Initial Results of testing Tmax100

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Set up

Black card for ZIII
White Card for ZVIII

Tmax100 shot at the following:

f/11 (iso 50)
f/13 (iso 64)
f/14 (iso 80)
f/16 (iso 100)

Tmax Dev at 1:8, 7;30, 68F, SP-445 tank, Kodak stop bat, fix and hypoclear, final 10 minute rinse, photoflo and hung to dry. Scanned using view scan at 1600dpi, exposure locked to 1, film base locked. Scanned as a b/w negative, 48bit rgb and saved that way. I went thru each possible scan scenario and none of them were any different from one another. However, the blue channel is somewhat boosted when scanning as color neg.

All for 1/2 sec. The black cards were metered at iso 50 and f/11 with ev7.0 then adjusted to ev 9.0. White cards were metered at iso 50 and f/11 with ev 10.6 then adjusted to ev 7.6. Here is the link to the linear raw scan files if anyone wants to measure them. I will post up my results from Vuescan shortly as well. I am sending the negatives out to a member this week who has kindly offered to measure them for me.

Once I have the densities, what do I do next? (how do I know what is zone iii density or zone viii?) I have been reading a lot and there doesn't seem to be one answer on this topic. Not looking for holy grail, but how to interpret these results.

Next question is thus, once I determine the film speed for the way I develop with Tmax dev, I meter the darkest shadows ( or the detail I want to be ZIII) and let the cards fall as they may elsewhere? I was recommended to shoot shadows for ZIII at a particular iso based on experience until the negatives are scanned and we can have a better answer. Going to Grand Canyon Toroweep next weekend, so want to be as close as I can for now.

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmGDo5nphttp://

[Drew Wiley]

You're testing out a Ferrari as if it were a Vespa scooter. Once your confidence gets better, design a test Zones 1 through 11, with deepest shadow texture being on Zone 1 at full box speed of 100.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I am just doing as instructed by another on this forum. That is all.

[Drew Wiley]

Placing shadows on Z3 using TMax is a great way to blow your highlights over the top. You got generic advice that was bad even in Model T days. But there might be enough haze in the Grand Can to get away with it due to lowered contrast, at least from the South Rim. Hard to say. Depends on any storms clearing the air. Gotta start somewhere and improve the learning curve from there. I never bracket. But being new to this film, you might want to waste a few sheets of film doing that, and then compare the results.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

True. I am going to northwest portion called Toroweep. It is at 4000 foot elevation sometimes moderate haze, but being Monsoon season, I am hoping for drama. I don't mind bracketing. The idea was to rate the film speed, ie most have found Tmax to be slower than advertised from everything I have read so far. As you pointed I am new still. Only couple of years into large format and been a bit hit or miss. I know for sure that using zone 5 to place shadows in doesn't work so well. Seem to miss highlights by at least two stops. This another learning curve to get past. Anyone who says black and white is easy hasn't tried it.

[Peter De Smidt]

The black card will be measured to see which Zone I will give at least 0.1 above fb+f. That gives your EI. The white card exposed at that EI will be measured to see if it was developed appropriately. Either it will be, or it won't. If it is, then you're all set. If it's not, then a time adjustment will be estimated. Nothing useful can be done until the negatives are measured.

Exposure predominately determines shadow detail. Development mostly affects contrast and maximum density. You want to expose enough that you have the shadow tonality that you want, and develop just enough to get the tonality you want in the rest of the range.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Ok. I will post up my numbers tonight. I am sure they will not be as acurate as a densitometer, but can give an idea to see what needs to be done. I wish I had learned this when I was young.

[Drew Wiley]

TMax (either speed) does seem to have a bit stiffer learning curve than more forgiving films with more toe, but in the long run the extra effort is worth it, especially in the desert or mountains where lighting ratios can be extreme. Just be aware that pinkish Navajo sandstone etc might come out lighter than you had wished. A good thing to have along is a deep green filter. This will darken blue skies to bring out the clouds, and at the same time, somewhat tame reddish rocks. I'm sure you'll come back with something nice. All of us have our old war wounds from our early learning curve, yet are also constantly learning new things too. The challenge in itself is rewarding.

[Tin Can]

I downloaded your 8 tests on Flickr.

I am not the expert here, but I am following http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.php

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Cool. I follow Ken as well. Still working to make my results presentable.

[Jim Noel]

All this system is , is a new and complicated explanation of the tried and true 9 Negative test. Look it up in some old texts by Adams,or White, or Archer. Archer's explanation is the simplest for most people to understand.

[Peter De Smidt]

I respectfully disagree: It's not new, and it's not complicated.

[Drew Wiley]

If you're reading densities, TMax sheet films have an exceptionally clear fbf, around .05 or less (except when a staining pyro developer is involved). So a density for Zone 1 can be conservatively placed at .15 or a tad less. And if you're good with a spot meter, you can actually depend on shadow texture beginning on Z1 with TMax films. Zone 5 should still be "middle gray" equivalent to a gray card. In other words, you can dig deeper into the shadows with TMax film than most other pan films if you need to. If that intimidates you, then place your deepest shadow textural values on Z2 instead, that is, in high contrast scenes.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I got .1 for teh unexposed film. This was what vuescan gave me.

[Corran]

Steven - stay the course and, with respect, ignore everything Drew is saying, at least for now. You've done your test, so follow through and don't worry about the naysaying.

I have no idea what Vuescan "measures" or if it can be compared to a densitometer reading. Perhaps someone knows.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I agree. Peter D is going to measure the negatives for me and I will compare to Vuescan. I am not sure what it is doing exactly. Vuescan calls it density, but we shall see. Staying the course!

[Bill Burk]

I haven’t had good luck with VueScan densities although I appreciate how responsive Ed Hamrick is when you need support.

I have a few densitometers so I didn’t try very hard to get the software density measurements to work.

I’ll try to help when the numbers come in.

Generally speaking, placing shadows on Zone II or Zone III doesn’t necessarily put the thinnest part of your camera negative at the corresponding density. It puts the area you measured in a low density region where there still exists a little tone separation. In other words, you will be able to see that thing you metered in a print (because details can be a little darker still).

I strongly recommend using 64 as the speed on your meter if you are exposing by metering shadows and placing the reading on Zone II or Zone III. With the meter set to 64, in terms of the real speed what you would effectively be doing (because of the procedural difference between averaging and “spot-shadow”)... effectively you shoot the film between 50 (shadow on Zone III) and 100 (shadow on Zone II). Both 50 and 100 provide excellent results with TMAX-100.

[Bill Burk]

You do not need to know the development times to take pictures... You can work that out when you get back.

Just keep the N, N+ and N- negatives organized.

[Alan Klein]

I shoot medium format 120 Tmax 100 roll film with an RB67. I set exposure based on ASA 100 and a hand held light meter with incident light or 10% reflective. But then I bracket as well +1 and -1. I get it developed by a pro lab. They use Xtol at normal although I can request pulling and pushing at a small charge. I scan for slide show on a TV at home or posting on the web picking out the best of the 3 bracketed shots. I plan on printing let's say 16x20" in an outside lab although I'm not sure which would be the best print method.

Soooo. Is there anything I should do that would "improve" my methods for optimal results? Which printing process would be best?

[Alan Klein]

Oh. The lab will change developers from Xtol if requested at a $50 setup charge. But is that necessary? Also, here are some shots to give you an idea of what and how I shoot Tmax 100 currently.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157642492618713

[Peter De Smidt]

Alan, Xtol is an excellent developer. I wouldn't change it.

[Drew Wiley]

I was referring to real densities measured with a high quality transmission densitometer. This kind of measurement has actual reference standards, just like a watch or clock or calibrated ruler. I can't address shoot-from-the-hip improvised substitutes or some of the wing-it advice of certain BS posters. I've made hundreds of densitometer plots with TMax films with a wide range of filters and developers, and have good reason to state I understand these films quite well. An optimized exposure should need very little post-exposure curve tweaking.

[Peter De Smidt]

I will use a calibrated X-Rite 361T.

[Drew Wiley]

X Rite makes very good equipment. Here's part of the problem: If one rates TMY100 at 50, then places the shadows on Z3, for all practical purposes that puts the low texture placement on Z4. Now let's imagine a 10-stop lighting ratio (fairly common in the desert, or even higher). That means the highlights are actually going to be around Zone 14 (!!!) That will make those high densities very dense and hard to retrieve either scanning or printing directly, if they don't outright shoulder off. Conventional zone wisdom states to just Minus develop the hell out of them; but that results in flat blaah midtones, even an overall anemic look. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it wastes all the valuable real estate of the long straight line way down into the toe, characteristic of both TMax films. People who work this way seem to want to apply an old overexposed "thick negative" generic mentality from day of Tri-X and Azo contact papers to newer T-grained films that have been engineered much differently; or else they don't understand the real world circumstances often present in the desert or high mountains. I often have to deal with situations where the sparkle of fresh snow, or specular reflections on ice, or shiny glacial polish on rock, exists in the same scene as deep deep shadow. Those situations call for a specialty film with a very long straight line. In the past, films like Super-XX or Bergger 200 did that. But now we've got TMax films, with the added advantage of much finer grain. But if you don't even understand the basic distinction from these and ordinary medium or long-toed films, you waste the whole reason for these newer options. And for those who just want to compensate develop or Minus develop all the life out of them, those very tweaks tend to induce a sagging curve into the film with a longer toe than normal. There are exceptions; but it's important to get to first base first, before trying to steal the home plate. A beginner can of course bracket, and should for testing purposes do this with various contrast filter options. But eventually one has to learn to trust the quality control of the film, and not be unnecessarily scared into overexposing it three or four stops. Might as well throw away your light meter!

[Pere Casals]

I am not sure what it is doing exactly. Vuescan calls it density, but we shall see.

Just scan the negative alongside with the Stouffer wedge (a fast low res scan). See the gray level of a pixel in the image and later check what patch of the Stouffer has a similar level.

Even if you edited the curve you equally moved the image and the patches.

You always can make a refined interpolation of the pixel level and the densitities of two neighbour patches, but densities of two neighbour patches are close so you know a good aproximation of density with no calculation.

[Peter De Smidt]

Drew, if you want to give precise instructions of test procedures to people who ask for help, read their negatives for them, and help them understand what it mean, then by all means do so.

Btw, where can we see any of your pictures that you've taken with TMX?

[Corran]

:)

Peter, it is very nice of you to offer to read Steven's negatives. I keep thinking about getting a densitometer, but haven't. I used to be able to use one down at the university I worked at, which helped me suss out some issues in the past.

I am sure the test that has been done already will help Steven dial in his exposure/development.

[Pere Casals]

People who work this way seem to want to apply an old overexposed "thick negative" mentality from day of Tri-X and Azo contact papers to newer T-grained films

Well, also without any Azo.

With Tri-X/HP5 we not need to play a "thick negative" mentality, just a Normal negative mentality is ok. With TMax many times we have to go thinner than we want to not burn highlights.

TMax is linear in the highlights, easily reaching very high densities. Tri-X is shouldered, so it more easily captures highlight textures in a more suitable range of densities in the negative.

TMax has to be metered better, while it has a lot of highlight latitude well overexposed areas are more difficult to print optically, scanner+Ps route has less that problem, but in general we have to risk more in the shadows, thinner is also a risk.

The required thinner TMax negatives are a drawback, not the "good modern way".

Still TMax is an impressive film, we may ask Sexton, but it has that pitfall, if it was designed to have a shoulder then many times it would perform better. Why having linear highlights if later ending in not printable densities?


Nice to have linear and S shaped films, no one is better than the other. It's the photographer that should take advantage of what he uses.

[Drew Wiley]

Good morning, Pere. Well, it's still morning here. The current TMX100 has less risk of shouldering off than the first version. TMY400 has more room up there than TMX. But the main risk of overexpose is that these films build density rather quickly, being capable of a high gamma yielding excellent tonal separation. Even drum scanners can have a hard time with very high densitites; and in the darkroom they can be unprintable. Most low-contrast tweaks in developing, which might be otherwise used in an attempt to salvage overexposure, will induce a sag in the film curve and defeat the purpose for choosing these films to begin with. That's why I like to speak of OPTIMAL exposure techniques rather than just what is hypothetically possible in an attempt to salvage things gone wrong. There can be a substantial qualitative penalty to torture-printing an otherwise poorly exposed negative. The proof is in the pudding, not in generic advice that was questionable even in Tri-X days. Many of those seeming classic Tri-X contact prints, if the negatives are enlarged instead, show a lot of blank white in the enlarged highlights. That's due to the film shouldering off. If it were just a difference between modern VC paper and old longer-scale contact papers, that missing detail could just be tamed with a basic contrast mask. So what you mistakenly call a "pitfall" with TMax films, respecting shadow placement, is actually an enormous advantage among today's film selection. Some people are just too scared by moldy old stereotypes about film to skate anywhere except in the center of the ice rink. Go have some fun actually trying it, Pere, instead of just hypothesizing - your might be pleasantly surprised!

[Pere Casals]

21:00 PM here !



Even drum scanners can have a hard time with very high densitites;

What do you have in 2.8D densities in the TMX ? Even my cheapo V850 reaches comfortably 3.0D before having to use Multi-Exposure !

I only had problems recovering Velvia very deep shadows, never with negative films, color or BW.




So what you mistakenly call a "pitfall" with TMax films, respecting shadow placement, is actually an enormous advantage among today's film selections

I don't speak about shadow placement, but about burning highlights, tell me what advantage you see in the linearity of the highlights.

They could have the same shadows while formulating the deep cubic/ortho layer in a shouldered way !!!!




Go have some fun actually trying it, Pere, instead of just hypothesizing - your might be pleasantly surprised!

:)

Not only tested, also calibrated, see the sheet border, says TMX.


195130

195129

When making the shot I predicted 0.6D in that point, it resulted 0.59D, also some luck (Mouse cursor not seen in the screenshot but it was at top-left of the 0.59 reading). My precision densitometer also says 0.59D.

This is the single image I posted in two years, the Reversed image looks flat because curve is not edited... but I hope that the 138S print will be correct.

[Drew Wiley]

Do you actually print things, Pere? The point is to get a versatile negative. I have numerous friends that didn't have a darkroom yet, but wanted a head start, so did shoot film and managed to find a dark closet to develop it in, then evaluated their progress after a scan on a screen. When they finally got an opportunity to print some of those, there were some rude surprises. Ideally, someone might seek neg quality that will print either on darkroom paper or digitally. They want options. Or they might want a neg that will print decently on either silver gelatin paper as well as some kind of alt contact process. That's what placing the full range of values on the straight line allows. Last year I salvage printed a number of my very early sheet film negs that were virtually impossible in graded paper days due to being too dense, back when I myself was on the early stage the learning curve and unfortunately followed generic Zone System advice overexposing T-grain films. Some of those successfully print using modern VC papers; some don't. This past week I've been developing TMX exposures from roll-film backs, where frames cannot be individually developed for specific contrast. But I'm confident every single one of them will print without issue because they're all placed on the straight line over the entire contrast range. Of course, only a few exceptionally interesting images will actually get printed; but they're all properly exposed to do so, despite somewhat different lighting ratios on the same roll. Many of us have a distinct preference for darkroom printing, Pere. You need to take that into account before second-guessing my explanations.

[Pere Casals]

Do you actually print things, Pere?

Yes, I'm still a rookie for that. I feel strong controlling film but I feel very weak controlling paper, I'm advancing step by step. Now I'm learning/practicing the Alan Ross method to control local contrast with color masks on the BW negative, it's the path I've taken to improve, beyond basic manipulation skills.

I use Durst 138S with two old rodagons, and for MF LPL with VC head and a condenser Kaiser.




You need to take that into account before second-guessing my explanations.

Ok, explain me what benefit has TMX linearity in the highlights, what benefit ?

Of course processing has an impact with every film, but as a general trend of the film:


What do we gain having linearity beyond 1.5D ?

[Drew Wiley]

I already did give you a hint, Pere. I'm not trying to be rude, but just taking a brief break until my film is done in the washer, so might have to continue this discussion later. In the meantime, try to visualize how my own work often involves extreme contrast subjects. I spend a lot of time at high altitude, in the desert, and even routinely encounter extreme contrast here on the coast in the forest under open sun conditions. Most films simply won't handle that range without resorting to either minus or compensating development, which muddies up all the subtle tonality in between. In the old days, Super-XX worked superbly due to its extremely long straight line. Now T-grain films are the best option. But I do use other kinds of b&w film too. One shoe size does not fit all. Films differ, and I like to have several types around.

[Pere Casals]

Let me reiterate the question: What do we gain having linearity beyond 1.5D ?


____


Now T-grain films are the best option. But I do use other kinds of b&w film too.


Really, I don't see why T-grain is best for LF photography. It can be best for something, and probably TMX is technically the best, but for a certain work FP4 can be better. This is a YMMV,


For portraits I'm close following some advice from Neal Chaves (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150466-HP5-in-Xtol-and-HC-110-can-you-see-a-difference&p=1482309&viewfull=1#post1482309), HP5 rated 100 and HC-100 in my case.


Page 36 of the Darkroom Cookbook attacks the T-grain, LOL

"At first many photographers, myself included, anxious to be in the forefront of new
and better fi lm technology fell for the marketing hype. Kodak executives watched closely
as the sale of Tri-X dropped precipitously and the sale of T-Max 400 soared. When sales
of Tri-X reached a predetermined baseline, Kodak planned to discontinue it altogether.
Unfortunately for Kodak, in a very short time photographers worldwide realized that
T-Max was inferior to Tri-X. The reason is that the thin, fl at grains of silver literally do not
have the depth of rounded pebble shape grains which enable them to record microscopic
variations in contrast. In other words, the fl atter the grain the less capable it is of recording
micro-contrast. Almost overnight the sales fi gures reversed, and T-Max 400 nearly fell
off the sales charts. Kodak’s response was to increase the advertising budget for T-Max.
But the story does not end here..."



Many says that the Darkroom Cookbook is not worth because that single statement !

[Drew Wiley]

I recommend FP4 for beginners. It's more forgiving than T-grain films, but at the same time, very consistent and versatile. I still shoot and print quite a bit of FP4 when the extra expense of TMax is not justified. HP5 and ACROS are other favorites. But none of those films can handle the extreme contrast ranges TMax can. TMX100 in particular was originally engineered to replace several films; but most of that has been forgotten as those specialized technical applications largely transitioned over to digital substitutes. Kodak engineers knew what they were doing. The Darkroom Cookbook is serving up some rancid soup in this case; an utterly ridiculous, highly jaded statement by any informed standard. Such statements totally misrepresent the real characteristics of such films and of the relation of light to T-grain, which actually increases surface of lumen capture per grain size. Even the early versions of TMax were a big step forward. The microtonality was superb. Maybe some stubborn old goat was using an inappropriate silver solvent developer or had mold growing all over his film loupe. I don't know. But T-grain films have commercially flourished while many other film options died out, and analogous technology was even adopted by Ilford for their popular Delta product. But "best" is the wrong word, regardless. Best for what? T-Max films are especially versatile if you bother to understand them. But I don't think they're the best product for beginners, and I continue to use other film options as well for their own special look. I even shoot Tri-X once in awhile when I deliberately want accentuated grain and its own tonal signature; but I don't enlarge it very far.

[Pere Casals]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Let me ask again: What do we gain having linearity beyond 1.5D ?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



The Darkroom Cookbook is serving up some rancid soup in this case; an utterly ridiculous, highly jaded statement by any informed standard.

IMHO what is ridiculous is to say that TMY is better than TXP or saying that TXP is better than TMY.

Judging that is not understanding what a good photographer does with film.


By no means TXP is inferior to TMY or the counter. In the same way HP5+ is not inferior or superior. It is true that kodak products are "industrially" slightly better than the ilford ones, for example it looks that kodak film ages a bit better afte expiration, this comes from the great R&D investment kodak made in the good times, but for LF photography they are equal.







But T-grain films have commercially flourished while many other film options died out, and analogous technology was even adopted by Ilford for their popular Delta product.

If you save a big share of the silver then you can pay a lot of advertisements :)

Anyway for 35mm T-Grain makes a lot of sense if not wanting grain.

[Corran]

Note this thread is about TMX.

None of this is helping the OP.

[Pere Casals]

Note this thread is about TMX.

None of this is helping the OP.

Yes... we should compare TMX to FP4, regarding linear vs shoulder. Instead TMY to TXP.

Anyway he may complain, we won't get angry if he says that we are in a wrong way.

TMY and TMX are very similar, me I'm mostly speaking about the (IMHO) futile TMX/Y linearity in the hights, as kodak has not a cubic ISO 100 film to compare we moved to TMY.

But's the same concept: What do we gain having linearity beyond 1.5D ? And what do we loss???

[Corran]

I can tell you that TMX can give wonderful delicate tonalities in the highlights, without crushing them down to one single tone like some films and development. Putting it on paper is a different story, and specifically some VC papers with certain curves can be a real problem. Graded papers that I've used allow greater freedom to burn down those highlights into the usable paper tones.

One can not and should not expect any film to be "calibrated" so as to make a perfect print with all the tones perfectly in place without any burning and dodging or what have you.

[Pere Casals]

I can tell you that TMX can give wonderful delicate tonalities in the highlights, without crushing them down to one single tone like some films and development. Putting it on paper is a different story, and specifically some VC papers with certain curves can be a real problem. Graded papers that I've used allow greater freedom to burn down those highlights into the usable paper tones.

Of course.

Single problem is that TMX may require double burning time in the extreme highlights than a shouldered film, and this easily may damage the surrounding of those highlights. No problem if scanning, IMHO.




One can not and should not expect any film to be "calibrated" so as to make a perfect print with all the tones perfectly in place without any burning and dodging or what have you.

Well, there is a case, when the scene has a similar Dynamic range (or lower) than the paper. An scene having 6 stops range, (say in the shadow) can be directly placed on a paper that has similar range.

If the scene has a wider range then we have to compress (mainly) shadows and/or highlights, because all that scene range does not fit in the paper.

[Drew Wiley]

We can sort out all those kind of questions by getting more specific about developer choice. I've been working with both TMax films ever since they both came out, and use a variety of developers depending on general versus technical use. A staining pyro developer like PMK or Pyrocat makes the highlights quite cooperative. But with respect to the 100 speed version itself, due to its relatively poor edge effect (not detail capacity per se), I've resorted to a different dev tweak which significantly improves edge acutance, while at the same time, reining in the highlights a bit too. For portraiture (versus landscapes), I prefer the softer edges per se, and have stayed with pyro for TMX as well.

[Corran]

Developer is important. What actually in the scene is outside of the range (for example, water highlights in a waterfall). Printing technique (split filter printing, diffuse or condenser head, etc.) can be a factor.

The point of the OP's test is to establish a baseline, not to dial in the intricacies of the curves and papers used (note he is scanning only right now).

[Drew Wiley]

The standard advice applies here. Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. The baseline exposure can be affected by some developers if they are weak enough to induce a deep sag in the curve. But with most of the popular developers (D76, HC110, TMax RS, PMK, Pyrocat, Perceptol etc etc), you can expect reasonable results at full box speed due to the especially long straight line. You might still need to establish a personal ASA relative to your metering style or meter bias, and your confidence level.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

My goal is to learn the film characteristics based on 1 developer at a certain strength, temp and development time. From there learn how to manipulate development to achieve greater control. I shoot a lot of high contrast scenes as in, sunrise/sunset, extreme shadows and lights as in the Grand Canyon and more. Once I have an understanding of what Tmax can do for me, and my style of shooting and developing, I will then learn another technique such as 2 bath pyrocat or straight pyrocat or minimal agitation for certain effects. But whatever I choose after learning Tmax and Tmax developer my first goal is to become proficient at developing Tmax and using it in the field.

I can then use this skill to learn other films.

For now I scan only so my negatives are to be geared for that. Once our house is built and we have darkroom completed. I will then start looking at gearing negatives to wet process and learning that craft.

There are two people for now who's guidance I will follow. All posts so far are I formative, but like sticking to o e developer and film, I will be sticking to the two individuals who have been helping me.

Keep thread alive.

[Pere Casals]

For now I scan only so my negatives are to be geared for that.

Perhaps it would be interesting you make just a few contact copies to feel what paper is, this may open your mind about how a negative can be exposed/developed. I took bad habits when only scanning.

I don't propose a big effort, just a bulb, a filter set, a box of 25 papers, small trays and some Dektol.

If you engage 810 then contact copies are nice. It's atonishing to see one of those with a x8 magnifier, well, like inspecting the negative but reversed.


I tell this because initial pitfalls in the tonal scale on the paper may influence in the way you adjust your negative crafting, "print as soon as possible", Sexton would say, I guess.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Once I am settled in my new place I will think about that. I have wanted to try contact printing.