Thorny problem I can’t solve.

[Mark Sloane]

I went to the lab last night to develop some film and I got my first good negatives in 4x5. I’ve been using LF for about 6 mos and always end up with under exposed negatives.

My first ones were simply transparent. Then I added a stop, (slower shutter speed), and started to get some detail.

I am now finally at 4 stops slower than my meter calls for and I finally have a decent negative. The lab tech last night confirmed that the negs were excellent.

The six negatives I developed last night; 4 were taken with a 150mm and 2 were taken with a 210mm with identical results. Sooooooo…….it must be the meter right?

I taped my grey card to the wall and put my 2 x d200s and F5 on spot meter, used an 85mm prime, set my A to 4.5 and had the following results:

D200 A: 1/2.5
D200 B: 1/2.5
F5: 1/2
Spotmeter: 1/2 w/A at 4.05

The Minolta Spotmeter M does not show a 4.5 for A on it’s digital display.

I’m using TMAX 100 Readyloads so that might be a stop. Some folks have tested TMAX 100 to really be closer to ASA 50.

I shoot landscape and my focus is usually around infinity so I don’t have a bellows calc to worry about.

All my negs were exposed at 8 seconds or less.

Before I send my gear to skgrimes I wanted to see if anyone here could help. I know it has to be me (operator error) but I’m lost.

[Glenn Thoreson]

I'm confused. You say your negs were exposed at 8 seconds or less, what kind of light were you shooting in? Were you using filters? Were you shooting at 4.5? 8 seconds at 4.5 should give you detail of some kind, even if you were shooting the inside of a black cat in a coal mine. :D

[Mark Sloane]

I'm confused. You say your negs were exposed at 8 seconds or less, what kind of light were you shooting in? Were you using filters? Were you shooting at 4.5? 8 seconds at 4.5 should give you detail of some kind, even if you were shooting the inside of a black cat in a coal mine. :D

Sorry for the confusion.

An Image of a barn was exposed at f32 @ 4 sec and the bracket at f32 at 8 sec with a red filter with a filter factor of 5.

Spotmeter readings were low ev at 11 and high ev was 16.3. I wanted my middle grey closer to the lower ev so I averaged out at an ev of 13.

ev 13 with f32 = 1/8. Add 3 stops = 1s. Add 2.3 stops for filter factor 5 = 4s. Add 1 stop for bracket = 8s.

[BarryS]

Mark--tell us how you use the spot meter. Maybe you're having issues with the type of tones you're measuring (the highlights?). Do you know the sunny 16 rule (f/16 at the reciprocal of the film speed, e.g. 1/60 for TMAX100 under sunny conditions. Do you need to expose at 1/4 @ f/16 in the sun? I'd also wonder about the lab. Have you tried taking duplicate shots and splitting between labs? Four stops off is a *lot*, so you may have more than one issue at play. Seriously consider developing your own negatives for the cost and control reasons.

[BradS]

OK..

I'll assume that you have all of the light meters set to the same film speed - let's say, ASA 100.

then, the F5 is telling you that it reads f/4.5 , 1/2 sec with ISO 100 speed film...right? That means that the light is something like: 4.333 + 1 = 5.33 EV...not much light.

Now, you're saying that the Minota spot meter reads the exact same scene as: f/4, 1/2 sec - right? That's only 1/3 stop different from what the Nikon says - right? Am I understanding this correctly?

I am not familiar with the minolta spot meter but, either you don't have both the meter and the nikon set to the same film speed or...you're transferring th exposure data to your shutter wrong or...the shutter needs a serious going over...or, you don't really have TMAX 100 in those film holders....or, perhaps, you've loaded the film 'emulsion side down'?

[Mark Sloane]

Mark--tell us how you use the spot meter. Maybe you're having issues with the type of tones you're measuring (the highlights?). Do you know the sunny 16 rule (f/16 at the reciprocal of the film speed, e.g. 1/60 for TMAX100 under sunny conditions. Do you need to expose at 1/4 @ f/16 in the sun? I'd also wonder about the lab. Have you tried taking duplicate shots at splitting between labs? Four stops off is a *lot*, so you may have more than one issue at play. Seriously consider developing your own negatives for the cost and control reasons.

Barry,

I do develop my own film. Our lab tech at the darkroom is a very accomplished photographer and I always run my negs by him for analysis.

I use the spot meter by finding the highest ev value in the composition and the lowest. I write these down and then look for a middle grey. If I have time I pull my grey card as well. A little artistic lic to determine where my average should be as long as it's within 6 ev from high to low. On my clipboard is a form where I write the details of the exposure down. My form also has a place for filters and the filter factors so I know evactly how many stops to adjust. Just below the form is my ev table for iso 100.

Do you think I should expose some film according to the "sunny 16 rule"? I could try that. Shoot three at different speeds with each lens?

[ic-racer]

Finding your IE can be done by trial-and-error, as you are doing, and there is nothing wrong with that. Alternatively you can expose some negatives of a zone I target at varying exposure indexes (using your preferred meter) The frame producing a 0.1 log density would correspond to an acceptable exposure index for that lens/shutter/film/exposure meter combination.

[Mark Sloane]

OK..

I'll assume that you have all of the light meters set to the same film speed - let's say, ASA 100.

then, the F5 is telling you that it reads f/4.5 , 1/2 sec with ISO 100 speed film...right? That means that the light is something like: 4.333 + 1 = 5.33 EV...not much light.

Now, you're saying that the Minota spot meter reads the exact same scene as: f/4, 1/2 sec - right? That's only 1/3 stop different from what the Nikon says - right? Am I understanding this correctly?

I am not familiar with the minolta spot meter but, either you don't have both the meter and the nikon set to the same film speed or...you're transferring th exposure data to your shutter wrong or...the shutter needs a serious going over...or, you don't really have TMAX 100 in those film holders....or, perhaps, you've loaded the film 'emulsion side down'?

yes your correct on the metering. All 4, 2 x d200, the F5 and the spotmeter where within a 1/2 of a stop.

I don't load my own film. I use Kodak T-MAX 100 readyloads and I load them in the holder correctly.

[BradS]

yes your correct on the metering. All 4, 2 x d200, the F5 and the spotmeter where within a 1/2 of a stop.

I don't load my own film. I use Kodak T-MAX 100 readyloads and I load them in the holder correctly.


perhaps, applying a filter factor in the wrong direction? (I have to admit, I'm just grasping a the wind here).

[Mark Sloane]

The frame producing a 0.1 log density would correspond to an acceptable exposure index for that lens/shutter/film/exposure meter combination.

ic,

I'm reading between the lines here a little perhaps but are you suggesting that each combination of lens/shutter/film should have it's own EI with the same meter?

I would have hoped that with the shutters on all my lenses properly calibrated that I would have a uniform platform if I used the same film and meter.

[Mark Sloane]

perhaps, applying a filter factor in the wrong direction? (I have to admit, I'm just grasping a the wind here).

It's a good grasp because a filter factor 5 in the wrong direction would give you a delta of 4 2/3!

Fortunately I keep records of each exposure and if you go up to my 2nd post you will see the math.

[BradS]

ev 13 with f32 = 1/8. Add 3 stops = 1s. Add 2.3 stops for filter factor 5 = 4s. Add 1 stop for bracket = 8s.

OK, I missed this...let's go through it step by step...




ev 13 with f32 = 1/8. ok. As a sanity check against "Sunny Sixteen", for TMAX100 rated at EI 60, that would be one stop open from "Full Sun" - this seems reasonable. Is that a roughly accurate characterization of the light? Bright but, maybe a little overcast, high clouds kinda thing?

Add 3 stops = 1s OK. but, why? Magic? Was the light not as bright as discussed above?

Add 2.3 stops for filter factor 5 = 4s OK. but, four seconds here is only a filter factor of 4. I'd probably use a filter factor of 8x for the red filter but, this is pretty close and your bracket should cover the desired range.

Add 1 stop for bracket = 8s OK.

So, I guess the last shot, the one at eight seconds looked good? If so, I am stumped. The shutter speed doesn't even come into play at that speed. I'm not familiar with TMAX reciprocity charateristics but, I don't think TMAX should need an aditional three or four extra stops at one second!

That leaves developer / process and aperature calibration on the shutter(s)....could both shutters be off by the same three or four stops? Doubtful.

What is your film development process?

[Mark Sloane]

OK, I missed this...let's go through it step by step...

ev 13 with f32 = 1/8. ok. As a sanity check against "Sunny Sixteen", for TMAX100 rated at EI 60, that would be one stop open from "Full Sun" - this seems reasonable. Is that a roughly accurate characterization of the light? Bright but, maybe a little overcast, high clouds kinda thing? Correct

Add 3 stops = 1s OK. but, why? Magic? Was the light not as bright as discussed above? because my experience was that 2 stops with 3 stops for a bracket was still underexposed.

Add 2.3 stops for filter factor 5 = 4s OK. but, four seconds here is only a filter factor of 4. I'd probably use a filter factor of 8x for the red filter but, this is pretty close and your bracket should cover the desired range. The filter is a B&W F Pro 090 w/ filter factor of 5x.
Add 1 stop for bracket = 8s OK.

So, I guess the last shot, the one at eight seconds looked good? If so, I am stumped. The shutter speed doesn't even come into play at that speed. You're right. At 8 secs I'm set to B and use a stop watch. The meter checks out with the cameras. It must be the way I am metering the composition. so I'm not familiar with TMAX reciprocity charateristics but, I don't think TMAX should need an aditional three or four extra stops at one second!

That leaves developer / process and aperature calibration on the shutter(s)....could both shutters be off by the same three or four stops? Doubtful.

What is your film development process? I use Tmax developer for 6 min at 70 degrees on a motorized agitator. 1 min stop bath, 5 min fixer, 2 minutes wash aid, wash w/fresh water and a final bath in a solution (I forget the name) to help the neg dry without streaking.

[BradS]

OK. So, let's go back to the sanity check against the Sunny-16 rule....

if your scene is metering at 13EV, that means that it is one stop open (one stop more exposure needed) from "Bright - full sun, no clouds" for film rated at EI60 (Which seems reasonable for TMAX 100). (note: f/11, 1/60 sec = 7 + 6 = 13EV )

So, was your scene "pretty darned bright". mostly full sun, some high clouds or "hazy bright"?

[Mark Sloane]

OK. So, let's go back to the sanity check against the Sunny-16 rule....

if your scene is metering at 13EV, that means that it is one stop open (one stop more exposure needed) from "Bright - full sun, no clouds" for film rated at EI60 (Which seems reasonable for TMAX 100). (note: f/11, 1/60 sec = 7 + 6 = 13EV )

So, was your scene "pretty darned bright". mostly full sun, some high clouds or "hazy bright"?

Afternoon sun with clouds. I would say bright and not hazy. But I shot three scenes that trip all with 3 and 4 stops compensation......2 were sunny, one with some sun in a forest. All 6 negs were great.

What I am not doing is averaging based upon amount of high and low ev like a matrix exposure setting on a camera. For example: one of my scenes was Burney Falls through the trees. There was some highlights but not a lot. There was a lot of shadow however I did not take into consideration the amount of highlights and shadow. What I did focus on was can I get all the detail I want in the image properly exposed and where do I want my middle grey.

Is this wrong?

[Mark Sloane]

OK. So, let's go back to the sanity check against the Sunny-16 rule....



So I'm guessing I should shoot some film tomorrow based upon the sunny 16 rule and see what the results are. I only get into the lab on Monday evenings so I won't have the results for a week.

If the negs are spot on it's the meter? if the negs are underexposed it's the ??????

[BradS]

Now you lost me. I'm not a zonie...


Why don't you do this:

Next time take the Nikon F5 with you. Load it with TMX meter the scene with the F5. Let the F5's meter reading be your guide...or at least, use the Nikon F5 meter reading as a sanity check. Then shoot the scene with both just for fun.

I personally don't bother with the Zone system. I just take a couple of incident readings (or reflected average readings if I'm feeling really lazy) and go. I often simply meter the scene with my trusty old Nikon FA and trasfer the exposure settings to the LF lens.

You can't get much better metering that the Nikon F5. I think you may simply be over analyzing it.

[BradS]

So I'm guessing I should shoot some film tomorrow based upon the sunny 16 rule and see what the results are. I only get into the lab on Monday evenings so I won't have the results for a week.

If the negs are spot on it's the meter? if the negs are underexposed it's the ??????

no.


you all ready know the meter is fine (see your first post). It is your technique.

do what you're doing but, also meter the scene with the Nikon F5 and use that reading as a sanity check. Doing so will help you discover the error in your method. It will help you learn. If the two exposure calculations differ substantially, then you need to figure out why. In doing so, you will hone your own technique.

[Mark Sloane]

no.


you all ready know the meter is fine (see your first post). It is your technique.

do what you're doing but, also meter the scene with the Nikon F5 and use that reading as a sanity check. Doing so will help you discover the error in your method. It will help you learn. If the two exposure calculations differ substantially, then you need to figure out why. In doing so, you will hone your own technique.

Brad,

Thanks for all your help.....

[BradS]

Brad,

Thanks for all your help.....

Sorry to be so harsh...but...I didn't know how else to put it. If you are in the SF Bay area or up near Sonora, CA I would be happy to meet with you and we can work through some actual examples...and shoot some! :)

[Mark Sloane]

Sorry to be so harsh...but...I didn't know how else to put it. If you are in the SF Bay area or up near Sonora, CA I would be happy to meet with you and we can work through some actual examples...and shoot some! :)

Not harsh at all......I appreciate the advice.

"It is your technique" is the right answer. It's also the easiest and cheapest problem to solve!

I live in Danville in the East Bay and would enjoy working through some metering examples.

[BradS]

PM sent.

[Doremus Scudder]

Mark,

If I am reading the above (kind of confusing) exchange correctly, you are adding three stops or more to your meter reading to get a correctly exposed negative. You are doing this from experience, since exposing at the metered reading is way underexposed.

If the above is correct, you may be loading your film emulsion-side down in the holders. This would take a lot more light (3+ stops over the metered reading) to expose properly. Do check this. The code notch on the sheet should be in the upper-right corner when the emulsion is facing you. This side of the sheet should face the lens (i.e. this is the side facing up in the holder).

Let us know how you get on.

Doremus Scudder

[Jay Wolfe]

Mark,


If the above is correct, you may be loading your film emulsion-side down in the holders. This would take a lot more light (3+ stops over the metered reading) to expose properly. Do check this. The code notch on the sheet should be in the upper-right corner when the emulsion is facing you. This side of the sheet should face the lens (i.e. this is the side facing up in the holder).

Let us know how you get on.

Doremus Scudder

Good thought, but he's using Readyloads, although not for long.

[Richard M. Coda]

ic,

I'm reading between the lines here a little perhaps but are you suggesting that each combination of lens/shutter/film should have it's own EI with the same meter?

That is correct. Sometimes you get lucky and you will end up with the same EI for some lenses/films.

[Mark Sloane]

Doremus,

Jay is correct, I use readyloads and I rechecked the diagrams on the box to make sure I was loading them correctly. I wish that was the problem.

It seems from Richard's post that I need to develop an EI for each lens which I haven't done. Is this because of the variance in shutter speeds?

Can the aperture blades get out of adjustment too? If so I would imagine the entire range of aperture settings will be out by the same amount?

So……If I am 3 to 4 stops + with my 150mm and 210mm, go out and shoot my 90mm and 300mm with the same settings and narrow it down exposure after exposure until I get a correct EI for each lens?

Wow….what a pain in the butt! I don’t have a darkroom in my house. I have to go to a lab 30 minutes away on Monday nights to have access to a darkroom.

Jay….Is Kodak doing away with readyloads?

[Oren Grad]

It seems from Richard's post that I need to develop an EI for each lens which I haven't done. Is this because of the variance in shutter speeds?

No. Between the performance of modern shutters and the latitude of print film, normally there should be no need to do this.


Can the aperture blades get out of adjustment too? If so I would imagine the entire range of aperture settings will be out by the same amount?

Again, not something you should usually have to worry about.


Is Kodak doing away with readyloads?

Yes, they've been discontinued - they were assembled by Polaroid which is shutting down, and it wasn't cost-effective for Kodak to reestablish production somewhere else.

Mark, the likeliest bet is that this is a matter of metering technique. If you have a chance to catch up with Brad or someone else and do a few exercises together, that ought to go a long way toward sorting this out. Good luck!

[Mark Sloane]

Thanks Oren,

I will try to spend some time w/ Brad next week if he is available. I have his phone number.

[Stephen Benskin]

Mark,

I might have missed it, but have you discussed your processing? Choice of developer and degree of development will have a lot to do with the results. One thing to look for is in the shadows. Are they nonexistent with the "underexposed" negatives or are they just really thin and somewhat relational to the over all density?

What type of lab are you using? Is it at school? Many schools have their students reuse the chemistry to a certain point which is seldom closely monitored. In other words, the chemistry could be close to exhausted. Who is mixing the chemistry? Are you processing for the wrong ratio without knowing about it?

One more thing. I found your post about development. You say you develop the film in T-Max developer. Is it T-Max or T-Max RS? The two developers are not the same. I seem to recall Kodak not recommending the T-Max developer with sheet films. If it's RS, then the times for rotary tubes sound about right considering reciprocity (Kodak has 7 1/4 minutes at 70 degrees) or at least not so far off as to produce the results you are getting.

[Mark Sloane]

Mark,

I might have missed it, but have you discussed your processing? Choice of developer and degree of development will have a lot to do with the results. One thing to look for is in the shadows. Are they nonexistent with the "underexposed" negatives or are they just really thin and somewhat relational to the over all density?

What type of lab are you using? Is it at school? Many schools have their students reuse the chemistry to a certain point which is seldom closely monitored. In other words, the chemistry could be close to exhausted. Who is mixing the chemistry? Are you processing for the wrong ratio without knowing about it?

One more thing. I found your post about development. You say you develop the film in T-Max developer. Is it T-Max or T-Max RS? The two developers are not the same. I seem to recall Kodak not recommending the T-Max developer with sheet films. If it's RS, then the times for rotary tubes sound about right considering reciprocity (Kodak has 7 1/4 minutes at 70 degrees) or at least not so far off as to produce the results you are getting.

Stephen,

Thanks for the info. I go to a darkroom on Monday night and pay $5 an hour to develop film and make prints. My film, my paper, their chemicals.

I will check for what kind of tmax developer. We do not reuse the developer and I mix the ratios. We do reuse the stop bath, fixer and wash aid.

I didn’t think it was the developing process because I use Tmax for 35mm and process it the same way w/excellent results.

I will print your post and take it to the lab with me. The lab technicians are terrific and always willing to help.

I tend to agree with the other posters that it must be my technique but every bit of info helps…..thanks

[Mark Sloane]

I went to the lab last night to make some prints, (sometimes it’s open on a Wed. night).

The T-MAX developer is not RS and specifically says for “Roll film only”!

I also found that the master catalog I was using for my development time for T-MAX recommends only 6 minutes and Kodak recommends 8 min for large tank for roll and 8.5 min for sheet film in a large tank w/T-MAX RS.

After printing test strips the lab tech and I both agreed that the lighter negs, the plus 3 stop exposure, were the best and I printed those.

If you attribute a stop to film speed (T-MAX 100 may be slower the 100)/some bellows factor/missing a 1/3 stop in my calc, etc……could using the wrong developer for 2 minutes shorter than recommended be the remaining two stop difference?

The lab tech suggested that once I had the right combination for a good neg, stay with it, remain consistent and then start to change up the process in small steps in order to achieve better results.

Even though that makes a ton of sense I am concerned about using the wrong developer (not RS), the wrong time (6 min instead of 8), and forcing myself to shoot 3 to 4 stops slower.

I’m off to the woods at the beginning of October for two weeks of fly fishing and photography so I will not have the opportunity to make significant changes to my current process till I get back, buy my own developer and make some tests.

[Jay W]

I have two thoughts.

1. Seems obvious, but maybe F32 is not F32. I'd take a close look at how you're setting the lens opening and take a look through the lens to see if the number seems to match the opening. I have a 210 that has an arrow to the F-stop, and I could see confusing the setting with another part of the aperture setting. There could be a mechanical problem with the lens opening also (you might have F128 when you set F32).

2. I'n sure Kodak has recommendations for tray developing (I prefer tray developing), and that would take a lot of variation out of the processing agitation and the amt of chemistry used. Try a sheet tray processing with light continous agitation and something simple like D-76 straight.

I usually shoot at ASA (I'm showing my age) 80 and meter the scene similar to you. I used to shoot at 50, but my negs tended to be a bit heavy. I can't imagine 8s at F32 without producing black negs.

Jay

[Oren Grad]

The specific problem with T-Max developer is that some users find that it causes dichroic fog with sheet film. Other users get away with it, though.

But you can't tell what the proper time would be for T-Max developer by looking at the recommendation for T-Max RS - they're different products. You can work out optimal times for T-Max developer by running your own bracketed development tests, but it may not be worth the trouble given the fog risk.

Apart from the dichroic fog problem with T-Max developer, almost every other commonly-available developer should give decent results with T-Max films. I prefer D-76 myself, but there are also many satisfied users of Xtol, T-Max RS, HC-110B, etc. Just pick one, start again with the recommended time for that developer, and see where that gets you.

Do bear in mind that T-Max films are relatively sensitive to changes in development time compared to traditional films. So, for example, a 25% shortfall from the optimal time with a given developer could indeed be a problem. I don't know whether that would be enough to explain your results. But you certainly should start again with the recommended time/temp for some other developer, see what you get, and we can go from there.

[Brian Ellis]

I haven't read the responses or anything other than your original message, which I didn't fully understand. So if this duplicates what's already been said, or is unresponsive to what you're really asking, my apologies.

You can't expect to get good results by simply saying "I opened up 4 stops from the meter reading and got my first good negative, therefore from now on I'll just open up 4 stops and I'll get a good negative." It all depends on what part of the scene you're metering and on the contrast range of the scene. Obviously a spot meter only meters a tiny part of a scene. So you'll get very different results depending on whether you start by metering the brightest area, the darkest area, or something in between.

To get technically "good" negatives with a spot meter just meter the darkest area of the scene in which you want to see some texture or detail (i.e. an area that you want to appear very dark in the print but not solid black), then open up one or two stops from there. That may occasionally give you blown out highlights depending on the contrast range of the scene and at that point you can start learning how to adjust your development times (or how to tell the lab to adjust your development times, though you really should do your own developing) to reduce the highlight density when necessary. But for now just worry about the exposure side of the equation.

Since you have a properly functioning spot meter I don't see any reason to confuse things by also using digital cameras or the sunny 16 rule.

[rachase]

I agree with Brian in that you shouldn't have to be content with calculating an exposure time and then have to add 3 or 4 stops to the value. The 'discrepancy' in stops might not be constant for all types of images. I would use a little experimentation or 'fault analysis' to get to the bottom of it. First, keep it simple - don't use a filter or shoot close-up. Use a grey card. Make sure that the subject isn't too contrasty, that is it doesn't span too many EI values as measured with your spot meter. Keep the calculations simple. If you are still off 3 or 4 stops, try different films and/or developers. Try using a film holder instead of using Readyloads. Be sure to use both of your lenses. Keep accurate records as you go. Perhaps your problem is a sum of minor inaccuracies. Good luck!

[Mark Sloane]

I agree with Brian in that you shouldn't have to be content with calculating an exposure time and then have to add 3 or 4 stops to the value. The 'discrepancy' in stops might not be constant for all types of images. I would use a little experimentation or 'fault analysis' to get to the bottom of it. First, keep it simple - don't use a filter or shoot close-up. Use a grey card. Make sure that the subject isn't too contrasty, that is it doesn't span too many EI values as measured with your spot meter. Keep the calculations simple. If you are still off 3 or 4 stops, try different films and/or developers. Try using a film holder instead of using Readyloads. Be sure to use both of your lenses. Keep accurate records as you go. Perhaps your problem is a sum of minor inaccuracies. Good luck!

Thanks guys…I appreciate the feedback.

When I meter for a shot I write down the lowest ev for shadow detail and the highest ev within the composition. I then try to determine what portion of the composition I want for middle grey and then meter it and write it down. I am very cognizant of keeping my composition with in 6 ev values from the lowest to highest. I often use grad nd filters to stay with in 6 ev.

At first using these calculations I would get completely transparent negs. We could tell they were properly developed by the text written on the edge of the neg, “Kodak T-MAX 100”.

I then began adding two stops and started to get some density. I had my lenses and meter checked by a shop in SF and everything checked out.

I am now adding 3 stops and a fourth stop for a bracket and am getting the proper density.

I have tested my meter against 3 others and both lenses appear to be in good working order as verified by the tech in SF and the fact that they both need the same exposure compensation.

Bellows extension is not an issue because I shoot mainly landscape at infinity.

My next course of action is to start using T-MAX RS for a developer, going to 7 minutes development time instead of 6 and meeting with a member of this forum, hopefully next week, to go through a couple of setups.

I thinking that is just may be a accumulation of small issues: Film speed is probably a slower than 100 (I’m too lazy to test it), poor developing technique on my part, poor metering skill like not adding up all the 1/3 and 2/3 stops for filters, sometimes rounding up or down ev values in my head and so on.

My guess is that my auto everything F5 and D200 have made me a lazy and sometimes sloppy photographer and I need to up my game.

I’ll give you an update in November: I’m taking off to the woods for two weeks in Oct and Mexico for a week early in November. I won’t get a chance to test everything till the end of November.

Thanks again for all the advice……Mark

[john borrelli]

I may have missed this but have all your negatives been developed by you at that workshop lab? If so my guess is that the processing part is the problem, not your camera equipment or metering technique.

I mean to be off 4 stops or more with B&W film, even though TGrain films can be tricky, is not easy to do consistently even with equipment that has the average amount of problems.

I would do everything the same then I would take the film to the best lab you can find.

[Henry Ambrose]

Thanks guys…I appreciate the feedback.
well snipped....
I thinking that is just may be a accumulation of small issues: Film speed is probably a slower than 100 (I’m too lazy to test it), poor developing technique on my part, poor metering skill like not adding up all the 1/3 and 2/3 stops for filters, sometimes rounding up or down ev values in my head and so on.
snipped more....
……Mark

"Film speed is probably a slower than 100 (I’m too lazy to test it)"

Now go out and shoot a three sheet test.

Find an evenly lit scene with varied and full range tones - maybe your house or another nearby building. Full sunlight might be nice so you can check your metering against sunny 16. Set your meter film speed to 64. (this is your new personal film speed for Tmax) Meter the scene. If your scene is in full sun you ought to be at f16 and 1/60th. If so and you get a different number you are metering wrong. Set the speed and aperture as directed by the meter. Expose film. Write down exactly what you did. Process one sheet according to published times and technique, second at 10% shorter and the third at 10% longer. Inspect result. You will likely be very, very close with one of the sheets.

Other things for later:

Stop with the EV and conversions. Use stops like a real photographer. Get a meter that lets you do this. While you're at it get a meter that does both reflective and incident. You'll be glad you did this.

Red filters on Tmax don't use "normal" filter factors - Google this. Orange will likely do what you want and cost you less light. And medium yellow will do a lot more than you'd think.

[Mark Sloane]

"Film speed is probably a slower than 100 (I’m too lazy to test it)"

Now go out and shoot a three sheet test.

Find an evenly lit scene with varied and full range tones - maybe your house or another nearby building. Full sunlight might be nice so you can check your metering against sunny 16. Set your meter film speed to 64. (this is your new personal film speed for Tmax) Meter the scene. If your scene is in full sun you ought to be at f16 and 1/60th. If so and you get a different number you are metering wrong. Set the speed and aperture as directed by the meter. Expose film. Write down exactly what you did. Process one sheet according to published times and technique, second at 10% shorter and the third at 10% longer. Inspect result. You will likely be very, very close with one of the sheets.

Other things for later:

Stop with the EV and conversions. Use stops like a real photographer. Get a meter that lets you do this. While you're at it get a meter that does both reflective and incident. You'll be glad you did this.

Red filters on Tmax don't use "normal" filter factors - Google this. Orange will likely do what you want and cost you less light. And medium yellow will do a lot more than you'd think.

Henry,

I just got back from the lab this evening. I mixed up a batch of XTOL and processed 4 sheets of film as per the Kodak document J-108 dated March 2008.

I composed a shot at noon today and it metered 1/60 at f16 at ISO 100. I then exposed 3 more sheets at f16 with times of 1/30, 1/15 and 1/8.

The neg at 1/30 turned out to be the best neg which is perfect! If I had metered the composition using ISO 64 I’m sure the first neg would have been spot on.

So poor developing skills was the gremlin. I still have few more gremlins in my Jobo Tube but that’s another thread!

“Red filters on Tmax don't use "normal" filter factors - Google this. Orange will likely do what you want and cost you less light. And medium yellow will do a lot more than you'd think.”

I think you forgot to tell me what to “google”. I did google Red filters on Tmax and got an interesting article by David Kachel.

Anyway.....thanks for the advice.....Mark

[Daniel_Buck]

So poor developing skills was the gremlin.

Wow, so the problem was developing, this whole time? Glad you tracked it down! Might I ask what you did different this time? Or rather, what specifically was the problem in your developing?

[Mark Sloane]

Wow, so the problem was developing, this whole time? Glad you tracked it down! Might I ask what you did different this time? Or rather, what specifically was the problem in your developing?

Daniel,

There is this wonderful organization near my home dedicated to all forms of photography. Last year I signed up for the traditional printing classes. In addition, every Monday I get use their darkroom for $5/hr.

The instructor for the printing class is terrific and an accomplished photographer in his own right.

The problem is that he is a Medium Format guy and only processes rolls and never TMAX.

So this led to the error of processing sheet film using TMAX developer for rolls only at a ratio of 1:4 for 6 minutes at 70 degrees.

Using XTOL at 70 degrees for 7.75 minutes did the trick.

I should also mention that I use a Jobo 42XX Drum on a Uniroller base. I’m not consistent enough for manual agitation.

So…I lost a lot of time trying to figure this mess out. The folks on this forum made the difference for me so thanks everyone........Mark