Initial Results of testing Tmax100

[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/alankl...57642492618713