Tmax 400 in Barry's Two Bath

[dazedgonebye]

I'm looking for a faster film to shoot in 4x5 and develop in Barry's two bath formula.
I like the ease of that developer, and I've gotten good results using a number of slow to medium speed films. I think I've run a roll of tri-x through it, but since tri-x 400 isn't available in 4x5....
To sample Tmax 400, I shot a 35mm roll, since I don't have any 4x5 laying around.
I'm just trying to get a feel for the quality I'd get from tmax in barry's and a 100% crop should be the same no matter the size of the negative.

Down-sampled web image:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3410/3211949778_6cd9a43610_o.jpg

100% crop from 2400 dpi scan:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/3212113194_31abd150ae_o.jpg

I'm not loving it.

Between my other two choices, Tri-x 320 and HP5, any guesses which will look better done in Barry's?

[D. Bryant]

I'm looking for a faster film to shoot in 4x5 and develop in Barry's two bath formula.
I like the ease of that developer, and I've gotten good results using a number of slow to medium speed films. I think I've run a roll of tri-x through it, but since tri-x 400 isn't available in 4x5....
To sample Tmax 400, I shot a 35mm roll, since I don't have any 4x5 laying around.
I'm just trying to get a feel for the quality I'd get from tmax in barry's and a 100% crop should be the same no matter the size of the negative.


I'm not loving it.

Between my other two choices, Tri-x 320 and HP5, any guesses which will look better done in Barry's?

TMAX-400. I assume you are concerned about grain. If so 35 mm won't be indicative of the results you will get with 4x5 film when enlarged.

The new TMAX 400 is the sharpest 400 speed B&W film out there.

Don Bryant

[dazedgonebye]

TMAX-400. I assume you are concerned about grain. If so 35 mm won't be indicative of the results you will get with 4x5 film when enlarged.

The new TMAX 400 is the sharpest 400 speed B&W film out there.

Don Bryant

I could be thinking this through wrong...but, shouldn't a 100% crop be the same no matter the size of film it was taken from? I would think that, as long as the scan resolution is the same and I look at the same sized sample, I should be able to compare films regardless of the format.

Also, I've never shot Tmax before but I know it has an excellent reputation. I'm assuming the less than pleasing results are the result of my processing.

[Brian Ellis]

Possibly I don't understand what you're doing but it seems to me that a 100% crop of an area (the boy's face in this case) from a 35mm negative is going to be much smaller than a 100% crop of the same area from a 4x5 negatives. To make prints of the same size from the crops, you'll be enlarging the cropped area from a 35mm negative much more than from the 4x5 negative. Hence more grain from the 35mm crop than from the 4x5 crop of the same area. So trying to determine what 4x5 TMax 400 will look like by using 35mm film doesn't seem like an accurate method.

[Skorzen]

to me it appears that the image you posted is roughly 5X7 on my screen (at it's resolution) indicating about a 5X enlargement (or 20X25 in 4X5). The crop is about a third of the width of the frame so that would work out to a 15X enlargement or a 60X75 print. As 10X is considered the practical limit for most film and seeing as this is 400 iso, I think it is pretty darn good. Also you don't mention how you scanned the negative which can be very important in the quality of the output.

[Paul Kierstead]

I could be thinking this through wrong...but, shouldn't a 100% crop be the same no matter the size of film it was taken from? I would think that, as long as the scan resolution is the same and I look at the same sized sample, I should be able to compare films regardless of the format.

You can compare films, but when you do that, you are ignoring the output. You have to consider how the films are used, and they are not at all used the same. Specifically, the 4x5 will be enlarged a great deal less, or alternately be viewed from much further away.

You've been reading too many digital forums :)

[venchka]

Sandy King compared the new Tmax 400 exposed at 400 to Tmax 100 in an article in View Camera magazine. Both films exposed in the same camera and developed in D-76, possibly 1:1. Sandy's conclusion: Both films were, for all practical purposes, identical up to 32"x40" enlargements.

In the real world, if you like the way the new Tmax 400 film looks, use it. Enjoy the extra stop or 2. Grain won't be a problem. Heck, you won't see it. If you need to make billboards, you might want to use a finer grained film.

[David Karp]

I use this formula with HP5+, which is grainier than TMX400. The question is: How big do you want to enlarge your negatives? At 11x14, which is the largest I usually print, grain is a non-issue with HP5+ and Thornton's 2 bath formula. I am confident that I could go substantially larger with perfectly good results.

If you are worried about grain, perhaps using a staining developer would be more to your liking, since it will help mask the grain. As you probably know, the Thornton formula uses only metol as the developing agent, so it is a sharp developer. In addition, the sodium sulfite is reduced to 80g/L, so the grain dissolving effect found in D23 or D76 is not experienced. This is going to result in accentuated grain, which will be visible if you enlarge big enough.

I think there were some posts by Sandy King on APUG regarding using Pyrocat MC as a 2 bath developer. My recollection is that you still diluted the chemicals, so that it is a 1-shot, 2-bath approach. I was going to try it, but have never gotten around to it because I like what I am getting using FP4+ and HP5+ with Thornton's formula. An advantage would be that the Pyrocat MC in glycol would last forever, so you could be confident just whipping some up before using it. I have never felt like testing the Thornton formula to see if it lasts as long as Diafine, so I have to toss unused developer if it has been sitting a long time.

[dazedgonebye]

You can compare films, but when you do that, you are ignoring the output. You have to consider how the films are used, and they are not at all used the same. Specifically, the 4x5 will be enlarged a great deal less, or alternately be viewed from much further away.

You've been reading too many digital forums :)

I know...I try to leave the pixel peeping behind but sometimes, it's the only tool that's readily available to attempt to predict results without laying out the time and effort to discover them.

[dazedgonebye]

I use this formula with HP5+, which is grainier than TMX400. The question is: How big do you want to enlarge your negatives? At 11x14, which is the largest I usually print, grain is a non-issue with HP5+ and Thornton's 2 bath formula. I am confident that I could go substantially larger with perfectly good results.

If you are worried about grain, perhaps using a staining developer would be more to your liking, since it will help mask the grain. As you probably know, the Thornton formula uses only metol as the developing agent, so it is a sharp developer. In addition, the sodium sulfite is reduced to 80g/L, so the grain dissolving effect found in D23 or D76 is not experienced. This is going to result in accentuated grain, which will be visible if you enlarge big enough.

I think there were some posts by Sandy King on APUG regarding using Pyrocat MC as a 2 bath developer. My recollection is that you still diluted the chemicals, so that it is a 1-shot, 2-bath approach. I was going to try it, but have never gotten around to it because I like what I am getting using FP4+ and HP5+ with Thornton's formula. An advantage would be that the Pyrocat MC in glycol would last forever, so you could be confident just whipping some up before using it. I have never felt like testing the Thornton formula to see if it lasts as long as Diafine, so I have to toss unused developer if it has been sitting a long time.

Thanks David,
Grain probably isn't the most important factor. I love the tonality I get from FP4 in Thorntons. I'm sure someone can tell me combinations that are better...I just don't think I need them, or the hassle of learning them.
If you have a link to any images of HP5 in Thornton's, I'd like to see them. Anything else large format done in Thornton's would be appreciated as well.