TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner...

[jim kitchen]

Dear Group,

I had a few moments this past summer to do some incremental film development experimentation, since I could not find any oil and gas contracts and, or the assigned contracts I secured in the Spring were trampled by the economy and subsequently cancelled, so I decided to take these new found moments in time to review my TMY and XTOL development procedure. I decided that my main objective would be to conduct a developer dilution and development time review, to see whether I could find a refined negative highlight density, that allowed me to scan a TMY negative developed in XTOL more effectively.

I wanted to find a development procedure that allowed me to control and dampen the TMY's highlights more effectively, and to determine whether I could introduce a compensating development procedure to TMY and XTOL. So, I spent the summer reviewing my process, and reviewing the results, where I believe I now have a refined development process that accommodates my flatbed scanner, and a refined process that makes my drum scanner operator smile.

To set the stage, I have a TMY and XTOL development procedure for the darkroom, but I periodically discovered that my darkroom negatives were too thick for the scanner, and although I could scan the TMY XTOL negative on a drum scanner, my flatbed scanner would take it upon itself to introduce annoying artifacts within the near saturated highlights for obvious reasons. My zone system procedure worked properly in the darkroom while using silver paper, but now my negatives continue to rest upon a totally different device, and the device subsequently choked on the input data. I am pleased with the results, and I welcome you to try my development times and new XTOL dilutions. I was not successful with Divided Development during this exercise, but I will review that specific process thoroughly during the winter months.

I discovered that TMY is very linear with XTOL, and I also discovered that my new method to reduce the film's highlights meant that my shadow details sank deeper into Zones that only a mother could love. This leads me to believe that I should change my TMY ISO rating for each reduction in processing time, which is not what I want to do manually now, so I shall save that review for a winter exercise. The dilutions and the times suit me well currently. As a side note, I also noticed that TMY has an unbelievable and extraordinary ability to retain detail within the weakest shadows that I could capture on a negative. Absolutely amazing…

Lastly, and for your convenience, I attached a PDF file containing my revised development times, and my revised dilutions regarding TMY and XTOL. I hope the PDF explains the development procedure well enough for everyone.

Please note that the development times have different dilutions… :)

Have fun if you decide to experiment with saturated highlights while using TMY and XTOL.

jim k

[Ron Marshall]

Thanks Jim for sharing your results, especially since TMY/Xtol is my preferred combination, using the Jobo and scanning.

Did you ever try two solution compensating development, ie. one or so minutes in Xtol 1:0 to improve shadow detail, then drain and replace with dilute developer?

[Andrew ren]

this will be a great thread for us to discuss such things!

Thanks for sharing, Jim!

Andrew

[jim kitchen]

Did you ever try two solution compensating development, ie. one or so minutes in Xtol 1:0 to improve shadow detail, then drain and replace with dilute developer?

Dear Ron,

Yes I did, and I found that I needed to do more research...

However, I found that I could do a 1:1 and, or a 1:0 solution for one minute, and then 1:9 solution for various development times, allowing for fifteen second drain times between solution exchanges. I did this to see whether there was any advantage to building the shadow detail quickly, and the allowing it to rest while the highlights were subdued within the 1:9 dilution. I could not abruptly change the shape of the curve as it approached Zone 3, maintaining the development curve as in Normal Development, and then have the curve taper off to a lower value Zone 5 out near Zone 8, acting as a compensating developer. I think redirecting TMY's curve could be tough to do, knowing TMY's linearity.

I was limited by my belief that I had to maintain 100 ml for each 8X10 sheet of film, so I limited my tests to one 8X10 at a time, but that could change in my next session of experimentation.

I think it will work, where I must find the correct dilution, and the break point time for the first developer, then find the best second dilution would be key.

jim k

[Ron Marshall]

Hi Jim,

So far I have only tried semi-stand two solution compensating dev. But your data has inspired me to do a comparison between semi-stand and continuous agitation compensating. I'll post scans if there is any signifigant difference.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Ron,

Two heads are better than one... :)

That would be great.

I thought about stand development too as the second half of the development process, but I wanted to include that in my next session. I just need to find a container big enough to hold the required developer volume, so I could fill the JOBO J3005 Drum top to bottom, once the first stage of development is complete.

jim k

[Steve Gledhill]

Jim,
Thanks for sharing your results with us and for all the work you must have put in to get this data set. I'm a TMY/XTOL/Scanner user myself and have been for several years (well it was TMX until it was no longer available in Readyloads so I took the advantage of the new TMY and upspeeded (upsped?)) - and by trial and error I arrived at a very similar conclusion to you, at least as far as N goes, though I do rate mine at 400. So very similar - i.e. much shorter than for the darkroom. My N time is 9 minutes instead of your 8.5 but otherwise the same 1:2, continuous, 24C. But where we differ is that I find that I no longer need take any notice of + or - development for any of the work that I do. I have all of the shadow detail that I could ever need and even with high high highlights I get sufficient separation for my scanner (V700). It's a real boon not to have to separately process for each N. The scanner is where I stretch or compress rather than in the development. I arrived at my 9 minutes by progressively reducing from 12 minutes where I started and finding that each reduction gave me even better negatives for scanning. After seeing your results I may try a batch at less than 9 minutes to see if I can get even better.

[Allen in Montreal]

Jim,

That is incredibly generous of you to share the results of what is clearly, a very time consuming and expensive experiment to gather and perfect this info.
Given the amazing results of your work that you have posted here, I am sure this will be an inspiration to many!

[jim kitchen]

Gentlemen,

Thank you, it is my pleasure, but there happens to be a bit of fine tuning left to do... :)

That said, Steve, I did this exercise to assist my scanning knowledge and to minimize the inherent artifacts that can surface in the highlights, and I wanted to see whether any reduction in highlight density would be beneficial. The heavier densities present in Zone 9, 10, 11, 12, and beyond are the Zones I want to control, so much so, that I knew I may be fighting with TMY's great linearity. XTOL happens to be my choice because it is locally abundantly on a continuous basis, and I do like this film developer combination. So, if you decide to review your development, please note that I changed the dilution rates when I approached the compensation development times. Your scanning approach is interesting and an approach I never considered, but many may do this inherently as a drum scan operator might, with curves prior to scanning.

Frequently I am in a situation, as I would guess that many of you are, where I want to capture the entire dynamic range in the scene, and I knew that I had not explored XTOL's full capability, acting as a two solution developer, not a divided developer, so I decided to see how far I could push XTOL and TMY before it broke with experimentation.

TMY set at 400 is great too, but I always tend to open the film just a touch more, to get my baseline Zone 1 to be about 0.15 above film base fog. Setting the ISO at 250 just happens to work with my equipment, my lenses, my light meter, and my development process. Setting the ISO at 400 would underexpose my negative by a mere 0.70 f-stop, and an ISO setting at 320 would underexpose the negative by a mere 0.4 f-stop. I do believe you may be hard pressed to see the difference visually in the highlights, especially whether you scan an image or not, but I do believe the low level shadows may be less forgiving. Once you have lost the shadow detail, it is gone. Though I open the film up by 0.7 f-stops, I still know where my Zone 3 happens to be, yet I expose my Zone 3 as a zone 4 and develop the film; accordingly, allowing when me to print the Zone 4 down to Zone 3. If I go too dark, guess what, I still have detail in the shadows that I can open up as required, keeping the shadow area as dark as I like.

TMY holds so much detail in the shadows it is spooky, and if I could control the highlights more than I have earlier, I may be able to get that feeling I once had with FP4 and HC-110, while using HC-110 as an extreme dilute, no agitation compensating developer. Currently, I am not a fan of TMY and HC-110, but I could be if I returned to printing in the darkroom.

As a side note, I play with FP4+ periodically, and I will use these identical times and dilutions with my other favourite developer Perceptol.

I realize there are many other means to achieve this goal with great developers and film combinations, and I would never discount them for a moment, but I just wanted to see what this film TMY and this developer XTOL combination could do for me, and I have a few more iterations to do before I am totally satisfied with the results. I do not want to test this to death, but I surely want to know what my boundaries happen to be.

As for my submitted notes to this group, I feel that I owe the group a debt of gratitude on several fronts, because there happens to be a wealth of knowledge within the group's data base, whether it is buried deep within the archives or current updates from experienced individuals around the world. I tend to cruise through the archives while I have a coffee or two in the morning.

We are a global forum and a more importantly a community.

For years I hoarded my information, and although I am still a wee bit protective of my scan to Photoshop to print process, I learned many years ago from folks like Bruce Barnbaum et al that the individual with the information really has nothing to fear, because the person you hand the information over to, could not know how you intend to use this information, nor could they ever interpret your thought process correctly. Someone once said that you can give a cookbook to anyone, but that does not make them a Chef.

So, I decided to assist when I could, compared to not... :)

Merci, for the comments, too...

jim k

[Steve Gledhill]

...
TMY set at 400 is great too, but I always tend to open the film just a touch more, to get my baseline Zone 1 to be about 0.15 above film base fog. Setting the ISO at 250 just happens to work with my equipment, my lenses, my light meter, and my development process. Setting the ISO at 400 would underexpose my negative by a mere 0.70 f-stop, and an ISO setting at 320 would underexpose the negative by a mere 0.4 f-stop. I do believe you may be hard pressed to see the difference visually in the highlights, especially whether you scan an image or not, but I do believe the low level shadows may be less forgiving. Once you have lost the shadow detail, it is gone. Though I open the film up by 0.7 f-stops, I still know where my Zone 3 happens to be, yet I expose my Zone 3 as a zone 4 and develop the film; accordingly, allowing when me to print the Zone 4 down to Zone 3. If I go too dark, guess what, I still have detail in the shadows that I can open up as required, keeping the shadow area as dark as I like.
...
jim k

Interesting topic here Jim. I'm convinced that when you ask a group of photographers to meter the same scene they will come up with different results - even if they all use the self same meter. What I meter and place on Zone III will almost certainly be different to yours and the other photographers in my 'thought experiment' - or at least there will be a range of metering practices amongst us which effectively means we will never accurately agree on what to meter for Zone III, or IV, and could easily be a stop or more different in our exposures of the same scene. So, a set of readings, equipment and processing practices always have to be taken together as a set for the person and their equipment which makes accurate comparison a little tricky. So in this discussion the difference between you rating film at ISO250 and me at ISO 400 could be explained by different metering practices.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Steve,

I must agree with you, and your analogy is "spot on"... :)

jim k

[Ed Richards]

First - you say TMY. Is that old TMY, or TMY-2?

Steve. That is certainly true. I would like to see the negatives they produce and see how different they look. Are they very different, or when photog A uses ISO 250 and I use 500, are we converging by what we choose to put on which zone? Still, when Jim's N-3 time at 75 (10 minutes) is my N+1 time, I am curious. (Unless he is using only TMY, which I have no times for, but I know takes more time than TMY-2.)

[Bob McCarthy]

To pipe in on the hc110/TMY thought, i've been avoiding xtol because of the mixing/ storage issues. I recently read an article that discussed that TMY was actually in it's fourth generation, most unannounced by Kodak. Anyway the point is Kodak has revised the film to work better with standard developers. So I tried my old HC110 "B" mix. Tried 6 minutes @ 68. Very nice negatives, I have more work to do but inital results give me a reason to plow forward. I scan my negatives on a high end flatbed (screen).

Bob

[jim kitchen]

Dear Ed,

These Times are for TMY not TMY-2... :)

I should have been clear about that in the first line. My supply of TMY-2 is on order since my supply with TMY is about to expire. I do not know how different TMY happens to be compared to TMY-2, but I will find out when my shipment arrives.

Without getting technical, I mentioned within the PDF that these times are very valid for my technique and my equipment. My original development times are listed in the PDF, where the XTOL dilution was stronger, but those were my times for printing on grade two paper in the darkroom. The newer weaker dilutions are for scanning.

Exposing TMY at ISO 500, compared to my ISO 250 happens to be one full f-stop less exposure than mine, which could account for your increased development time and, or developing characteristics within the new TMY-2.

TMY is very linear...

Out of curiosity, when you say your N+1 development time is ten minutes, what is your XTOL and water dilution?

jim k

[Steve Gledhill]

Good point for clarification - all my experience is with TMY2. I changed over to it from TMX after the demise of Readyloads and found I'd lost nothing and gained 2 stops in speed.

[Bruce Watson]

...my baseline Zone 1 to be about 0.15 above film base fog.

Most Zonies would think this a bit much. I'm using Zone I to be 1.0 above fb+f. This turns out to come at box speed for me. Actually, it comes at 500, but I down rate it 1/3 stop for the "insurance" of it. Just not so much insurance as you are using. :D With TMY being such a short toe film I'm surprised that you feel it necessary to rate it so low. But if it works for you then it works for you, and that's the point of doing the testing after all.

I'm using 5x4 TMY-2, XTOL 1:3, with a Jobo CPP-2 at around 30 rpm, a Jobo 3010 tank, 20C. I'm shooting for a Zone VIII of about 1.0. This seems to be the "sweet spot" for my scanner. And this occurs for me at about the 8.5 minute mark. So I'm using a higher EI, more dilution, and cooler temperatures for the same time that you are using. This is bound to give me considerably less Dmax I suspect, along with less gamma (contrast index).

Real images made this way scan beautifully on my scanner. And like Mr. Gledhill, I'm doing the "expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may" workflow. Any expansion or compression takes place at the scanner, so gamma doesn't really matter. Dmax matters in two ways. First, graininess is directly related to density, so less density means less graininess. Second, Callier Effect is directly related to density also, so less density means less Callier Effect, which improves local contrast in my highlights.

And that may be something you are interested in. If I read this thread correctly. And after spending the afternoon at the state fair yesterday I feel like I've got a hangover this morning (can one have a hangover without any alcohol at all?) so my interpretation of just about anything is suspect. :eek:

[Bob McCarthy]

Had a major brain fart. I was talking TMX and the conversation is about TMY.

My apologies, some days are like that.

bob



To pipe in on the hc110/TMY thought, i've been avoiding xtol because of the mixing/ storage issues. I recently read an article that discussed that TMY was actually in it's fourth generation, most unannounced by Kodak. Anyway the point is Kodak has revised the film to work better with standard developers. So I tried my old HC110 "B" mix. Tried 6 minutes @ 68. Very nice negatives, I have more work to do but inital results give me a reason to plow forward. I scan my negatives on a high end flatbed (screen).

Bob

[Ed Richards]

Hi Jim,

Actually my developing time is much less than yours, and right in line with Bruce's. But we are both using TMY-2, and I think it has very different processing times than old TMY.

My scanner is not nearly as good as Bruce's drum scanner, so I do some contraction with develoment to keep my highlights in line. I occassionally done some expansion (N+), but I cannot prove that it improves the pictures any.:-)

[Bruce Watson]

I'm using Zone I to be 1.0 above fb+f.

Um... that would be 0.1, not 1.0. Now 1.0 would really be a bit much! Sorry 'bout that.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Bruce,

Thank you for the updated value... :)

That said, I don't know what most Zonies think nor why they would collectively think that a 0.15 value was too high, but shooting for a target of 0.15 is really not off base from my historical notes or literature. I never achieved the 0.15 target with normal development, and to be absolutely certain, I relocated my old geeky densitometer notes to review. My Zone 3 "N+2" development point definitely reached a 0.15 value, my Zone 3 "Normal" development time reached a 0.098 value, my Zone 3 "N-1" development time reached a 0.075 value, and my Zone 3 "N-2" development time reached a value of 0.030. Each reduced development time changed my effective film speed; accordingly, just as if I had underexposed my film with incremental f-stops. A reduced film development time combined with a weaker dilution immediately curbed the highlights, as illustrated in any graphical data.

Out of curiosity, and a wee bit off topic, would anyone know whether the BTZS exposure and development process compensates for this change in effective film speed?

Regarding my film's lower ISO rating happens to be a very old habit, originating when I was a teenager, which I did to secure shadow detail. Habits are hard to shake, but this habit works for me, and I do see the results in my finished work. Then again, I probably print differently than you do too, with the information I have on a TMY negative. Anyway, I repeat that these results are indicative with my equipment, my exposure habits, and my development process, as yours happen to be too. The technical side of this analysis is behind me, and I did not want to analyze TMY to death.

It looks like TMY-2 will introduce a few new variables for me to explore, and adjust too...

As a side note, I must verify the rotations my device contributes per minute, since there could be a developer differential affecting our comparative statements.

I do however find your approach and Steve's approach to be very interesting, since you allow the inherent characteristics of any scanning device to control your highlights, effectively slaving your properly developed negative to the scanner. I am now intrigued by your results and Steve's results, and I will probably explore that avenue with interest when time permits. I am also very interested in Ron Marshall's review, when Ron has a moment to express any results he may find.

Lastly, I also noticed that a thinner TMY negative retained significant information, allowing me the opportunity to print a full range negative with greater effective highlight detail, and shadow detail. The Galleon Pool image, I posted recently, has significant subtle detail buried within the highlights and within the deep shadows, allowing me to believe that I found my developer scanner combination, as posted for TMY and XTOL.

Again, thank you all for your quick replies...


jim k

[Bruce Watson]

That said, I don't know what most Zonies think nor why they would collectively think that a 0.15 value was too high...

Found it! Took some looking, and I couldn't find it online. Adam's book The Negative, eighth printing (1986), page 88: "The key point is at the threshold; we consider a density of 0.10 above filmbase-plus-fog density as the useful threshold. The exposure that yields this first significant net density of 0.10 is established as the Zone I exposure point.
.
.
.
This procedure is applied as practical exposure information in the test that determines the film speed rating that gives 0.10 net density for Zone I exposure. If, for example, using the manufacturer's recommended ASA number, we find that a Zone I exposure produces a density higher than 0.1, we can reduce this exposure by assigning a higher ASA film speed number. If the Zone I density is consistently below 0.1 we use a lower ASA number to increase the exposure until the optimum value is achieved."

The italics in the quote above are not mine -- they are in the book. That passage is what I was remembering when I made the prior post about 0.10 above fb+f. Nice to confirm my memory isn't completely shot. ;)

And I find that development time does indeed effect EI, just not much. When I test for EI and N development time, I have to do it iteratively. That is, I find my EI, then check for my Zone VIII density. It's usually too high, so I decrease development until I get Zone VIII where I want it. Then I retest for EI at this lesser time. I often see a decrease of around 1/3 stop in EI, so I lower the EI by that 1/3 and retest for N development time. Usually two iterations are good enough to get me very close, which is all I need.

That is part of what makes TMY-2 in XTOL 1:3 so interesting to me -- even with my decreased development time (to give me a Zone VIII of around 1.0) I still get a real film speed of around 400-500. I wasn't expecting this. I'm told that this is partly the result of continuous agitation via the Jobo. But I've never tested with other agitation methods so I can't say one way or the other.

This is just my experience. I'm not saying anyone should change anything. If something works for someone, they should by all means use it. We all do things differently, and that's a good thing. All I'm doing here is trying to add a little more data to the discussion. Because if I've learned anything in photography, it's that YMMV.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Bruce,

Well there you go. I am glad you found a source... :)

I must have thought about Picker or White when I mentioned 0.15 as a target for Zone 3. Thank you for your updated information too. As promised, I will update my revolutions per minute within a day or two, since I am currently away from my film processing equipment.

As a side note, does anyone know whether TMY-2 has special identifiers on the box, a production date, a batch number and, or an emulsion number, compared to TMY?

Just curious...

jim k

[Ed Richards]

There is a little red flag on the label of the box saying it is the sharpest, and the film has a different notch code.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Ed,

Merci...

jim k

[Marko]

What a wonderful thread!

Thank you all, but special thanks to Jim for starting it and sharing his knowledge and hard work.

[jim kitchen]

Folks,

Attached are two PDF files that I made to assist anyone that may not be familiar with our discussion and, or familiar with the Zone System's formulation... :)

That said, please review these diagrams, and if you have a moment please offer any refinement suggestions at your leisure. The example sheet demonstrates several values that are arbitrary, and they are meant to be a guide only. I realize that several methods exist that determine an effective film speed, but I chose a typical method to briefly illustrate the example calculations, regarding the film's effective speed calculation and normal development.

There are two 11X17 PDF sheets, where one PDF is a work sheet, and the other PDF happens to be a partially filled work sheet example.

These PDF's do not illustrate the effective film speed method step by step, but the sheets are meant to be used with a known method, and these sheets should allow you to plot your captured data.

If someone shares the same mind set, I would like to work with a knowledgeable person or group of persons within this group, to develop an effective illustrative method for novice Zone System enthusiasts, and although there are many fine examples within the internet, I am not certain that a demonstrative example exists at this site. Anyway, I thought we could expand the film development method to include a development procedure for scanning too, compared to just grade number two paper.

Contact me directly if you desire to do so.

Maybe a separate thread may be more suitable for this idea too.

Merci,

jim k

[Mike1234]

Jim,

Thanks for the graphs. First one won't open properly for me though.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Mike,

They are PDF's, so your browser won't save the file as a PDF, or you cannot open the PDF?

Just curious...

jim k

[jim kitchen]

An update for this posting, since I took a few moments to add incremental information to the original data, such as my total cycles per minute...

It should be noted again, that these times are for TMY and not TMY-2. I will update my notes once I receive my supply of TMY-2.

I revised the original PDF, which is attached, and I added a second PDF clarifying the rotations my motor base implements, compared to any other motor base. I noticed in our discussion that a few users rated their drums at thirty (30) cycles per minute, but I do not know whether their statement represents the total for fifteen (15) clockwise movements plus fifteen (15) counterclockwise movements, during a one minute count, or thirty (30) clockwise movements and thirty (30) counterclockwise movements, during a one minute count.

As a side note, my notes and my diagram indicate one clockwise movement, and one counterclockwise movement equals one cycle, where my cycles per minute total eight (8).

If I followed the logic stated above, then my eight (8) clockwise movements and eight (8) counterclockwise movements would total to sixteen (16) cycles per minute, equalling one half of the earlier stated thirty (30) cycles.

If someone could take a moment to clarify that previous comment about the thirty (30) cycles I would be grateful to you, since I do not have a rotational device capable of the speed...

If you have a moment, please review at your leisure...

Thank you in advance,

jim k

[sanking]

It should be noted again, that these times are for TMY and not TMY-2. I will update my notes once I receive my supply of TMY-2.

jim k

I will be interested in what you find. When TMY-2 first came out I carefully compared it with BTZS type testing to the old TMY with several different developers, including D76 1:1, Xtol 1:2 and Pyrocat-HD. I found very little difference in processing time between the old and new version of the film. When the two films were developed for the same time in these developers both CI and curve shape were vritually identical for both the new and old film.

Sandy King

[jim kitchen]

Dear Sandy,

My TMY-2 supply was ordered several weeks ago, and I received a notice from my local supplier that the TMY-2 should be arriving shortly. This is the second time they indicated shortly... :)

I shall apply my original development times, and my original dilutions against TMY-2, when I initiate the comparative test.

jim k

[Mike1234]

Dear Mike,

They are PDF's, so your browser won't save the file as a PDF, or you cannot open the PDF?

Just curious...

jim k

Hi Jim,

Sorry for the belated reply. I'm back after a 30 day ban. :o

I can open the PDF's. My confusion was regarding the lack of data in the first chart but I'm sure now that is was intentionally blank.

Mike

[jim kitchen]

Dear Mike,

I am glad that you could open the files, and yes one document was left blank intentionally, and one document was filled in to present the displayed data. I created both documents to be able to print as an 11X17 document, therefore allowing anyone to print them at their leisure, where they could obviously make them smaller too by controlling the output on their own printer. The blank document should allow you to use your own data points if you desire to do so.

As a lighter side note, I spent many days standing in the classroom's corner too, for one reason or another. Matter of fact, I was usually there for more than one reason... :)

jim k

[Mike1234]

Yes, I was thoroughly spanked. And while I didn't enjoy it, I do accept it. :D

[jim kitchen]

Just an update... :)

I processed the TMY and the TMY-2 negatives together in XTOL...

I managed to capture a couple of hours on a dedicated calibrated X-Rite densitometer at a local graphic art processing facility at the beginning of this week, giving me time to analyze the density scale effectively.

That said, I am reviewing the data along with input from others, where I produced a printable PDF graph for the technically inclined souls that populate this group. I will post the file once I am finished, which should be this weekend.

jim k

[JR Steel]

Just an update... :)

That said, I am reviewing the data along with input from others, where I produced a printable PDF graph for the technically inclined souls that populate this group. I will post the file once I am finished, which should be this weekend.

jim k

Looking foward to that. I just got my first batch of TMY-2. Thanks for all this work.

[Marko]

Looking foward to that. I just got my first batch of TMY-2. Thanks for all this work.

Me too. Just waiting for some free time to get going.

Did I already mention how great this thread was and how generous of Jim to share his hard work? :)

[jim kitchen]

As promised, I attached my updated document regarding TMY and TMY-2 development times… :)

The updated information is not appended to bottom of the original posted document because the file size limitations for a PDF within the forum prevented this from occurring. I included the revision date on the new supplemental document, and a new PDF graph illustrates the different response curves, or characteristic curves for TMY and TMY-2 under a normal development process, as stated within the document, and I supplied a simple data sheet with the associated data. The characteristic curve graph may be tough to view, because of the background lines within the graph, but the graph is an 11X17 inch printable PDF file, and therefore you can zoom into any area you wish to view with comfort, or print the document at your leisure. I apologize if this is a minor annoyance.

As stated in the original document, this exercise was developed to help me find a suitable negative density range to assist my hybrid scanning process, and the resultant data suits my current hybrid process effectively. I do however, suggest that you could use these development times, and dilution ratios as a starting point for your own hybrid process, since your inherent development characteristics could influence your procedural results, which include the developer dilutions, and the associated development times.

I am also certain that a discussion may arise regarding the requirement for the different expansions, and the different compactions, since this happens to be a hybrid process, where the process quality could be directly related to the scanner's quality that any individual may own, or have access too. The incremental development times and dilutions may become moot as the user incorporates this hybrid process into their development routine, while knowing that their scanner may accommodate any outlier anomalies resulting from a minor processing error. I incorporate the different development times and dilutions because I still think I am in the darkroom, and any assistance that I can provide myself through controlled film development for a quality scan, simply adds value to my hybrid processing routine. Others may summarily dismiss this incremental effort as an ineffective effort because they believe that their scanner's ability can set the quality boundaries for their own process. I cannot argue that point, nor can I add any valid argumentative points to that discussion, because I realize that a scanner's qualitative output is a very valid and an integral component in the complete hybrid process.

I discovered that the hybrid process introduced me to a new imaging technique, which allowed me to transfer any darkroom skills that I may have to the desktop, but this hybrid process is still a process that requires a wee bit of inherent darkroom knowledge, which allows me to process the hybrid information effectively. I do not wish to have my own process interrupted by a software developer, but that issue may be an inevitable conclusion; eventually. New skills, new techniques, and new algorithms may allow an individual to be more creative, and completely experimental with their images, but I am still old school, and I happen to enjoy the darkroom even if I must call it a lightroom, going forward.

That said, I would like take a moment to thank Steve Gledhill, Sandy King, Bruce Watson, and Michael Kadillak for their excellent contributions, and I should note that Sandy will possibly add additional comments upon his return from his side jaunt to Mexico, during the next few days.

Have fun...

jim k

[Heliogazer]

Jim -
Thanks for your generosity with research on TMY + Xtol. I confess I'm new to this forum and was unable to find the PDF to download and review. I plan to buy TMY-2 8x10 and cut down to 5x7, as I've used up the last of my TMY-1. Any info re my favorite regimen (TMY + Xtol + Jobo) is greatly appreciated for continuing education.
Regards,
Doug

[jim kitchen]

Dear Heliogazer,

The PDF that outlines the XTOL and TMY-2 development process, should be available on the first page... :)

If not, then email me directly, and I will send you a copy.

jim k

[Lenny Eiger]

Jim, what densities are you trying to hit at the top end? It looks like 1.2? I did read everything previous - I may have missed this.

Lenny

EigerStudios.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Lenny,

It is nice to hear from you... :)

I did not know what densities I would reach while using the development process, but the densities I did reach are located within the attached Excel file Zip file. The chart indicates the densities obtained while exposing TMY and TMY-2 at ISO 400, and ISO 250. I simply wanted to know whether the densities would be linear and provide good separation at the reduced development time and at the reduced developer strength.

This process provides me with excellent detail in the shadows and well-controlled highlights with detail, even when I must reduce the developer strength, yet maintain a development time to allow the negative to develop properly.

That said, I submitted the files again for anyone that would like to review the data...

jim k

[Lenny Eiger]

Dear Lenny,
It is nice to hear from you... :)

Greetings, likewise....



I did not know what densities I would reach while using the development process, but the densities I did reach are located within the attached Excel file Zip file. The chart indicates the densities obtained while exposing TMY and TMY-2 at ISO 400, and ISO 250. I simply wanted to know whether the densities would be linear and provide good separation at the reduced development time and at the reduced developer strength.


It's nice work. Lots of detail and record keeping....

I think you can go a little further with the top end. (A little denser in the highlights.) My goal is 1.8 or 1.9. The separation in the midtones should increase with this treatment. It does over here... altho' its apparent that whatever you are doing is working for you...

You've given me some ideas. Haven't had much time to test lately, I'm actually trying to get some work printed.... it's a nice change.

Lenny

[jim kitchen]

Dear Lenny,

Merci... :)

My actual goal was to reduce the upper negative density level to remove and, or reduce any artefacts that may be present within a denser scanned negative, such as I experienced while using my older development times and dilutions, and while using an Epson 750 scanner. I wanted to improve my scans on the Epson 750 scanner, before I was forced to use the drum scanner exclusively, since the cost for a drum scanned negative in Calgary was a wee bit prohibitive for every negative I owned. I still drum scan my premiere negatives for the shadow detail, and I can get by using the Epson when the negative's density range has a shallower curve, compared to a steeper curve, while trying to extract greater separation within the mid-tones. The shallower density curve is a challenge, for the mid-tones, but I can extract information properly, and present that information properly with a few darkroom mid-tone expansion "tricks..."

I also noticed that my drum scans improved exponentially too, especially within the highlight detail, where I often wonder whether the thinner negative presents an optimum density range and an optimum density curve, and where these curves are very specific to any scanner, whether it happens to be a drum scanner, or a flatbed scanner. I have also concluded that each scanner has its own characteristics, and knowing that fact requires you test the development times appropriately for your own equipment. Some adjustments are required, but I would imagine that they might be minor adjustments. I believe that you will be able to steepen your development curve to the values you so desire, because you have an instrument that can extract the detail within the denser highlights better than my Epson 750.

I also believe that the thinner negative, designed to be scanned on the 750, allows the Epson scanner software or any third party software to operate within a proper density saturation range, compared to a negative with a strong density range and a steeper curve that might over saturate the buffers and produce the blocked shadow detail, which happens to be so common among many flat bed scanners, and the dreaded artefacts within the highlights.

Flat bed scanners certainly have their purpose, and serve their purpose well for many users, but I surely can tell when my negatives are scanned with a drum scanner, by a skilled operator. All I need to do is look at the shadow detail, and I am convinced.

I believe that you will be successful with a steeper curve, because of your equipment, and your operator skills...

jim k

[venchka]

There is a little red flag on the label of the box saying it is the sharpest, and the film has a different notch code.

The edge printing on the film says "New Tmax 400 TMY-2". I just developed some last Monday.

[Richard Martel]

Great thread....thanks too all
Cheers Richard