nathanp
Established
I had a roll of TMax 3200 for a while that i thought I'd use up and experiment with. I threw it in the Hexar and decided to see what would happen. I rated it at 1600 but later read that it's 'real' speed was more like 1000 (mistake 1). I used it up and decided to develop it in ID11 as I didn't want to buy TMax developer just for this one roll (mistake 2) and I thought it would be more suitable than rodinal. During the development my mum phoned (and couldn't understand why I had to keep putting the phone down for 30s every minute..) . I lost track of the development time and it ended up being developed for 17 minutes (mistake 3). Oops.
I think this is the worst roll of film I've developed so far!
Next time maybe.. :bang:
I think this is the worst roll of film I've developed so far!
Next time maybe.. :bang:
kshapero
South Florida Man
I got about the same results.
Svitantti
Well-known
shame on those wasted photos... better luck next time
gb hill
Veteran
Next time don't answer the phone or tell them you will call back later. Why is rating it @ 1600 instead 0f 1000 a mistake? I've seen alot of this film rated at 1600 and looked really good! I've never shot it myself I do have some of Ilford 3200 to try.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
You can use it at 800, 1600 or 3200 if you develop correctly for the exposure you gave it... You'll only lose a bit of shadow detail at 1600 and a bit more at 3200... Sometimes that helps an image... By the way, TMax developer is very good with that film.
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
dfoo
Well-known
The first looks a bit thin, the others are ok. Don't expect much different from a 3200 ISO film. They are very grainy. I've found neopan developed in XTOL to the best fast film personally.
Svitantti
Well-known
You are right it isnt really 3200 ISO, but you can use it at 3200 with good results, at least with developers like Tmax, Xtol etc...
From this size web photos and all the resizing and sharpening its hard to tell too much about the graininess. Sure any film at 1600 will have grain in 35mm format.
For these photos, they look quite ok generally. Dont know about the grain, but as dfoo said, only the first one shows any fault and that is most likely just minor underexposure.
B&W film developing is not magic as you can see from these photos. They are generally just fine. If you were cooking, your food might have gone bad with these tolerances.
From this size web photos and all the resizing and sharpening its hard to tell too much about the graininess. Sure any film at 1600 will have grain in 35mm format.
For these photos, they look quite ok generally. Dont know about the grain, but as dfoo said, only the first one shows any fault and that is most likely just minor underexposure.
B&W film developing is not magic as you can see from these photos. They are generally just fine. If you were cooking, your food might have gone bad with these tolerances
.Bogotron
Established
Actually the third image is about the best I've ever gotten from a 3200 film (I've only used Delta). I agree with dfoo, I've much preferred the results with Neopan 1600.
Rhodes
Time Lord
You got grainy photos, but I like it.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I just printed a TMZ negative this weekend at 11x14. Visible grain, but well controlled.
Over developing can exaggerate grain, as can scanning at low resolutions. Have another go - good luck!
Over developing can exaggerate grain, as can scanning at low resolutions. Have another go - good luck!
Freakscene
Obscure member
How fresh is the film? These look like the results i've got from expired TMZ.
Marty
Marty
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I agree. I've developed it in D-76 and the results were not near as good as you get with Tmax Developer, but they were acceptable. The OPs pics look like expired film.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
nathanp,
Just in case you didn't see this, http://www.flickr.com/photos/40894234@N07/4486125835/ here you have TMax3200 metered at 3200 incident... I also think the problem was not your processing but the film...
Cheers,
Juan
Just in case you didn't see this, http://www.flickr.com/photos/40894234@N07/4486125835/ here you have TMax3200 metered at 3200 incident... I also think the problem was not your processing but the film...
Cheers,
Juan
gb hill
Veteran
Just a reminder to all that I read in another thread you, Chris & some others were discussing about this film, how quickly the film deteriorates after it's expiration date. I didn't know this myself & now I won't buy expired 3200 film.
Freakscene
Obscure member
It goes grainy and loses tonallity very quickly after expiry. it is also very susceptible to x-ray damage.
Marty
Marty
nathanp
Established
Looking again I think "Ruined" was probably a bit strong, I do have images they're just not as nice as I'd hoped
I don't think the film was expired, it was bought in October last year and kept in the fridge (I will check though). The development time ended up being around 17 minutes in stock ID11 - I think the official Kodak time was nearer 14 minutes but I can't remember offhand.
After reading the replies (thanks everyone) and seeing the other TMax examples I think maybe the biggest problem was my expectation. My original post reads a bit more negatively than I intended - The pics weren't anything too important and it was an experiment so I'm not too upset. I've at least learnt a bit about a new film.
I don't think the film was expired, it was bought in October last year and kept in the fridge (I will check though). The development time ended up being around 17 minutes in stock ID11 - I think the official Kodak time was nearer 14 minutes but I can't remember offhand.
After reading the replies (thanks everyone) and seeing the other TMax examples I think maybe the biggest problem was my expectation. My original post reads a bit more negatively than I intended - The pics weren't anything too important and it was an experiment so I'm not too upset. I've at least learnt a bit about a new film.