Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46

Thread: TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner...

  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,104

    Re: TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner...

    Dear Steve,

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

    jim k

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    2,426

    Re: TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner...

    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.)

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southlake TX
    Posts
    1,056

    Re: TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner...

    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

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,104

    Re: TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner...

    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

  5. #15
    Virtually Grey Steve Gledhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Evesham, UK.
    Posts
    346

    Re: TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner...

    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.

  6. #16
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,262

    Re: TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner...

    Quote Originally Posted by jim kitchen View Post
    ...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. 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.

    Bruce Watson

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southlake TX
    Posts
    1,056

    Re: TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner...

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

    My apologies, some days are like that.

    bob


    Quote Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy View Post
    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

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    2,426

    Re: TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner...

    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.:-)

  9. #19
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,262

    Re: TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Watson View Post
    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.

    Bruce Watson

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,104

    Re: TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner...

    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

Similar Threads

  1. TMY 400 4x5 with xtol Rotary processing
    By GOLDFISH in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 28-Aug-2009, 11:50
  2. Options for XTOL & HP5+ at constant agitation
    By jvuokko in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 18-Jan-2009, 16:28
  3. Xtol dilution and pre-rinse?
    By Eric Brody in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 3-Jun-2008, 19:22
  4. Xtol Problems Anyone?
    By Eric Biggerstaff in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-Mar-2006, 20:40
  5. Xtol and low ISO films (efke 25, agfa 25)
    By Janko Belaj in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 19-Jun-2004, 16:23

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •