Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
With TMY you will probably get the greatest speed/minimum grain size
with Xtol straight or 1+1. D76 would also be a good choice, but you'll probably lose about 1/3 stop of speed. Michrophen will give the same speed as Xtol but with coarser grain. I remember reading an article that said that the results from HC110 were very, very close to a comparable development with Rodinol. In other words, there's fairly high accutence but large grain. -Peter |
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
With TMY you will probably get the greatest speed/minimum grain size
with Xtol straight or 1+1. D76 would also be a good choice, but you'll probably lose about 1/3 stop of speed. Michrophen will give the same speed as Xtol but with coarser grain. I remember reading an article that said that the results from HC110 were very, very close to a comparable development with Rodinol. In other words, there's fairly high accutence but large grain. -Peter |
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Phil Glaser wrote:
Donald Qualls wrote in message news:LjKGc.21080$JR4.19215@attbi_s54... I'd like to hear from others who measure the toe speed this way. Could it be that a different developer would give me the same toe density at a higher EI, or is a one-stop speed loss indeed typical for us "Zonies"? Yes, other developers can give you a different toe speed at the same contrast, even with the same agitation program. Geoffrey Crawley is the authority here. For instance, a PQ acutance developer like FX-1 or FX-37 will gain up to a full stop of toe speed, depending on the film. T-grain films, for good or ill, show the least effect from this; if you're out to get the most film speed above the ISO rating, start with Tri-X and develop it in a PQ acutance developer or a speed enhancing solvent developer like Microphen or Acufine -- or Diafine, where you gain well over a full stop of toe speed, with a slight contrast boost that gives an EI of 1600 with contrast that looks more like, at most, a one stop push (Zone I may be almost empty, but Zone II looks pretty decent with Tri-X at EI 1600 in Diafine; if you expose at EI 1250 you get more in the shadows without blocking up the highlights, but I haven't found EI 1600 wanting). First, TMY is not a "slow to medium" film; second, you may find it advantageous (especially with HC-110) to reduce agitation and develop for contrast rather than toe density. Done your way, you get a flat negative with EI 200; developed for mid-tones, you'll get a normal negative with EI 400, requiring longer development in the same dilution. But doesn't this beg the question? Is the negative still "normal" at EI 400 if the Zone I exposure is thin? I have also exposed some TMAX at 400 and 320 and found that finer shaddow detail is lacking. If Zone I is thin with normal midtones, you don't have normal contrast, you have a push. That, to me, suggests you're agitating too much and then shortening development to avoid excessive contrast. Try, instead of shortening development to control excessive contrast, reducing agitation instead. Fewer inversions (2 or 3 instead of 5) or less frequent agitations (2 minutes, 3 minutes, even 5 minutes per cycle -- one advantage of high dilution is you get a long enough process to actually do this). Also, I don't think my negatives are flat. My zone VIII density is around 1.15 and I'm using a condensor enlarger. I'm finding that I get a decent print with a # 2 or even 1.5 contrast filter (I realize that this is not the same thing as _grade_ 2, but it gives you an idea -- my negatives are not flat). Okay, but you're having to overexpose a stop to get that result with your development. This past weekend, I souped 4 rolls of TMY 120 in HC-110 Dilution G -- 1:119 from USA syrup -- some for 15 minutes at 70 F with reduced agitation (every 3 minutes), some for 15 minutes at 70 F with normal agitation (every minute), and some for 12 minutes at 74 F (compensated for increased temperature) with normal agitation. The roll with reduced agitation is clearly of reduced contrast compared to the others, but all have similar toe speed -- toe is affected primarily by total time/temperature in the soup, regardless of agitation, because local exhaustion doesn't affect lightly exposed areas. Mid-tones, and more so highlights, get less development with less agitation, which reduces contrast (because less agitation gives less fresh developer in areas where it exhausts fastest -- and this is most pronounced at high dilutions). So, when you reduce agitation, you have to develop longer to get the contrast back to normal -- and in the process, you gain speed in the toe. When you say "gain speed in the toe," it sounds like you are suggesting that longer development I will regain the toe desnity I'm looking for but, with less agitation, retain the proper highlight density? That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Here's an image from one of those films, TMY shot at EI 400 by Sunny 16 (and I tend to underexpose; this was dowtown, among buildings ranging up to 10 floors, in hazy conditions at f/11, 1/100, and I was probably at least one stop under, given that I was shooting into a car that amounts to deep shade), 6x4.5 format cropped to approximately 35 mm frame size. Developed in HC-110 Dilution G (1:119 from syrup), 15 minutes at 70 F with normal agitation (five inversions every minute after constant agitation first minute): http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?p...513755&size=lg Grain isn't excessive (this was scanned from the negative at 2400 ppi and reduced, after cropping, to about 20% for the above link; grain in the original scan is less than Tri-X in HC-110 Dilution B), and contrast is as close to normal as I'm likely to get when I can't afford a densitometer and in any case don't have a place to put it. The other negatives I developed for 15 minutes with agitation every three minutes, instead of every minute, were significantly lower in contrast; I'd have had to develop them longer to get a "normal" negative, which in turn would mean the shadows, with longer in the solution and little local exhaustion to inhibit them, would have developed more than in this image, gaining density relative to the highlights -- which, as I understand it, is a gain in toe speed without an increase in contrast. If this change is visible with TMY (and it is) it should be quite pronounced with a slow to medium, conventional grain film like Plus-X. My concern with this approach is GRAIN. My current program with HC-110 1:63 seems to be rather grainy. It seems to me that increasing the development time is only going to make that worse. That depends on what you want to do with your negatives. I don't see much likelihood of enlarging more than about 10x from mine -- that's a 10x15 print from 35 mm, or 18x24 inch print from 6x4.5 format. For that level of magnification, I don't find the grain of TMY done this way objectionable. Tri-X would have more visible grain -- but will show more effect from reduced agitation and extended development, so less of these measures are needed. The key, though, is not to develop until your toe is at 0.1 over B+F; rather to develop to normal contrast and let the toe detemine where Zone I falls. But here it sounds like you are saying _not_ to base development time on toe desnity. I'm confused. Could you please elaborate? I *am* saying not to base development on toe density. Base development on mid tones, then adjust agitation and time together to get the toe where you want it (to add density in the toe, reduce agitation and add time -- both, not one or the other). Yes, that's heresy against the Zone system -- but Zone doesn't work all that well with roll films to begin with because you can't individually develop single frames, and modern films, especially T-grain types, are much harder to expand and contract the way Zone techniques would have you do; they simply show less effect with extended or shortened development absent other techniques. The reason behind the Zone system in the first place was to make images that were likely to print well on a limited range of graded papers without excessive manipulation -- multi-grade papers, dial-in contrast filtration or color heads, and split filtering techniques have superceded much of that need, while modern films have greatly complicated application of the techniques -- so why stick slavishly to a system developed for use with materials you can't buy any more? Instead, go back to the principle of a negative that prints well -- if you have good midtones, and have found the combination of EI, agitation and development time that also gives you good shadow detail, you're there. And if you can do that at a higher EI by reducing agitation and increasing development, unless you shoot 35 mm or smaller and like very large prints, what's the downside? With HC-110 Dilution G, BTW, you can go all the way to stand development -- pour in the developer, agitate continuously for one minute, then put the tank down and walk away, to return when the timer goes off (or, if it's more comfortable, agitate at 1/3 and 2/3, or 1/2 of the development time). Doing so will not only provide the maximum increase in toe speed relative to highlights (especially with conventional grain films), but will also foster edge effects -- depending on the film and developer, ranging from simple acutance enhancements (the edge of a light object is lighter, and the edge of a dark object darker, than the object as a whole, which makes edges look sharper) to borders and haloes caused by diffusion of fresh and spent developer across a light/dark boundary in absence of agitation. -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. |
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Phil Glaser wrote:
Donald Qualls wrote in message news:LjKGc.21080$JR4.19215@attbi_s54... I'd like to hear from others who measure the toe speed this way. Could it be that a different developer would give me the same toe density at a higher EI, or is a one-stop speed loss indeed typical for us "Zonies"? Yes, other developers can give you a different toe speed at the same contrast, even with the same agitation program. Geoffrey Crawley is the authority here. For instance, a PQ acutance developer like FX-1 or FX-37 will gain up to a full stop of toe speed, depending on the film. T-grain films, for good or ill, show the least effect from this; if you're out to get the most film speed above the ISO rating, start with Tri-X and develop it in a PQ acutance developer or a speed enhancing solvent developer like Microphen or Acufine -- or Diafine, where you gain well over a full stop of toe speed, with a slight contrast boost that gives an EI of 1600 with contrast that looks more like, at most, a one stop push (Zone I may be almost empty, but Zone II looks pretty decent with Tri-X at EI 1600 in Diafine; if you expose at EI 1250 you get more in the shadows without blocking up the highlights, but I haven't found EI 1600 wanting). First, TMY is not a "slow to medium" film; second, you may find it advantageous (especially with HC-110) to reduce agitation and develop for contrast rather than toe density. Done your way, you get a flat negative with EI 200; developed for mid-tones, you'll get a normal negative with EI 400, requiring longer development in the same dilution. But doesn't this beg the question? Is the negative still "normal" at EI 400 if the Zone I exposure is thin? I have also exposed some TMAX at 400 and 320 and found that finer shaddow detail is lacking. If Zone I is thin with normal midtones, you don't have normal contrast, you have a push. That, to me, suggests you're agitating too much and then shortening development to avoid excessive contrast. Try, instead of shortening development to control excessive contrast, reducing agitation instead. Fewer inversions (2 or 3 instead of 5) or less frequent agitations (2 minutes, 3 minutes, even 5 minutes per cycle -- one advantage of high dilution is you get a long enough process to actually do this). Also, I don't think my negatives are flat. My zone VIII density is around 1.15 and I'm using a condensor enlarger. I'm finding that I get a decent print with a # 2 or even 1.5 contrast filter (I realize that this is not the same thing as _grade_ 2, but it gives you an idea -- my negatives are not flat). Okay, but you're having to overexpose a stop to get that result with your development. This past weekend, I souped 4 rolls of TMY 120 in HC-110 Dilution G -- 1:119 from USA syrup -- some for 15 minutes at 70 F with reduced agitation (every 3 minutes), some for 15 minutes at 70 F with normal agitation (every minute), and some for 12 minutes at 74 F (compensated for increased temperature) with normal agitation. The roll with reduced agitation is clearly of reduced contrast compared to the others, but all have similar toe speed -- toe is affected primarily by total time/temperature in the soup, regardless of agitation, because local exhaustion doesn't affect lightly exposed areas. Mid-tones, and more so highlights, get less development with less agitation, which reduces contrast (because less agitation gives less fresh developer in areas where it exhausts fastest -- and this is most pronounced at high dilutions). So, when you reduce agitation, you have to develop longer to get the contrast back to normal -- and in the process, you gain speed in the toe. When you say "gain speed in the toe," it sounds like you are suggesting that longer development I will regain the toe desnity I'm looking for but, with less agitation, retain the proper highlight density? That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Here's an image from one of those films, TMY shot at EI 400 by Sunny 16 (and I tend to underexpose; this was dowtown, among buildings ranging up to 10 floors, in hazy conditions at f/11, 1/100, and I was probably at least one stop under, given that I was shooting into a car that amounts to deep shade), 6x4.5 format cropped to approximately 35 mm frame size. Developed in HC-110 Dilution G (1:119 from syrup), 15 minutes at 70 F with normal agitation (five inversions every minute after constant agitation first minute): http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?p...513755&size=lg Grain isn't excessive (this was scanned from the negative at 2400 ppi and reduced, after cropping, to about 20% for the above link; grain in the original scan is less than Tri-X in HC-110 Dilution B), and contrast is as close to normal as I'm likely to get when I can't afford a densitometer and in any case don't have a place to put it. The other negatives I developed for 15 minutes with agitation every three minutes, instead of every minute, were significantly lower in contrast; I'd have had to develop them longer to get a "normal" negative, which in turn would mean the shadows, with longer in the solution and little local exhaustion to inhibit them, would have developed more than in this image, gaining density relative to the highlights -- which, as I understand it, is a gain in toe speed without an increase in contrast. If this change is visible with TMY (and it is) it should be quite pronounced with a slow to medium, conventional grain film like Plus-X. My concern with this approach is GRAIN. My current program with HC-110 1:63 seems to be rather grainy. It seems to me that increasing the development time is only going to make that worse. That depends on what you want to do with your negatives. I don't see much likelihood of enlarging more than about 10x from mine -- that's a 10x15 print from 35 mm, or 18x24 inch print from 6x4.5 format. For that level of magnification, I don't find the grain of TMY done this way objectionable. Tri-X would have more visible grain -- but will show more effect from reduced agitation and extended development, so less of these measures are needed. The key, though, is not to develop until your toe is at 0.1 over B+F; rather to develop to normal contrast and let the toe detemine where Zone I falls. But here it sounds like you are saying _not_ to base development time on toe desnity. I'm confused. Could you please elaborate? I *am* saying not to base development on toe density. Base development on mid tones, then adjust agitation and time together to get the toe where you want it (to add density in the toe, reduce agitation and add time -- both, not one or the other). Yes, that's heresy against the Zone system -- but Zone doesn't work all that well with roll films to begin with because you can't individually develop single frames, and modern films, especially T-grain types, are much harder to expand and contract the way Zone techniques would have you do; they simply show less effect with extended or shortened development absent other techniques. The reason behind the Zone system in the first place was to make images that were likely to print well on a limited range of graded papers without excessive manipulation -- multi-grade papers, dial-in contrast filtration or color heads, and split filtering techniques have superceded much of that need, while modern films have greatly complicated application of the techniques -- so why stick slavishly to a system developed for use with materials you can't buy any more? Instead, go back to the principle of a negative that prints well -- if you have good midtones, and have found the combination of EI, agitation and development time that also gives you good shadow detail, you're there. And if you can do that at a higher EI by reducing agitation and increasing development, unless you shoot 35 mm or smaller and like very large prints, what's the downside? With HC-110 Dilution G, BTW, you can go all the way to stand development -- pour in the developer, agitate continuously for one minute, then put the tank down and walk away, to return when the timer goes off (or, if it's more comfortable, agitate at 1/3 and 2/3, or 1/2 of the development time). Doing so will not only provide the maximum increase in toe speed relative to highlights (especially with conventional grain films), but will also foster edge effects -- depending on the film and developer, ranging from simple acutance enhancements (the edge of a light object is lighter, and the edge of a dark object darker, than the object as a whole, which makes edges look sharper) to borders and haloes caused by diffusion of fresh and spent developer across a light/dark boundary in absence of agitation. -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. |
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
"Phil Glaser" :
I'd like to hear from others who measure the toe speed this way. Could it be that a different developer would give me the same toe density at a higher EI, or is a one-stop speed loss indeed typical for us "Zonies"? Toe? Who measures speed of the toe? If we are speaking of the same thing (for example, "shooting on the toe" in MP work for example), then methinks you are using the wrong film; TM films have no toe. |
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
If I were you, I'd avoid using TMY at all, especially for 35mm and outdoor work. The curve shape is simply so bizarre that normal methods of exposure/contrast/development control simply fail. I've tried, and it simply does not work... I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops film, I'm not surprised that it doesn't work for him. In particular, TMY is more sensitive to underexposure and/or overdevelopment than most other non-Tmax films. An exception would be Fuji Acros. -Peter |
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote: If I were you, I'd avoid using TMY at all, especially for 35mm and outdoor work. The curve shape is simply so bizarre that normal methods of exposure/contrast/development control simply fail. I've tried, and it simply does not work... I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops film, I'm not surprised that it doesn't work for him. In particular, TMY is more sensitive to underexposure and/or overdevelopment than most other non-Tmax films. An exception would be Fuji Acros. -Peter Bull****. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a U-shaped curve. moron. |
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops film, I'm not surprised that it doesn't work for him. In particular, TMY is more sensitive to underexposure and/or overdevelopment than most other non-Tmax films. An exception would be Fuji Acros. -Peter Michael Scarpitti wrote: Bull****. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a U-shaped curve. moron. Then I guess the print in front of me, which was taken with TMY outdoors, must be magic. In any case thank you for continually acting like an ass. That way newbies won't have illusions regarding your knowledge or character for very long. Peter P.S. Btw., my densitometer tells me that TMY has a very straight-line "curve" in Xtol. But that contradicts Mikey, and so I better get it checked. |
Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Peter De Smidt pdesmidt*no*spam*@tds.*net* wrote:
: : I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in : outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops : film, I'm not surprised that it doesn't work for him. In particular, TMY : is more sensitive to underexposure and/or overdevelopment than most : other non-Tmax films. An exception would be Fuji Acros. : : -Peter : : Michael Scarpitti wrote: : Bull****. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the : CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a : U-shaped curve. moron. : Then I guess the print in front of me, which was taken with TMY : outdoors, must be magic. I had much the same reaction when scarpitti told me that TMX wasn't suited for outdoor work. He even went as far to claim that Kodak's use of studio images when advertising TMX and TMY as proof. : In any case thank you for continually acting like an ass. That way : newbies won't have illusions regarding your knowledge or character for : very long. As long as you remember that Scarpitti has no ability to determine proper exposures, compose, develop film or make prints he's not so bad. Think of him as a form of entertainment, not as a form of photographic knowledge or information. : Peter : P.S. Btw., my densitometer tells me that TMY has a very straight-line : "curve" in Xtol. But that contradicts Mikey, and so I better get it checked. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com