A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 14th 04, 03:52 AM
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)


"Phil Glaser" wrote in message
om...
Donald Qualls wrote in message

news:LjKGc.21080$JR4.19215@attbi_s54...
Phil Glaser wrote:

Now here's an interesting thing. I've been developing

TMY in HC-110
diluted 1:63 (unofficial dilution "h") for the

accutance affect. After
several tests, using a densitomter to get the Zone I

exposure to .1
over b+f, I arrived at EI 200. So here I _lost_ a

whole stop. That,
and the noticably more grainy result, are motivating

me to look for a
new combination.


IOW, you got what most Zonies get -- an EI one stop

slower than the ISO
speed. I don't call that a speed loss, I call that a

disparate method
of measuring speed. However...


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"?

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.

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).

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?

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.


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?

--PHil


This is the only post in this thread on my server so I've
probably missed something.
However, "toe speed" is a meaningless term. Film speed as
measured by the ISO method has a speed point determined
after development so that a specified _range_ of exposure re
sults in a specified _range_ of densities, in effect a
contrast index is specified. The speed point is where the
density is log 0.1 above fog and base density. Note that the
term "base fog" is incorrect, this comes from a confounding
of the two terms fog and base density. The base density can
be insignificant, as it is for most sheet and roll films, or
it can be considerable as it is for many 35mm films which
have a pigment in the support to reduce light-piping and
give additional anti-halation reduction.
In any case, the point where the silver density is log
0.1 above the total of the fog and the base density is
assumed to be the minimum usable density. The film speed is
calculated from this with a safety factor multiplier of
1.25.
Since the ISO method does not take into account the
contrast or gradient of the toe area the shadow contrast can
be too low for some purposes and with some films when
exposed using the ISO speed. Givinging the film somewhat
more exposure will push the minimum densities of the image
up the toe to a point where the contrast is greater. This
may result in better tonal rendition. This effect is totally
ignored by the Zone System.
Also note that the ISO speed is valid only when the film
is developed using the developer specified along with the
speed rating (it can be any developer) and to the contrast
index required by the standard. When film is developed to a
lower CI, for instance for use in condenser enalarger, it
must be developed less and the speed will be lower than that
give by the ISO test. For most film an adjustment to a one
paper grade lower contrast will require an increase in
exposure of about 3/4 to 1 stop. The difference in printing
contrast between a diffusion enlarger and a common partly
diffuse condenser enlarger is about one paper grade.
The idea of the Zone System is to expose and develop
negatives so that scenes of varying brightness ranges will
be represented by a constant density range on the negative.
This will allow printing of all on a single grade of paper.
However, the eye expects to see contrast approximating the
original scene so the Zone System, used without some
understanding and care, can result in very unnatural looking
tone rendition.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



  #2  
Old July 14th 04, 04:05 AM
Peter De Smidt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #3  
Old July 14th 04, 04:05 AM
Peter De Smidt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #4  
Old July 14th 04, 04:41 AM
Donald Qualls
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #5  
Old July 14th 04, 04:41 AM
Donald Qualls
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #6  
Old July 14th 04, 12:23 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #7  
Old July 14th 04, 05:14 PM
Peter De Smidt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #8  
Old July 14th 04, 11:20 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #9  
Old July 15th 04, 12:14 AM
Peter De Smidt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #10  
Old July 15th 04, 05:06 AM
Frank Pittel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
-------------------

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fridge and heat problems Edwin In The Darkroom 15 July 7th 04 04:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.