play it safe and not skate on the edge, you could place deep shadows on Z2 instead of Z1. But you have to be careful not to overexpose TMAX. It develops contrast rapidly and you can shoulder off the top, at the upper end. In a best- case scenario, it's about a 10-stop film, about a stop more than FP4 or Delta 100, provided you use the extra room down in the shadows if you need to. Yeah, there are various trick developers to handle extreme lighting situations, but they come with a substantial penalty to gradation in between. So I am referring to usable range print-wise, and not any of that alleged 20-stop nonsense or otherwise torturing the neg to get acceptable results. I sometimes resort to very low gamma developers for technical lab applications; but it's best to learn basic techniques with this film first. It's fussier than most, but well worth the extra care.

[Peter De Smidt]

David Kachel's SLIMT bleaching can also be useful for keeping highlights in check while preserving mid-tone contrast.

[Drew Wiley]

Developers: There's no way I could know them all. I use PMK pyro for general shooting. The staining properties of most pyro formulas help rein in the highlights during printing. TMaxRS at full strength gives the longest straight line for normal or plus development; there will be a sag in the curve at minus development for lower gamma. D76 gives a modest sag in the middle, HC-110 slightly less. But HC-110 is the most versatile developer I can think of in terms of a wide range of dilution tweaks. To enhace edge effect in TMX100, lately I've been using Perceptol at 1:3 dilution. It also pulls the highlights into range analogously to pyro stain, probably due to differential exhaustion at this dilution. At less dilution it behaves just the opposite and resembles D76 with very little edge enhancement if any. These are just a few of the dev options I've used.

[Chauncey Walden]

Expose it at 80 and develop for 9 minutes in Rodinal 1:50. Beautiful tonality.

[rdeloe]

Poke all over with a fork to release steam and bake at 400 F for 20 minutes. Do not wrap in tinfoil!

...

Oh wait, wrong forum! Sorry about that. :o

[Sal Santamaura]

...The staining properties of most pyro formulas help rein in the highlights during printing...

Not if one prints those negatives on graded paper. :)

[Drew Wiley]

Nonsense. When I began using PMK with TMax I printed on graded papers exclusively. The pyro stain made a big difference. Why wouldn't it? I'm anticipating your logic, but there is more than one variable in play. The proof is in the prints - lots of them, mostly on Seagull G and Brilliant Bromide. But I am still indebted to you for informing me of the futility of post-staining. Perhaps an interesting topic for a dedicated thread? Printmakers recognized the benefits of pyro on highlight repro long before VC papers even existed.

[Alan Klein]

I shoot Tmax 100 at 100 and bracket my shots +1 and -1. It's MF 120 roll film. I'm shooting 6x7's. I don't develop my own but send it to a pro lab. They develop normally in XTOL. They do have options for other developers. They can also do pulling and pushing in XTOL. Does anyone have any recommendation for my situation? Thanks.

[Sal Santamaura]

Nonsense...Of course it is. Unlike you, I don't know everything about everything. :D


...When I began using PMK with TMax I printed on graded papers exclusively. The pyro stain made a big difference. Why wouldn't it?...Because, unlike variable contrast papers where the PMK proportional stain's yellow/green color takes scene highlights into the paper's low contrast emulsion, with graded papers there's no such effect. To graded paper's "eyes," negative density is negative density, irrespective of whether it's a result of silver or stain.


...The proof is in the prints - lots of them, mostly on Seagull G and Brilliant Bromide...I can't find anything on Fred's French paper, but Seagull G had a substantial toe. Printing on it, with any negative, regardless of how that negative was developed and what its color was, presented difficulty in "making white." See the characteristic curve here:


http://www.plumeltd.com/artzone/paperzone/ori_seg.htm

Over to you, answer man. :)

[Pere Casals]

I usually rate Tmax at 50 and develop 20% less, with Ilford DDX 1+4 (Stop and Fixer also by Ilford).

Since it's usually mid-day (overcast or cloudy), they sky is significantly brighter than the rest of the scene. I can pull it down in photoshop but was wondering if there are better alternatives for retaining highlights.


You have many choices.

> You can also pull N-2, -3 and even -4

> You can use reduced agitation with well diluted developer: Reduced agitation, Semi Stand and Stand. This is a kind of development that selective reduces development progression in the highlights.

> Water bath, you place the sheets intermintently in developer or in water bath. Very exposed areas exhaust developer more and have a shorter effective development time.

> SLIMT, you use a partial bleaching bath before development

> Low contrast developer: POTA.

> Semi-POTA, you develop your film a share of the time with POTA then rinse, then you end development with a regular developer, or in the inverse order.

> Two bath divided development, Diafine for example, but also other divided developers will work, in that way a component of the first bath is exhausted first during second bath in the very exposed areas.


Please read The Darkroom Cookbook and/or The Film Developing Cookbook to learn what technique you would prefer.

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - you seem to be mixing apples and oranges. Reducing overall contrast via any number of methods is not the same things as selectively controlling highlights. A significant minus development or pull just scrunches everything.

[Bernice Loui]

Significant minus development not just scrunches everything, that is how to produce a flat dead print or a good way to take the life out of a print via a flat negative...

Not the same as preservation of highlights.


Bernice


Pere - you seem to be mixing apples and oranges. Reducing overall contrast via any number of methods is not the same things as selectively controlling highlights.

** A significant minus development or pull just scrunches everything. **

[Drew Wiley]

Sal - I can't give a good scientific answer myself. It seems counterintuitive if we simply factor in the yellow-green hue of the stain in relation to the blue sensitivity of graded paper or the high-contrast layer of VC. But empirically, it works anyway. So there must be other significant factors at play. I have a hunch why that might be the case, but not any firm answer. I've utilized quite a variety of graded and VC papers. I only mentioned my two favorite graded ones. It seems to be a consistent principle. I'm more an alchemist than a chemist. Had a lot of organic chemistry in college and forgot most of it long ago; and gelatin tanning is a very specialized field anyway. I only have a black and white transmission densitometer which is not intense enough to read through a blue filter, and not a color one with a blue channel, so can't plot the effect of stain realistically. But it's long been known that pyro is a low-contrast tweak with respect to highlight gradation. And this seems to be the case with both the greenish yellow of PMK and yellowish-brown of Pyrocat. But there are simply too many pyro formulas to realistically address them all in a sweeping statement. I was sincerely soliciting your opinion about why, and not a denial of what is obvious empirically in one print after another, decades ongoing. But if neither you nor I have a good response, I guess it's up to the real photo chemists to chime in. But having examined with trepidation some of the current literature on pyro tanning, which is an important medical application now warranting serious research funding, it's turning out to be an even more complicated subject than we photographers imagined.

[Pere Casals]

Pere - you seem to be mixing apples and oranges. Reducing overall contrast via any number of methods is not the same things as selectively controlling highlights. A significant minus development or pull just scrunches everything.

Drew, all methods that reduce contrast tend to preserve highlights, OP mentioned N-1, then N-2 will also work.

Anyway, of the listed methods several reduce development selectively in the highlights:

> Reduced agitation with diluted developer

> Intermitent Water Bath

> Divided developer


A low contrast negative allows to record a large scene dynamic range without reaching max density, of course a flat negative will require a general high contrast grade for the paper, and it also requires advanced printing techniques to compress shadows and highlighs to allow the range we want for the mids.

A great tool for that is split grade, burning and dodging during the 00 and 5 separated exposures allows to locally control contrast and exposure. A more advanced approach is masking.

If we have a high dynamic range scene we only can lower contrast in the film processing and shouldering the curve.


At the end we want to take the scene dynamic range and later selectively compressing shadows/highlights to allow the desired range for the mids in the 2.0D we have in the paper, but first we have to do is recording on film the scene dynamic range, if not...

[Drew Wiley]

You miss the point entirely, Pere. I know about all that, and have done everything you're prescribing. I'm an expert at masking. I am a very good split printer. I've even done waterbath dev back when there were films still around it worked well with. But I also know the difference between getting just the right amount between the layers of sandwich in order to make it edible, and stomping an over-filled sandwich until everything inside is squished beyond palatability. Re-read what Bernice just stated.

[Pere Casals]

Re-read what Bernice just stated.


Significant minus development not just scrunches everything, that is how to produce a flat dead print or a good way to take the life out of a print via a flat negative...
Not the same as preservation of highlights.



Both decreasing contrast and shouldering the curve in the processing will protect highlights.

IMHO, in a really high DR scene we have to use both approaches to take all range, because both ways have limitations, and probably combining both ways is usually the good choice.

If the contrast is too flat... well, this requires a better printer. The curve shouldering has limits, so what shouldering cannot do it has to be done with N-.

Also using a more shouldered film would help...

[Drew Wiley]

I give up. Back to printing. I know what works, and what doesn't.

[Larry Gebhardt]

The curve shouldering has limits, so what shouldering cannot do it has to be done with N-.

I disagree that it has to be done with N- development. Usually I'd rather handle excessive contrast during printing. Following the advice to give film N- development has made my printing harder more often than it's helped.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I disagree that it has to be done with N- development. Usually I'd rather handle excessive contrast during printing. Following the advice to give film N- development has made my printing harder more often than it's helped.

One remedy is to no longer use Tmax. It is a horrible film.

[Larry Gebhardt]

One remedy is to no longer use Tmax. It is a horrible film.

I'm just speaking generally, not just about TMX (I'm a fan of TMY, but don't use much TMX).

My slower film is usually FP4+. But almost any modern film can handle a few stops of over exposure without blocking up, and most do it without the compensating effect that TMX in dilute XTOL shows.

[Pere Casals]

I disagree that it has to be done with N- development. Usually I'd rather handle excessive contrast during printing. Following the advice to give film N- development has made my printing harder more often than it's helped.

Larry, IMHO it will depend on situation the particular situation, let's imagine that shadow detail we want imposes an exposure, then we have highlights we want in Z-XI. What we can do?

In that situation I'd pull N-1 from reduced agitation effect in diluted developer. This would have an effect mainly in the highlights. Then I would pull 2 stops from reduced time to have highlights in Z-VIII.

Is there any other approach ?

[PRJ]

Staining developers will reign in the highlights without doing anything crazy. I find the Zone System dull as a rock though and I would rather flog myself with my Gitzo than adhere to that soul killing mantra.

I print in the darkroom so i would rather have the meat of more exposure/development than the bones of minus development. YMMV.

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - if you would just listen for once, there are other ways of doing it, better ways. Bernice hinted at it, PRJ just did, or at least, the visual impact. But when it comes to TMax films or even better, the now nearly extinct 200 "straight line" films, one does not need to have more exposure to get more meat available, in the words of PRJ, but can skate quite a distance on the native separation of the toe as well. But I've gotta get back to work in the darkroom right now, and can't explain too much at the moment.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Larry, IMHO it will depend on situation the particular situation, let's imagine that shadow detail we want imposes an exposure, then we have highlights we want in Z-XI. What we can do?

In that situation I'd pull N-1 from reduced agitation effect in diluted developer. This would have an effect mainly in the highlights. Then I would pull 2 stops from reduced time to have highlights in Z-VIII.

Is there any other approach ?

I shoot a lot of landscape. My zone 11 highlights are frequently clouds when I'm shooting a subject in the shade. I want my subject to have normal contrast as I see it, so I give normal development and burn in the clouds (or make a pencil mask if it's a complicated burn) while printing. Other approaches (most have been alluded to in this thread): use TXT and use the shoulder roll off to my advantage, try SLIMT (on my todo list), put a graduated neutral density filter to cover the sky, or try a compensating developer with reduced agitation. You could also combine techniques.

If I pulled the development 2 stops my primary subject would be flat, but I could get a straight print with no burning in and no blown out areas. But I'd then need to print with a grade 4 filter to bring the snap back and end up burning in the clouds again since the higher grade would still blow them out.

Where I might give N- development is with strong directional lighting casting strong and undesirable shadows on the subject. If it was a portrait, and I couldn't improve the light, reduced development would make it less harsh and might save it. But this case is different in that it's too much contrast on the subject, not just in the frame.

[Sal Santamaura]

Staining developers will reign in the highlights without doing anything crazy...

From post #27:


Not if one prints those negatives on graded paper. :)

We've entered a loop. Will it be infinite? :D

[Drew Wiley]

Yep. Echo chamber. I'll continue doing what I know works very well for me. I don't need to scientifically prove it, any more than a vintner needs a mathematical formula to prove why a particular batch of wine tastes especially good. Oh well, to each his own. But I don't think Pere or Larry have understood a single word so far of what I'm implying. No crime. There are far more famous people I'd like to see in jail.

[Pere Casals]

If I pulled the development 2 stops my primary subject would be flat, but I could get a straight print with no burning in and no blown out areas. But I'd then need to print with a grade 4 filter to bring the snap back and end up burning in the clouds again since the higher grade would still blow them out.


Yes... a compression won't solve the printing, from what you point now I understand it better.

At the end we may have a DR in the scene that is higher than what paper or monitor allows, with Ps this requires having a good aesthetic criterion to know how to compress shadows and highlights, but in the darkroom it also requires a refined technique that's not easy to learn.

[StuartR]

My experience matches Drew's, it seems. I shoot mostly TMY2 and I have found that Kodak's own data sheet gives the best results (imagine that!). I rate at box speed and process with Xtol 1+1, and I based on the way that I meter, I almost never have a problem with unmanageable negatives. They scan well and print well in the darkroom. I have used PMK and found the results a bit better still, especially for extremely bright contrasty days, but toxicity and difficulty of obtaining it here makes continuing to use Xtol an easy choice for me. I completely agree with Drew's statement that he knows what works for him...I have been doing this as a lab for years, and the work speaks for itself. I am not sure if I have altered my metering and taking technique to match my development preferences, but in general, since I run a lab I cannot stray into extremely esoteric developers and techniques, as often I do not know what clients are going to give me.

[StuartR]

Another note regarding very flat negs -- I have found that the flatter the negative, the more likely any processing or coating problems are to show. When customers expose films in a way that makes them very flat, films from "second tier" film companies, i.e. not one of the big three, tend to have more problems with irregularities in the film showing up. This can be if they did not store the film correctly, if it is too old, if it was x-rayed, or if it is just not a great film. With those films I find that being vigilant about getting a standard, generous exposure that does not blow the highlights is especially important. Maximising the tonality on the negative is better than trying to compress all the information into flat neg.

[Pere Casals]

So you rate it at 100 and put the shadows in zone 3? Is there any difference, in practice, versus rating at 50 and under developing?

You rate it 50 you will record more shadow detail, exactly one stop more.

Then highlights would be overexposed one stop more, but if you develop N-1 then you obtain the same density for the highlights than you had when it was rated at 100.

So your negative will take one stop more of dynamic range in the scene, but that negative will have a lower contrast.

So you'll need a higher contrast for the paper to print the same, as Larry pointed, this won't print the highlights/shadows better, but you have recorded more dynamic range of the scene, just one stop more, so you may dodge in the shadows or burn in the highlights to show that detail.


If you scan then you may bend curves in Ps like you want, and you may easily show the highlight detail, if you pull then you simply get more shadow detail, edition it's easy anyway, and BW high densities are not a problem for scanners.

To print in the darkroon is a different matter, there is a controversy and a YMMV. Darkroom prints are great, but a challenging scene may require a master printer on command.

[Larry Gebhardt]

But I don't think Pere or Larry have understood a single word so far of what I'm implying. No crime. There are far more famous people I'd like to see in jail.

Drew, I think I understood you fine, up to now. It now seems like you are implying disagreeing with you is a crime worthy of jail? I'll assume you're making a joke that fell flat. Either that or I really can't understand you.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Another note regarding very flat negs -- I have found that the flatter the negative, the more likely any processing or coating problems are to show. When customers expose films in a way that makes them very flat, films from "second tier" film companies, i.e. not one of the big three, tend to have more problems with irregularities in the film showing up. This can be if they did not store the film correctly, if it is too old, if it was x-rayed, or if it is just not a great film. With those films I find that being vigilant about getting a standard, generous exposure that does not blow the highlights is especially important. Maximising the tonality on the negative is better than trying to compress all the information into flat neg.

Stuart, that's an effect I hadn't considered, but thinking back it may explain some issues I've encountered but couldn't pin down.

[StuartR]

It is very often an issue with color negs, where you are compressing a huge dynamic range into a small range of colors on the the negative itself. Basically a signal to noise ratio issue...when you take that relatively narrow range of contrast and expand it to a full contrast range, you also amplify any of the variations which would otherwise be fairly minor. With very high quality, fresh film, it is less of an issue, but with older or lower quality coating and emulsions, these variations can become troublesome.

[Pere Casals]

Basically a signal to noise ratio issue...when you take that relatively narrow range of contrast and expand it to a full contrast range, you also amplify any of the variations which would otherwise be fairly minor. With very high quality, fresh film, it is less of an issue, but with older or lower quality coating and emulsions, these variations can become troublesome.

Well, a digital effect of this is banding, when we edit a 8bits per channel image: if we compress and later we expand then banding appears, solution is working with 16bits per channel. But film has a continuous enconding in the density, so a compression in the negative should have no problems in the printing. At the end we only can craft 2.0D on a paper, so we won't have to expand much what's in a compressed negative.

I agree that first is metering and exposing (shutter tester) accurately, then we may use graded ND. All this may allow to spend poroperly the density range we have in the negative for the scene zones.

Then we can shoulder the curve in the processing with several techniques, finally we have no other way than N- if the scene does not fit in the negative latitude.

hmmmm... nothing better than having the suitable light !!!!!

[StuartR]

Hi Pere,
I am not talking about digital banding from the scan, I am talking about accentuating minor variations in the emulsion, because all your negative's information is contained in an extremely narrow band of tones. If you try to take a negative where all the information is in the mid greys and expand that to true blacks and whites, you accentuate any small (and natural) variations in the emulsion. You are leaning very heavily on the film manufacturer to provide an extremely even emulsion. I find Kodak and Fuji can usually do this...Ilford is not quite as reliable in my mind, but still very good. Foma, Rollei, Adox, Bergger etc...not so much. It also tends to make processing variations like uneven agitation, foaming, inadequate fixing etc all the more visible. Of course, you want to avoid those anyway, but if you add very flat negatives on top of less than perfect processing conditions, you are making things even more difficult.

[interneg]

Ilford is not quite as reliable in my mind, but still very good.

I think they're just a hair more susceptible to interlayer drying marks & those then produce the effect you describe on flatter negs. I've found that prompt rewashing & drying more carefully relative to ambient humidity often(though not always) solves it. The PhotoFlo literature describes this phenomenon pretty thoroughly.

[Pere Casals]

prompt rewashing & drying more carefully relative to ambient humidity often(though not always) solves it. The PhotoFlo literature describes this phenomenon pretty thoroughly.

Probably using distilled water with a very low amount of PhotoFlo for a final rinse it also may help.

[jnantz]

I usually rate Tmax at 50 and develop 20% less, with Ilford DDX 1+4 (Stop and Fixer also by Ilford).

Since it's usually mid-day (overcast or cloudy), they sky is significantly brighter than the rest of the scene. I can pull it down in photoshop but was wondering if there are better alternatives for retaining highlights.

Are you contact printing, scanning or enlarging your film ? If you are contact printing, like every large format practitioner should be doing! :) >> then you probably want to use something like PYRO or its cousin, a Vitamin C developer like Xtol or CaffenolC, over expose by a few stops and develop the hell out of your negatives .. but then again, I find it is really hard to make recommendations about exposure and development to someone because it is impossible to know their exposure / printing style/technique, if their lenses are CLA'd every 6months/year, if their long-exposures or development timer clock are accurate and all the other things that might change how their finals are.

ME? I over expose and over develop everything, and contact print, but im kind of a hack and don't care much about zones and fancy development techniques.

[Bernice Loui]

Appreciation of preserving good details on highlights without flattening them to death comes with making a LOT of prints directly coupled with a deep and full appreciation of preservation good highlight details can make a print come alive when the print is viewed in proper light.

If an individual has not developed or gained the appreciation for this, mostly pointless to try making them understand as they are not ready for this.

What I'll say, started to use PMK pyro in the early 1990's and it made a DIFFERENCE in taming the highlight burn out problem.


Bernice

[Pere Casals]

What I'll say, started to use PMK pyro in the early 1990's and it made a DIFFERENCE in taming the highlight burn out problem.

As stain is yellow, the proportinal share or the stain acts like an strong yellow filter in the high densities. If paper is multigrade then the effective grade for the highlights is lower, which benefits the printing of those highlights.

The stain modifies the multigrade paper curves, delivering a longuer paper toe to take the shoulder of the negative in a greater range.

IMHO, more than retaining highlights, what an staining developer does is helping to print highlights on variable contrast paper. With a non stained negative we may need more burning the highlights with the 00.


My guess that there was controversy in the past, some found that Pyro delivered the same than regular developers, in fact people using graded papers could not notice much a difference, so IMHO this could be a factor that fueled that controversy.

Now this effect is well documented, but IMHO in the past this was not as well understood by many.

[Bernice Loui]

OK, Pere.. I'll play once and only once on this.

When was multigrade B&W papers invented. How long has Pyro developers been used and why?

-What was written is essentially copied text from a book and not words from one who has made a LOT of projection enlarged B&W prints of any significant visual significance.


Bernice

[Pere Casals]

Bernice, I learned that from a Sandy King article, so I guess it's reliable information.


Reference:

"When printing in silver with variable contrast papers the stain, which is greatest in the highlights, compresses the tones and functions as a continuously variable filter"


https://sandykingphotography.com/resources/technical-writing/pyro-staining-developers

Point 4 of Section:

THE ADVANTAGES OF STAINING DEVELOPERS:
SOME ASSUMPTIONS AND SOME FACTS

[jnantz]

snip snip snip

When was multigrade B&W papers invented..


Bernice

ilford invented it in the 1930s they own/ed the multi grade - trade name . In the USA, maybe Variagram was the 1st, post WW2.

[Drew Wiley]

Earlier VC papers were rather poor performers. It makes little difference when they were hypothetically invented. The helicopter was invented by Leonardo DaVinci. What use was it except as a curious little toy? Pyro was in use by certain portrait studios for decades before VC papers were realistic for high quality use and still basically an oddity. Graded papers ruled almost exclusively, like dinosaurs in their era. Any little primitive mammals had to hide in the shadows. All of us who have been around for awhile know the difference between today's excellent VC paper and all those evolutionary dead-ends getting to that point. Much later Gordon Hutchings popularized pyro with an especially versatile and predictable formula, but various tweaks of it, both pyrocat and pyrogallol, have been known since the 1800's. I'm just a neophyte on that scale of time, and won't even turn 70 for 5 more months - still a teenager - and even I printed on graded papers exclusively until about 20 years ago, and even then only tried VC paper for sake of curiosity; I really hated their anemic results until Polygrade V showed up, and I was forced into a change due to the disappearance of the rich graded papers like Seagull G, Brilliant, and Portriga. Yeah, substitute products continued under some of those name, but they just weren't the same. I had already begun routinely processing film in pyro well before my own transition to VC paper. It did wonderful things for printing graded, just like it did long before I was even born. The historic evidence of the benefits of pyro for graded papers is overwhelming. But there are benefits for VC papers too, even if one is hard-contrast printing onto the high contrast layer only using a deep blue filter - which should inform you of the same fact applying to graded usage.

[Pere Casals]

Drew, but in fact we have an interaction VC-Pyro that modifies the original paper curve, and this has an impact in the depiction of highlights. IMHO this is what it matters.

Of course a long toe paper can also be manufactured, for an equivalent effect.

[Drew Wiley]

You're heavy on theory, Pere, perhaps a bit low on experience in this case. But you're not telling me anything I haven't known for decades. There are lots and lots of variable. It can be interesting sometimes to try to sort them all out; but in this case, I prefer to cut to the chase and just compare empirical results - the cumulative endpoint. All the argument in the world won't change what is perfectly apparent to my own eyes.

[Pere Casals]

You're heavy on theory, Pere, perhaps a bit low on experience in this case.

Yes !! :)

Drew, I'm a rookie printer, but I want to be a good student, learning well theory is good to later better learn from practice.

Just let me ask, won't the stain modify a lot the paper toe?

[jnantz]

Earlier VC papers were rather poor performers. It makes little difference when they were hypothetically invented.

Nothing hypothetical about it, and the question asked was not "when were multigrade papers invented that were good performers"
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps%20paper%20grades.html

[Tin Can]

Always loved Roger and Francis tutorials.

Read them for decades in Shutterbug.

Voices of reason.


Nothing hypothetical about it, and the question asked was not "when were multigrade papers invented that were good performers"
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps%20paper%20grades.html

[interneg]

It took until the 70's & 80's for knowledge & techniques of grain growth & sensitising methods to get to the level necessary to be able to manufacture the fast, very high chloride content emulsions needed to make multigrade papers work really well - and until the 90's for those techniques to really reach maturity along with concomitant sensitising methods using less dye & super-sensitisers.

As for the Tmax, I'd not severely underdevelop it - better to get your lower values largely where you want them via exposure & processing & use the good linearity of the highlights on TMX to pull them in at printing/ scanning stage by whatever means necessary.

[Drew Wiley]

Tmax films are extremely versatile with respect to development. I know how to take them from a very low gamma at almost a full straight line to quite high gamma almost completely linear. But these films can be unforgiving if you don't have exposure well dialed in. And with respect to general photography, we aren't ordinarily going to work with the extremes of potential but usually somewhere between a 4 and 12 stop range, a range which might often be encountered around here this time of year every day when natural softbox fog conditons break up in the middle of the day and you're got twelve stops of range between specular bare branches and deeply shaded burn scars in the woods. TMax handles these conditions far better than any current option, and prints wonderfully. The faster 400 speed has better edge acutance and, being faster, handles windy circumstances better; it's so fine-grained for a film that speed that it makes sense for most large format applications. TMX 100 has to be tweaked for improved acutance; but for portraiture, I prefer it as is, as slightly softer-edged, yet still capable of high detail and a lot of microtonal gradation. These are not films for everyone; careful shadow placement is important in high contrast situations, but the payoff is high. If you want something more forgiving of error, stick with trusty FP4. I'm not going to drift too far into speaking about VC papers because there are all kinds of different printing personalities in that overall category. We'd have to discuss specific paper, developer, toner, and even light source combinations. But this is their era to shine, just like graded papers once dominated the scene.

[Joe O'Hara]

At the risk of stepping into, as an unbeliever, what might be a religious war :rolleyes:, I find that in all but
the most extreme high contrast situations, Tmax 400 developed in D-23 1:4 with reduced agitation gives very
nicely printable negatives on Ilford MG Warmtone. Under these conditions I back the ISO down a half-stop
or so (and I'm one of those who like to place "open shadows" on Zone IV). MGW is so soft in my experience that
I had to goose up my film development times considerably compared to MG Classic.

I don't know, but I can imagine that that dilution of D-23 might cause the Tmax 400 to develop a significant
toe that requires the extra exposure. In any event it's not a big issue because I'm not photographing moving
subjects most of the time anyway.

When things get really nuts (e.g., at the seashore with wet sand), WD2H yields easily printable negatives at
the cost of one full stop of effective film speed. Low tone separation is excellent and highlights are perfectly
tractable.

I mostly use D-23 because it's so much easier (no need to mix things at the last minute), but I always have
the pyro mixed up and ready just in case. Sometimes I make two negatives and try different development on
each one. I own a densitometer but I've never bothered to use it. I employ just the little bit of science I need
to accomplish the art that I'm interested in.

There are many paths to the goal (good prints of good pictures, in my case), so the usual disclaimers apply
to my practice.

[Drew Wiley]

Of course you can use D23, but then you're drifting into compensation territory. This has nothing to do with a religious war. Do whatever you want. But there are real alternatives to the usual Zone System mantra of compressing the sandwich. You CAN have your cake and eat it too, with excellent deep shadow gradation and excellent printable highlight separation at the same time. Otherwise, why even bother with a relatively pricey high-performance film like TMax to begin with? If you want a more extended toe, just buy FP4 or HP5 etc to begin with.

[Tin Can]

Joe, I like your plain talk and we can view your images on your website. (https://www.josephoharaphotography.com/)

Your inquisitor does neither.

I like your images.

Peace

[Drew Wiley]

The "Inquisitor" does not go around pretending that web images equate to actual prints, which I presume is what is actually in mind in this discussion. How on earth can subtle differences in highlight tonality be visually compared on the web? That's like trying to play a violin with a chainsaw instead of a bow. Joe said it himself - D23, like most compensating developers, requires greater exposure to push the shadows up onto linearity. That means that in order to bring the high values back into range, you need to minus develop, i.e, smash the sandwich and all the tonality in between. What's so damn complicated about that fact? If doing so results in a print one likes, then by all means do it. But this being a thread about preserving highlights, meaning no doubt highlight gradation, one could hypotheticallly do just the opposite and simply underexpose and overdevelop the film. In that case you lose shadow gradation. And if that achieves the look you want, fine. I've deliberately done that a few time with TMY to get bold graphic black shadows. But you can have both excellent highlight as well as shadow separation, with good microtonality in between. Why are you complaining about that? I'm not charging anyone for that kind of basic information; and a couple of other people have stated essentially the same thing in more curt wording than I used.

[Pere Casals]

But there are real alternatives to the usual Zone System mantra of compressing the sandwich.

Drew, Zone System is no mantra, IHMO it deserves more respect and even some veneration, just see some AA prints.

First ZS is a visualization method, it prompts the photographer to imagine the final print and to expose/develop to help that result.


Later ZS says the obvious, how you have to expose to record your shadows, this has no debate. If you use FP4, HP5 or TMX they you may have an slight difference, say 1/3 stop. If developed Normal, all deliver 0.1D (over fog+base) at 3.3 stops underexposure when using true ISO speed.


Then ZS says what development you need (compression or expansion) to have highlights where you want. Again it says the obvious, as shadow recording imposes the exposure then you develop more or less to have highlights in a workable density.


So... what's wrong in the ZS ? It tells how to record the dynamic range of the scene you want !!!!


Sorry for explaining the basics, but when DR is exceeds film latitude we only can compress, and latter managing to print that with a suitable technique, if not we won't record well the scene.



You CAN have your cake and eat it too, with excellent deep shadow gradation and excellent printable highlight separation at the same time.

If understanding well basic sensitometry then there is no secret. On paper we have 2.0D, the way we distribute out mids-shadow-highlight in that 2.0D paper range is "the score". Also obvious. If we had to compress to fit scene DR in the negative then we can expand on paper (to have the gradient we wand for mids) with a higher contrast grade.

The rest is about understanding how shoulder-toe are in our film and in our paper. Also we can use advanced printing techniques, we may need dodging/burning, masking, etc.

When do we need to compress? When scene range is wider than our film latitude ! we need that to take the range we want, if we don't record that range then nothing in the printing process will help.




If you want a more extended toe, just buy FP4 or HP5 etc to begin with.

Let me reiterate: If developed Normal, all films deliver exactly 0.1D (over fog+base) at 3.3 stops underexposure when using true ISO speed, as ISO speed is defined from 0.1D speed point.

All recorded under 3.3 underexposure will be encoded in a muddy 0.1D range in the negative, Always !!!!! if you have good detail at -4 this is because you don't use the true ISO speed that's the absolute reference for comparing films.


With shadows imposing the exposure, to retain highlights, if our scene exceding film latitude, we only can compress in a certain way, with a N- or a compensating development that lowers highlight density.


_________________


Of course, an accurate metering/exposure and graded ND will help to take advantage of all available latitude of our film before we need to compress.

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh, Pere. I knew what I liked about AA's prints long ago, and what I didn't like. I've had my own side by side with his. I learned the Zone System long ago. There are all kinds of tricks AA never used; and in the meantime, films and papers have changed. That's not a criticism of the ZS. But there are other tools available too. I never used grad filters in my life and never will (except for CF filters to correct WA lens falloff). All they do is clumsily handle broad sections of a scene. If you really learn what films like TMax can do on their own, there's no need for such gimmicks. But you're not listening. I work with difficult lighting ratios all the time; but I haven't resorted to minus development even once in the past ten years that I can recall, maybe twenty.

[Pere Casals]

If you really learn what films like TMax can do on their own

I guess I know what tmx is capable of. One of the best BW films ever.

But it's very linear and not shouldered, so in the highlights soon it reaches insane densities that are difficult to print in the darkroom . Such high densities are no problem for scanning/Ps.

In the shadows, if shot at box ISO speed, at -3.3 it delivers 0.1D over film+base, like all BW films.

[Drew Wiley]

No, you don't know what TMax is capable of; otherwise, you wouldn't write things like that.

[Alan Klein]

At the risk of stepping into, as an unbeliever, what might be a religious war :rolleyes:, I find that in all but
the most extreme high contrast situations, Tmax 400 developed in D-23 1:4 with reduced agitation gives very
nicely printable negatives on Ilford MG Warmtone. Under these conditions I back the ISO down a half-stop
or so (and I'm one of those who like to place "open shadows" on Zone IV). MGW is so soft in my experience that
I had to goose up my film development times considerably compared to MG Classic.

I don't know, but I can imagine that that dilution of D-23 might cause the Tmax 400 to develop a significant
toe that requires the extra exposure. In any event it's not a big issue because I'm not photographing moving
subjects most of the time anyway.

When things get really nuts (e.g., at the seashore with wet sand), WD2H yields easily printable negatives at
the cost of one full stop of effective film speed. Low tone separation is excellent and highlights are perfectly
tractable.

I mostly use D-23 because it's so much easier (no need to mix things at the last minute), but I always have
the pyro mixed up and ready just in case. Sometimes I make two negatives and try different development on
each one. I own a densitometer but I've never bothered to use it. I employ just the little bit of science I need
to accomplish the art that I'm interested in.

There are many paths to the goal (good prints of good pictures, in my case), so the usual disclaimers apply
to my practice.

Joe, I like tones that go from black to white like your here. It provides good contrast that I find pleasing.
https://www.josephoharaphotography.com/p1014718514#h6f42c453

Now this one seems to bring out the shadows too much. It tends to flatten the tonal range.
https://www.josephoharaphotography.com/p1014718514#h6edd4f11

Do you recall the processing you did on both and how they relate to your processes describe here?

[Pere Casals]

No, you don't know what TMax is capable of; otherwise, you wouldn't write things like that.

Drew, tmx is very well explained in the datasheet. Cuves have absolute units, in Lux x Second, so there is no doubt about what it does. No miracle, at -3.3 under exposure 0.1D+FB, and no shoulder.

I guess you know how to see in the curve what exact density you have for each exposure level, easy to check it!

The tmx curves match what is found in practice, of course. Kodak datasheets are very good.

[Drew Wiley]

I know that when I'm asleep, Pere. There is no right or wrong in these various technique options. Some ice skaters play it safe and use only the center of the rink, while others prefer the thrill of using the whole thing. Does that analogy register with you?

[Pere Casals]

I know that when I'm asleep, Pere. There is no right or wrong in these various technique options. Some ice skaters play it safe and use only the center of the rink, while others prefer the thrill of using the whole thing. Does that analogy register with you?

Drew, let me show OP how the TMX datasheet is interpreted, for D-76:

192742

First we find speed point, this is 0.1D over Fog+Base, the curve with normal contrast (0.62) is used to determine the speed point.

The meter point (-/+0) is exactly 1H unit (logarithmic) at right in the Horizontal axis, each 1H is the same than 3.3 stops (3 1/3 in fact).

As in the vertical axis we have density then we can predict density for each over or under exposure.

_____________________________________

D-76 is a bit compensating, T-MAX developer isn't:

T-MAX has a normal development time of 7:45. We the 7min curve that's the closest to normal contrast:

192743

__________________________


Before we shot, we may predict (approx mental calc) what densities we'll have in the highlights and in the shadows, to know if shadow detail will be well recorded and if highlights will be relatively easy to print.

[Alan Klein]

Drew, let me show OP how the datasheet is interpreted, for D-76:

192742

First we find speed point, this is 0.1D over Fog+Base, the curve with normal contrast (0.62) is used to determine the speed point.

The meter point (-/+0) is exactly 1H unit (logarithmic) at right in the Horizontal axis, each 1H is the same than 3.3 stops (3 1/3 in fact).
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=192742&d=1561419559

Curious about the Density ratings on the left and scanners. Does the 3.0 mean that any scanner with a dMax of at least 3, would be able to capture the dark areas on the negative?

[Drew Wiley]

The more relevant question would be how much of that extreme density is really usable. That's why I advocate using as much of the lower section of the curve as possible in high contrast scenes, at least until it starts leveling off into the toe per se; otherwise, you can risk either going onto the shoulder at the top or ending up with so much density it's hard to deal with. The published curve is what it is, and tells you jus enough to get started, but by no means what the curve can become with different parameters. I have plotted many TMax curves. It all depends on the degree of exposure,specific developer, and degree of development. One curious feature of TMX is how it can develop a slight hump in the middle at full development, just the opposite of the sag one is likely to encounter with other films, or even with TMX underdeveloped or minus developed.

[Pere Casals]

Curious about the Density ratings on the left and scanners. Does the 3.0 mean that any scanner with a dMax of at least 3, would be able to capture the dark areas on the negative?

Yes, of course.

The question is what noise the scanner has at what high densities, but for negative film an scanner + Ps has no problem to process/print densities that would be a nightmare in darkroom printing.

In the case of the cheap Epsons they reach 3.1D well, but we need to use the multi-exposure (ME) feature to go beyond to reach 3.4D, multi-exposure lowers noise if insanely high densitie are there. Silverfast bundled version of the V850 includes ME, but the V800 not, and that feature has to be purchased separately upgrading software.





The more relevant question would be how much of that extreme density is really usable. That's why I advocate using as much of the lower section of the curve as possible in high contrast scenes, at least until it starts leveling off into the toe per se; otherwise, you can risk either going onto the shoulder at the top or ending up with so much density it's hard to deal with.

Of course, but this requires spot metering very accurately and having our shutter speeds checked with a shutter tester, because we won't have a "safety factor".




The published curve is what it is, and tells you just enough to get started, but by no means what the curve can become with different parameters.

but it is a very good starting point, probably other factors have more impact: the way we meter/develop, aperture calibration, shutter calibration, transmission loss in old lenses, bellows compensation...

As you say, it is an starting point... If we use diluted very developer with low agitation then we may want to plot a new curve, or just we can see how highlights are rendered for each overexposure level.




One curious feature of TMX is how it can develop a slight hump in the middle at full development, just the opposite of the sag one is likely to encounter with other films, or even with TMX underdeveloped or minus developed.

I find this specially critical for darkroom printed portraiture, as it matters in the depiction of shadings, so in the face volumes. With hybrid we bend the curves like we want...

[Drew Wiley]

I doubt anyone is going to do a good job scanning and then printing if they can't print it well in the darkroom, Pere. PS is a mimic, that's all. If it's not sufficiently on the film to begin with, you're not going to recover it well digitally. You might be able to dub and fake something else in; but that's a different story. Maybe there's a Dr. Frankenstein or two out there who can dig up disgusting dead negatives and spark some life back into it using PS; but it might turn out to be a monster. Restoring damaged antique photos is easier that way. As per curve control, I've been doing it for years using exclusively darkroom methods. But if someone prefers a digital tool kit instead, that's fine. As far as needing to spotmeter accurately, yes, this is especially important when optimizing TMax films. But it's no harder than what people who shoot color chromes need to routinely do. If that's just too big a hurdle, then switch to more a forgiving type of film.

[Pere Casals]

I doubt anyone is going to do a good job scanning and then printing if they can't print it well in the darkroom, Pere. PS is a mimic, that's all.

To me it's way more difficult to nail a print in the darkroom than in Ps, of course I'm a rookie printer, but I find the PS fexibility in the curve control way beyond darkroom techniques.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?152658-Seeking-scanning-solution-for-8x10-negatives&p=1503043&viewfull=1#post1503043

Still, a sound darkroom print is fantastic, to me it's the way to go.




As far as needing to spotmeter accurately, yes, this is especially important when optimizing TMax films. But it's no harder than what people who shoot color chromes need to routinely do. If that's just too big a hurdle, then switch to more a forgiving type of film.

Well, also switching to a more forgiving processing, a well diluted developer with reduced agitation contributes to control highlights while not imposing a particular contrast grade. Tray developing is specially suitable for that.

[Drew Wiley]

Please keep in mind, Pere, that the model of TMax exposure and dev I've been proposing is somewhat the missing link to optimizing it under certain conditions that some have overlooked. It's not the only method I use even with this particular film. In fact, right behind me at this moment is a very nice framed portrait taken on 8X10 TMX where I broke just about every one of my own "rules" given in this particular thread, and did so deliberately. But it was knowing those parameters to begin with which allowed me to do that successfully.

[Ornello]

T-Max 100 is probably not the best film for outdoor scenes with sky. Try FP4 +.

[Alan Klein]

T-Max 100 is probably not the best film for outdoor scenes with sky. Try FP4 +.

Why?

[Ornello]

Why?

Because of the curve shape. It does not 'roll off' in the highlights. In general, there are two basic types of B&W film curves, those with 'n-shaped' curves and those with 'u-shaped' curves. In the past, Kodak made several B&W sheet films for different purposes: Portrait Pan, Super-Panchro Press Type B, Super XX, Royal Pan, etc. Each was tailored for specific uses. In general, films intended for 'uncontrolled' light conditions had 'n-shaped' curves which tend to flatten out highlights. This is good for outdoor scenes and helps prevent clouds from becoming too bright. T-Max 100 has a 'u-shaped' curve and does not flatten out, but just keeps going.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFrrFKnu.png&hash=0b0fba2239c48356eab0c9e69417f82b


FP4+ has the 'n-shaped' curve you want. Similar to Tri-X Pan:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkPNxsLk.png&hash=fed184b8bd2172061536330cc00037ea

See:

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/f4016_tmax_100.pdf

The highlights are 'there', but they are too dense to print easily. Using a dilute metol-based developer (e.g., D-76) will help, but FP4 is better.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1919/product/686/

In a typical outdoor scene (especially with clouds), the sky is much brighter than the foreground. There is also the flare issue. The light from the bright clouds tends to 'bounce around' inside the lens and cause veiling flare, which lowers contrast within the darker areas. Films with 'n-shaped' curves tend to have higher contrast in the lower-density areas, which helps to offset this veiling flare.

[Sal Santamaura]

Because of the curve shape. It does not 'roll off' in the highlights...I have two problems with that answer. First, failure to read an entire thread before responding is annoying and leads to misinformation. Second, TMX has a malleable curve shape depending on developer and dilution, so your reply is not universally correct.

In post #3 of this thread, more than 2-1/2 years ago, I provided a link that offered the OP a film/developer combination to do what was desired:


Expose at EI 64 and develop in XTOL 1+1. The curve will naturally roll off exactly where you need it to. See the characteristic curve here:


http://www.fotoimport.no/filmtest/fkxtol.html

[Ornello]

I have two problems with that answer. First, failure to read an entire thread before responding is annoying and leads to misinformation. Second, TMX has a malleable curve shape depending on developer and dilution, so your reply is not universally correct.

In post #3 of this thread, more than 2-1/2 years ago, I provided a link that offered the OP a film/developer combination to do what was desired:

Looks good. D-76 would probably work well too. But why not use FP4 to start with?

[interneg]

Looks good. D-76 would probably work well too. But why not use FP4 to start with?

Because FP4+ has some visually potentially significant shortcomings compared to Delta 100 or TMX100 in terms of colour sensitivity, granularity, sharpness that might matter a lot more than facile claims based around poor quality user processing procedures with TMX 100. And rolled-off highlights aren't necessarily what you want for quite a number of reasons.

[Corran]

TMX is perfectly fine for skies. Use the appropriate development time and filters if needed, just like any film.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z-83Rl-lMbE/X6qoF0YvezI/AAAAAAAANHE/eQAlkQDaNEkCK1KbD1rt7rQ8ur-27Ac6gCLcBGAsYHQ/s600/augusta-5802cs.jpg

[Ornello]

TMX is perfectly fine for skies. Use the appropriate development time and filters if needed, just like any film.



The problem isn't with blue skies, but white fluffy clouds that can reflect enormous quantities of light. Also, the shadows are 'weaker' with this film compared to FP4.

[Ornello]

Because FP4+ has some visually potentially significant shortcomings compared to Delta 100 or TMX100 in terms of colour sensitivity, granularity, sharpness that might matter a lot more than facile claims based around poor quality user processing procedures with TMX 100. And rolled-off highlights aren't necessarily what you want for quite a number of reasons.

Granularity and sharpness? Are you kidding me? FP4 is excellent in those categories. Besides, in large formats these are all but irrelevant.

I once tested FP4 shortly after it came out (1969?) and it blew away Kodak Plus-X (35mm).

[Corran]

The problem isn't with blue skies, but white fluffy clouds that can reflect enormous quantities of light. Also, the shadows are 'weaker' with this film compared to FP4.

These are not issues with a film. They just require correct exposure and development - same as any film. I use TMX at an EI of 64-80 and Pyrocat 1:1:100 and I think the negatives print easily - assuming I did my job correctly.

Sure, you could say TMX is a bit more finicky - and I would agree. I think that's the main reason folks have issues with it. FP4+ or any traditional film is more forgiving.

[Ornello]

These are not issues with a film. They just require correct exposure and development - same as any film. I use TMX at an EI of 64-80 and Pyrocat 1:1:100 and I think the negatives print easily - assuming I did my job correctly.

Sure, you could say TMX is a bit more finicky - and I would agree. I think that's the main reason folks have issues with it. FP4+ or any traditional film is more forgiving.

Well, I am not talking about 'finickyness': there are differences in some films' curves that make them easier to work with for particular applications. The film companies in the past (particularly Kodak, but also Ansco and Dupont) offered many more choices of B&W emulsions for specific applications (press, commercial, product, portrait, etc.). Today, the emphasis is on consolidation. Kodak's Royal Pan (ISO 400) was much better for outdoor work than TXP (ISO 320) is, and I am stunned that Kodak discontinued the former in favor of the latter. It would behoove anyone who is curious about these issues to look at the old Photo Lab Index books:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/133037004851

Since the number of commercial and portrait pros who use B&W sheet films has been declining for a long time, consolidation of film types makes sense, but at the same time the difficulty of matching film types with certain applications has increased.

[Corran]

Lots of personal bias and preference inherently part of the discussion of a film's characteristics. True, about reduction in options. T-max being "not the best film for outdoor scenes with sky" is an example of opinion, not fact.

[Ornello]

Lots of personal bias and preference inherently part of the discussion of a film's characteristics. True, about reduction in options. T-max being "not the best film for outdoor scenes with sky" is an example of opinion, not fact.

That's simply not true. I have explained why. And I am referring to bright clouds, not clear blue sky.

See this:
https://books.google.com/books?id=z5VHAQAAIAAJ&pg=SA2-PA37&lpg=SA2-PA37&dq=dupont+arrow+pan+film+black+white&source=bl&ots=_VoIpic2yA&sig=ACfU3U2fkeOcZLMXtRn4RWI5VrdAzSbE1g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjqwvytovj1AhUkhuAKHQMVAB4Q6AF6BAgWEAM#v=onepage&q=dupont%20arrow%20pan%20film%20black%20white&f=false

Scroll up and down to see the discussions about Panchromatic type B and C.

[Corran]

Others have explained better why that is not true, but you can believe whatever you like.

"Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights."

[Drew Wiley]

Ornello - you are outright wrong on several fronts. What you term "roll off" at the top of the curve means shouldering off, which is NOT an advantage when trying to get good highlight separation. Likewise, you have it all backwards concerning the shadows - TMax resolves deeper shadow tonality distinctly better than FP4 because it has a steeper toe. On the third count, you're wrong about the
implications of the spectral sensitivity. All kinds of modern films blow away the sharpness of old Plus-X. And TMax 100 holds distinctly more detail than even current FP4 plus; but I don't want to get into specific nuances of sharpness versus acutance on this particular thread. I shoot all these films - TMX100, TMY400, and FP4+ in multiple formats, clear up to 8x10. But in the small roll film sizes like 6X7 and 6X9 cm, I prefer TMX due to its greater enlarging capacity before grain becomes evident, or else a film like ACROS. In high contrast situations, TMax films excel over the others, provided they're correctly exposed and developed.

[Ornello]

Others have explained better why that is not true, but you can believe whatever you like.

"Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights."

See the Army book I found. It explains some of the issues.

[Ornello]

Ornello - you are outright wrong on several fronts. What you term "roll off" at the top of the curve means shouldering off, which is NOT an advantage when trying to get good highlight separation. Likewise, you have it all backwards concerning the shadows - TMax resolves deeper shadow tonality distinctly better than FP4 because it has a steeper toe. On the third count, you're wrong about the
implications of the spectral sensitivity. All kinds of modern films blow away the sharpness of old Plus-X. And TMax 100 holds distinctly more detail than even current FP4 plus; but I don't want to get into specific nuances of sharpness versus acutance on this particular thread. I shoot all these films - TMX100, TMY400, and FP4+ in multiple formats, clear up to 8x10. But in the small roll film sizes like 6X7 and 6X9 cm, I prefer TMX due to its greater enlarging capacity before grain becomes evident, or else a film like ACROS. In high contrast situations, TMax films excel over the others, provided they're correctly exposed and developed.

'Good highlight separation' of what? Clouds that are so dense they can't be printed? They might be 'separated' on the negative, but too dense to print, at least with normal gradient printing contrast. See my previous posts.

[Drew Wiley]

Overall, Ornello, your take on this is way way out of date, besides being sensitometrically nonsensical.

[Corran]

See the Army book I found. It explains some of the issues.

The Army's rigid techniques likely codified before TMX even was developed is the last thing I'd ever consider consulting for general advice in 2022.

From your previous post, it sounds like you need to read Adams' books from which I quoted and learn how to develop for those highlights. I certainly burned my share of highlights 10 years ago when I first started shooting film seriously when I had no idea what I was doing. Exposing/developing bulletproof negatives is a you problem, not a film problem.

[Ornello]

The Army's rigid techniques likely codified before TMX even was developed is the last thing I'd ever consider consulting for general advice in 2022.

From your previous post, it sounds like you need to read Adams' books from which I quoted and learn how to develop for those highlights. I certainly burned my share of highlights 10 years ago when I first started shooting film seriously when I had no idea what I was doing. Exposing/developing bulletproof negatives is a you problem, not a film problem.

Oh dear....I was just trying to help this other guy who asked a question. I have been doing B&W photography for more than 60 years. I know when to use HP5 or Tri-X and when to use T-Max 400, the original formulation of which was almost unusable for outdoor photography. I use Leicaflex equipment and the best lenses for 35mm work.

Adams books? I have read them, with a great deal of amusement.

See my post earlier about Kodak's advice on film development.

[Bernice Loui]

Remembering back when Kodak T-max films were introduced there was a HUGE amount of grief, complains and more denouncing of how ~AWFUL~ this "new" T-max stuff from Kodak was.. Fact and reality is, they were flat wrong. These whiners were treating T-Max in the same way they were treating all other B&W films and their ways flat did not work properly at all with T-Max.

Fact is, having been and done T-Max from it's introduction to the film market, it has remarkably good grain size for a given box film speed and it is very linear (if properly used), which is real important if you're interested in holding contrast-tonal separation as the densities goes up and up.

What is required for the user is precise exposure and proper development to meet the printing process goals. Essentially, users of T-max cannot be sloppy and expect proper results.


Bernice




In high contrast situations, TMax films excel over the others, provided they're correctly exposed and developed.

[Drew Wiley]

I call it a film for adults. Seems I'm the main buyer of it at the local camera store. They still hold darkroom classes there, but won't allow the students to even use TMax. Funny thing, but when my wife was taking a college photography class over 30 yrs ago, and was dating me, the instructor ranted on and on day after day about how awful TMax was. Then the assignment was to go out and shoot something and print it for the class. I loaned her my Pentax 6X7 for an outing over in the redwoods, with TMax already in it, showed her how to use the spotmeter; and then after we came back, had her develop it herself in my darkroom. Even taught her to drymount the print herself. When she brought the result to the class, the teacher praised her for attaining such a classic result as a beginner. Then he asked her what kind of film she had used. She reluctantly replied, TMax, and the whole classroom went hush. We still have that picture hanging in a hallway.

[Corran]

Adams books? I have read them, with a great deal of amusement

I guess you missed the salient points then!

[Ornello]

I guess you missed the salient points then!

No, I read the Kodak materials. Try them:

Negative Making for Professional Photographers is a good place to start.

[Drew Wiley]

This time I'm betting on the Georgia Mountain Militia rather than the Prussian Army with its manual.

[Corran]

Negative Making for Professional Photographers

Released 1952 - meanwhile T-Max (100 and 400) released in '86 and has had some revisions (notably the 400 being denoted as 400-2 now).

Perhaps some recommendations have changed :).

[Ornello]

Released 1952 - meanwhile T-Max (100 and 400) released in '86 and has had some revisions (notably the 400 being denoted as 400-2 now).

Perhaps some recommendations have changed :).

I rather think that the principles involved have not. The Kodak text specifically rejects Ansel Adams' approach, though it does not name him. See:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?167434-Film-development-according-to-Kodak

What is unclear about this:

"It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve."

"In other words, the majority of people want the middle tones of the print to reproduce most original subjects as closely as possible, regardless of the lighting conditions that prevailed when the pictures were taken. To do this, all negatives should be developed to the same contrast or gamma for the same printing conditions and paper grade."

I regard that as definitive, and based on empirical data, not mysticism.

"As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights" implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma, should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene. The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and "important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve."

[Corran]

Luckily the majority of us are not using LF in the business of making "professional photographs" and have no reason to adhere to Kodak's ideals for that kind of work.

[Bernice Loui]

Yep and Meh...

Near identical stories can be shared from back when T-Max was introduced. Altering them ole ways then applying what was needed for T-Max both 100 & 400 produced excellent results. Much of this comes down to getting the exposure and development absolutely correct and not "fudge".

Much about learning the photographic materials and not trying to ~wing it~..


Bernice


I call it a film for adults. Seems I'm the main buyer of it at the local camera store. They still hold darkroom classes there, but won't allow the students to even use TMax. Funny thing, but when my wife was taking a college photography class over 30 yrs ago, and was dating me, the instructor ranted on and on day after day about how awful TMax was. Then the assignment was to go out and shoot something and print it for the class. I loaned her my Pentax 6X7 for an outing over in the redwoods, with TMax already in it, showed her how to use the spotmeter; and then after we came back, had her develop it herself in my darkroom. Even taught her to drymount the print herself. When she brought the result to the class, the teacher praised her for attaining such a classic result as a beginner. Then he asked her what kind of film she had used. She reluctantly replied, TMax, and the whole classroom went hush. We still have that picture hanging in a hallway.

[paulbarden]

'Good highlight separation' of what? Clouds that are so dense they can't be printed? They might be 'separated' on the negative, but too dense to print, at least with normal gradient printing contrast. See my previous posts.

If you're getting excessive density in the brightest values, don't blame the film characteristics, its all about how you developed the film. TMY and TMX excel in retaining printable highlight details - far better than many other films.

[Drew Wiley]

Unprintable density is often a hangover from the ole "thick negative" mentality days. With good metering habits, and a good spot meter especially, one can set the placement of deep shadows well down the line, and not need to do something silly to protect the highlights like Barbaum taught, placing shadows way up on Zone III. Trust the film to be what is is. Quality control is way better than in the old days, and TMax fims have a very long relatively straight line if properly exposed and developed. They ain't Triassic-X or Frying-Pan-Flat X. But TMax was engineered right from the start to be an exceptionally malleable film depending on specific development. It is far less forgiving of shoot-from-the hip exposure habits based upon notions of "latitude" from the center out.

[abruzzi]

They ain't Triassic-X or Frying-Pan-Flat X.

Drew, sometimes you make me laugh...

[Ornello]

If you're getting excessive density in the brightest values, don't blame the film characteristics, its all about how you developed the film. TMY and TMX excel in retaining printable highlight details - far better than many other films.

Not so, at least not with the original TMY (400). If it was so good, why did Kodak change it?

[Drew Wiley]

The main reason for the change in the 400 product was less visible grain clumping. And yes, the shoulder characteristics were improved at the same time. TMax 100 was also re-tweaked somewhat; but so was FP4 and HP5. That was a long time ago, before some people on this forum were even born. Note that the specific product which Kodak originally intended to replace Super XX with was 100 TMax, not 400. That was in relation to its spectral sensitivity relative to ideal color separation usage. Dye transfer printing applications were still in mind, although it appears the right hand of Kodak wasn't talking to the left about what they were planning to do, typical of corporations too big for their own good. Tricolor filter response is different between TMY and TMX. Then other technical applications were in mind. It never was about just general photography with TMax100.

But even back then 400 TMax was a revolutionary product compared to the former options - true 400 speed with relatively fine grain, superb acutance, and long scale, though not as good in that respect as their current TMax 400 product, which is what nearly everyone is referring to on this thread, along with CURRENT 100, other than you. But it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks, and at first many people just exposed and developed 400 TMax as if were Tri-X, and the marriage didn't end well.

From a manufacturing standpoint it made perfect sense to replace a whole range of films with just two speeds of one type. Commercial workflows, with assembly line like personnel trained to each do one thing exactly the same time after time, didn't adapt so well. But scientific and industrial users dramatically benefitted. For example, the original TMax 100 emulsion was coated onto glass plates for astronomical usage. I have good reason to believe the largest volume of 8x10 sheets still goes to some kind of industrial rather than general photographic usage, though the current extreme pricing might alter that. It's the especially well-balanced spectral sensitivity as well as the very wide potential ranges of contrast and curve shapes which makes this film so desirable in technical applications. I'm thawing a 50 sheet box of it in 4x5 size right now for unsharp masking applications.

[Alan Klein]

I scan at home with a flatbed and find both 100 and 400 scans pretty easy. I don't have a darkroom; send my film to labs. I expose at box speed and don't push or pull at the labs. I believe Kodak developed this film for scanning as well as traditional printing, but I could be wrong on that.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, that was yet another recent improvement, Alan : superior scanning. Same goes for their present color neg and chrome sheets. But that also no doubt also factors into the higher cost of Kodak sheet films.

[Alan Klein]

Well, that was yet another recent improvement, Alan : superior scanning. Same goes for their present color neg and chrome sheets. But that also no doubt also factors into the higher cost of Kodak sheet films.

I tried Ektar color negative and had too many color adjustment problems scanning it so went back to chromes, mainly Velvia 50. Maybe I wasn't exposing Ektar right. Of course, Velvia 50 shadows are dense. But I just like the palette of it. I tried Kodaks new Ektachrome and also Provia from Fuji. Both scan pretty easy as well on my Epson V850. Ektachrome reds are redder and Provia, the reds are more orangey. When you have a lot of stops, Provia is a better selection than Velvia.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, all this has been a bit of fun; but I'm gonna duck out because I don't have access to a time machine to go back to a 1950's film choice debate. Once someone starts putting words in my mouth about bagging a 17 stop luminance range they either must be referring to photographing above ground nuke bomb tests from that era, or be outright trolling. No harm, no foul, but no point either.

[Ornello]

The main reason for the change in the 400 product was less visible grain clumping. And yes, the shoulder characteristics were improved at the same time. TMax 100 was also re-tweaked somewhat; but so was FP4 and HP5. That was a long time ago, before some people on this forum were even born. Note that the specific product which Kodak originally intended to replace Super XX with was 100 TMax, not 400. That was in relation to its spectral sensitivity relative to ideal color separation usage. Dye transfer printing applications were still in mind, although it appears the right hand of Kodak wasn't talking to the left about what they were planning to do, typical of corporations too big for their own good. Tricolor filter response is different between TMY and TMX. Then other technical applications were in mind. It never was about just general photography with TMax100.

But even back then 400 TMax was a revolutionary product compared to the former options - true 400 speed with relatively fine grain, superb acutance, and long scale, though not as good in that respect as their current TMax 400 product, which is what nearly everyone is referring to on this thread, along with CURRENT 100, other than you. But it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks, and at first many people just exposed and developed 400 TMax as if were Tri-X, and the marriage didn't end well.

From a manufacturing standpoint it made perfect sense to replace a whole range of films with just two speeds of one type. Commercial workflows, with assembly line like personnel trained to each do one thing exactly the same time after time, didn't adapt so well. But scientific and industrial users dramatically benefitted. For example, the original TMax 100 emulsion was coated onto glass plates for astronomical usage. I have good reason to believe the largest volume of 8x10 sheets still goes to some kind of industrial rather than general photographic usage, though the current extreme pricing might alter that. It's the especially well-balanced spectral sensitivity as well as the very wide potential ranges of contrast and curve shapes which makes this film so desirable in technical applications. I'm thawing a 50 sheet box of it in 4x5 size right now for unsharp masking applications.

There are numerous criticisms that could be made about Kodak's internal workings. But I showed earlier in this thread the HD curve of TMX developed in T-Max developer. It has a very upswept curve that increases slope as density increases. This is exactly the reverse of what you want for outdoor photography. I believe you may be right about TMX intended as a replacement for XX.

[Drew Wiley]

Don't make me jump back in this damn game, Ornello. TMax ONLY has a serious upswept curve if you deliberately develop it for that, like with dilute D76 for example, or going hog wild with TMX Developer too long or too hot. It was engineered in the first place for a very long straight line, and does exactly that in full strength TMax RS developer, but other options like HC-110 B come close.

I've done color separations with TMax, where not only is a long straight line is essential, but three directly over-lapping RGB ones! It's a better option for that than good ole Super-XX ever was, where the blue separation could not be brought up to the same full gamma; so the difference had to made up in an overdevelopment tweak of the mating yellow dye printer matrix film itself. Same goes for Ilford's option for that game: FP4. TMax 100 is a great improvement over that old hurdle. But you are partially correct in that it still tends to have a bit dowager's hump in the middle of the curve (ironically upward) even with TMaxRS development, hard to totally iron out. High end curve upsweep is way too high to be of any concern unless the film is grossly overexposed. So I found it easier jus to accept a rather minor gradual midtone sag instead, which comes with the territory of HC-110, and probably DK50 too (the favorite developer of certain big DT labs during its heyday).

But note that current TMX has improved in this respect over the earlier version. TMY400 is similar, but less useful for separations because, instead of the blue separation density lacking contrast like with Super-XX, it's the green separation with TMY400. But it's not so far behind that the difference can't be made up with just a little more development time for that green exposure alone. With TMax 100, I can do all three at the same time, for exactly the same amount of time. And today, there are various alternative processes which require separation negatives. But I rarely find a subject in the wild that stays still long enough to warrant that approach, must less the increased cost per shot. Studio still life work would be easier, or making separations from extant chromes, which I have done.

In regular outdoor photography, I generally prefer staining pyro developers, which handle the highlights superbly. TMaxRS developer is more a specialty lab product in my opinion, and no longer made anyway. The ordinary RS developer was never intended for sheet film. But I am well aware of your complaint due to my beginner days.

[Sal Santamaura]

...why not use FP4 to start with?Beyond several shortcomings of FP4 Plus that others have described, primarily because FP4 was discontinued in 1990.

[John Layton]

Yup...that original FP-4 was great souped in either ABC or PMK Pyro. I miss it!

[Drew Wiley]

Very little visual difference with the '"plus" version in any developer, including my standard choice, PMK. The biggest improvement was a less fragile emulsion now no longer needing paper inter-leafing sheets in the box.