On TMax 2-400

Juan Valdenebro

Juan Valdenebro

Truth is beauty
Local time
12:09 AM
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
4,353
Location
Barcelona and Colombia
View My Gallery
Even having almost no free time these days, I couldn't resist to take a fast first look at that film... I will be using Rodinal only, as I don't like that much the look of solvent developers. I also think Rodinal “shows” a film.


1. I found its grain is smaller, tighter than that of Tri-X. That was clearly visible with a 22x loupe: I haven't printed yet.


2. I wanted to post a couple of 4800dpi scan crops, from images comparing both grains after the longest push I believe in (60min. 1+50), and I was very surprised at the files, and couldn't make them show the real thing: In the files, the Tmax one showed a beautiful pattern, close -at least to my tired eyes- to classic grain! The Tri-X one was less defined, and less crisp! Maybe it can depend on scanners, but I really think this film is very well designed for keeping its grain structure after being pushed and for wiping the floor with others when scanned.


3. Funny, the times I got from my tests, both for sun and overcast, are identical to my Tri-X times: this had never happened to me... I noticed that only when I was writing down data to my notebook (made of paper...) For the test I shot the same bracketings and developed them twice at two different times for every one of the three situations (the push being the third one) to set shadows real speed and overall contrast after contact strips with base+fog near pure black. When pushed, Tri-X is a bit faster. No mistake: metering was incident and picking scenes with .0 readings. I push Tri-X up to 1 1/2 stops over its optimal overcast speed, but TMax is a bit dark and muddy at that speed: it looks nice one stop pushed. That speed difference is in my opinion nothing for real life... What is notorious is that Tri-X gets -at its optimal pushing speed found- A LOT more contrasty than TMax, and the last one, shows a noticeable better tonality when pushed! Clear and clean!


To me, it means I liked for the first time any of the Delta or TMax films, and, I just can't believe what I am saying: I'll buy more TMax and less Tri-X...


All in all, it means soon I will be using my Hasselblad at twice the speed and half the grain!


Honestly, the biggest news in years for this one shooting that dead thing.


Cheers,


Juan
 
Juan: All of us in Rochester thank you. 😀 😀 😀

It's a great film ... I've been playing with the idea of making TMY-2 my go-to 400 speed film. Tri-X still has my heart with its pure yet subtle muscle. But TMY-2 is like the silent stranger in the room that, when you really pay attention, steals the day.
 
It it the only film that I buy now, and I typically burn at least 4 rolls a month of it. When I get things right, the tones and contrast are beautiful.
 
Personally, I had used TMY-2 in 120 and found that I preferred Tri-X. Your post is making me reconsider.

I had developed it in T-Max Dev, you see.

I suspect that had I developed it in Rodinal, I would have found it to have more character. We'll see. I may have a roll or three of 120 kicking around my fridge.
 
degruyl said:
Personally, I had used TMY-2 in 120 and found that I preferred Tri-X. Your post is making me reconsider.

I had developed it in T-Max Dev, you see.

I suspect that had I developed it in Rodinal, I would have found it to have more character. We'll see. I may have a roll or three of 120 kicking around my fridge.
Click to expand...

Tmax diluted 1+7 gives nicer tonal rendering and slightly sharper grain. You might try that. 9.5 minutes, 68 degrees.
 
I have to say I am also loving this stuff. It is just a super film in 35mm. Its exposure latitude is tremendous too as I haven't had a duff or badly exposed frame since I started using it so for me it seems as bullet proof as Tri X is. I must admit I haver also been surprised by it. It's fine grained but not slick if that makes sense; it still has some of the lovely tonality that Tri-X has.

I've been using Xtol and D-76 for T-Max and they both work very well. I admit I'll likely stay with Tri X/HP5+ for 120 format and still shoot a fair few rolls of Tri X in 35mm but the new T-Max is super stuff.

All T-Max 400 (Xtol 1+1) - Click to enlarge







It's quite a beautiful film. Reminds me all over again why I love black and white all over again. It also looks just gorgeous printed, I've been a couple of prints on Ilford FB warmtone, gorgeous!

Vicky
​
 
It's a great film, no doubt about it. I use Rodinal 1+50 for 10 minutes agitate 30 seconds to start and then 3 inversions every 3 minutes, I then dump that solution and pour in 5.5 cc of Borax to 500 ml water, this I agitate for 30 seconds and then let stand for 3 minutes (68 degrees) (this is my versions of Barry Thornton's two bath).

4161065040_441373557b.jpg
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Then we have the same timings for scenes with sun requiring a rich and clean rendering of zones out of direct sun! Contrast is beautifully controlled, as your nice shot shows...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

If you are careful you can keep TMY-2 from blowing highlights. I had this problem with roll film until I started this method (and careful metering, but the above shot was done with a Konica C35; all auto exposure).
 
charjohncarter said:
It's a great film, no doubt about it. I use Rodinal 1+50 for 10 minutes agitate 30 seconds to start and then 3 inversions every 3 minutes, I then dump that solution and pour in 5.5 cc of Borax to 500 ml water, this I agitate for 30 seconds and then let stand for 3 minutes (68 degrees) (this is my versions of Barry Thornton's two bath).

4161065040_441373557b.jpg
Click to expand...

Carter,

What exactly does the Borax do? I'm curious, as I'd like to give T-Max another try ( I hated it when it first came out, way back when I was a much younger lad, but I've read good things about the new emulsion ). Very nice tones in the pic, by the way.
 
jpa66 said:
Carter,

What exactly does the Borax do? I'm curious, as I'd like to give T-Max another try ( I hated it when it first came out, way back when I was a much younger lad, but I've read good things about the new emulsion ). Very nice tones in the pic, by the way.
Click to expand...

Carter is using what is called a "water-bath" developing scheme. You process for part of the time in normal developer then put in plain water. The idea is the developer soaked into the film will quickly exhaust in the water-bath in the heavily exposed (light tones) areas while continuing to work on the dark tones, thus reducing contrast. It is an old technique. Modern films do not work well with plain water, it causes streaking and the thinner emulsions on modern films do not absorb enough developer for it to work well. Borax is a mild alkali, used in some developers as a PH buffer (D-76 is a developer that uses borax). Alkalis make developers stronger, so the use of a mild alkali instead of plain water gives enough of a boost to the developer absorbed in the emulsion that it can give the increased development in the darker tones you want from the water-bath technique. Borax is not strong enough to greatly increase the developers activity in the highlights which still exhaust the chemical fast.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Carter is using what is called a "water-bath" developing scheme. You process for part of the time in normal developer then put in plain water. The idea is the developer soaked into the film will quickly exhaust in the water-bath in the heavily exposed (light tones) areas while continuing to work on the dark tones, thus reducing contrast. It is an old technique. Modern films do not work well with plain water, it causes streaking and the thinner emulsions on modern films do not absorb enough developer for it to work well. Borax is a mild alkali, used in some developers as a PH buffer (D-76 is a developer that uses borax). Alkalis make developers stronger, so the use of a mild alkali instead of plain water gives enough of a boost to the developer absorbed in the emulsion that it can give the increased development in the darker tones you want from the water-bath technique. Borax is not strong enough to greatly increase the developers activity in the highlights which still exhaust the chemical fast.
Click to expand...

I think he is right, well put.
 
I just found this thread on Tmax 400 in 120, and I had to express my love for it also. I just put a roll through my Lubitel 166 and shot some 30 second exposures. Beautiful. I will try to post a scan soon when I am finished tweaking the print and my new Illford paper gets in!

I hear that the Tmax Developer gets bashed a lot, but we use 1:9 dilution at 75 degrees Fahrenheit for 12 1/2 minutes agitating every 30 seconds for 5 seconds. Just thought I would share... It comes out great!

P.S. I need some help calculating development time for Tmax 400 pushed two stops. I am worried about over developing the film, so using the same protocol as above, but increasing the development time to 14 minutes. I've heard various opinons about push processing such as 1/3 or 1/4 extra time for each stop, but the development time for Tmax 400 pushed 1 stop is the same according to Kodak.
 
I tried the Rodinal 1+50, Borax and suggested agitation/temperature with low contrast subject in low light (indoors). The negatives were rather thin. I think that I will give 12-14 minutes a try given the same subject. Of course, the Borax is of less importance in where contrast is low. I think that I would have been around EI 200 at 10min/3min with my Ikon metered TTL. I'll use an incident meter next time.
 
Last edited:
bwcolor said:
I tried the Rodinal 1+50, Borax and suggested agitation/temperature with low contrast subject in low light (indoors). The negatives were rather thin. I think that I will give 12-14 minutes a try given the same subject. Of course, the Borax is of less importance in where contrast is low. I think that I would have been around EI 200 at 10min/3min with my Ikon metered TTL. I'll use an incident meter next time.
Click to expand...


HMMM, I find that 10/3 minutes gives me contrasty and dense negative (which I like) with 35mm (heavy sun, BUT not blown out highlights). I like this so I continue using it. But then again all cameras and meters are different. I'm going to do some from my trip this year to Mexico tomorrow, I'll let you know if anything changes, but I've done so many with this method and with so many cameras I doubt it will change.

Here is one from Mexico 2009 (TMY-2, Konica C35, Two Bath, and I forgot to also post that I did these at 200 EI):

3288581504_bf0245e476.jpg
 
Last edited:
I shot at EI 400 and EI 200 would have looked much better. I have been looking for a film/developer that can fill the EI 400-640 in 35mm. Neopan 1600 and T-Max 400 are the films under consideration at this time. Will also be trying the T-Max Developer.
 
Last edited:
bwcolor said:
I shot at EI 400 and EI 200 would have looked much better. I have been looking for a film/developer that can fill the EI 400-640 in 35mm. Neopan 1600 and T-Max 400 are the films under consideration at this time. Will also be trying the T-Max Developer.
Click to expand...

Generally, Rodinal is a speed losing developer so there are probably better choices for pushing film. I know very little about pushing as I've never done it. So maybe, research some threads on RFF for a suitable scheme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom