Rhodes
Time Lord
In a recent dinner party, I used a t-max 3200 at iso 1600. After endind the first film, I load a second one, but before I did that I change the light meter to 400 to see what speeds the camera showed with the lamps light and etc.
But I forgot to change back to 1600 so I take almost the intere rols at iso 400.
In massive development chart there is no information to develop this film exposed at 400 with ilford dd-x (what I have now, besides rodinal).
Any one knows what time should I use? Or if I should develop?
But I forgot to change back to 1600 so I take almost the intere rols at iso 400.
In massive development chart there is no information to develop this film exposed at 400 with ilford dd-x (what I have now, besides rodinal).
Any one knows what time should I use? Or if I should develop?
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
I'm not sure about any special pull-developers, but I think I'd try to save it with diafine or something comparable.
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
This is a guess constructed from 2 data sheets. From looking at the TMAX spec sheet, TMZ is pretty linear with respect to contrast index and time in most developers.
Anyway, looking at the DD-X times, each lower EI needs about 15-20% of the time of the next higher EI. So I'd use about 80-85% of the time for EI 800. 6 mins or 6:15 at 20 degrees.
Even without all that info, I would have guessed just pulling development by 15-20% of the EI 800 time anyway. Haha.
Anyway, looking at the DD-X times, each lower EI needs about 15-20% of the time of the next higher EI. So I'd use about 80-85% of the time for EI 800. 6 mins or 6:15 at 20 degrees.
Even without all that info, I would have guessed just pulling development by 15-20% of the EI 800 time anyway. Haha.
xxloverxx
Shoot.
You say “most” of the roll, so I'd develop it for Ei 800 (or 640)
dnk512
Well-known
Do not worry. You exposed for the deep shadows. That is not bad. Develop for your highlights. For the numbers you gave, I would use about 60% of the normal development time. Perhaps others here can give more accurate numbers for specific developers.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
You'll get better negatives!
Develop for two or three minutes less.
Cheers,
Juan
Develop for two or three minutes less.
Cheers,
Juan
Rhodes
Time Lord
You'll get better negatives!
Develop for two or three minutes less.
Cheers,
Juan
two or three in relation to the time of iso 1600?
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Rhodes,
Yes, a little less time than you use for 1600 will be enough...
And don't worry: you won't burn highlights... Real film's ISO is close to 800, so shooting at 400 is just getting richer shadows... You'll get great negatives reducing your developing time a bit: results will be very close no matter if you reduce 1 or 2 or 3 minutes, and that will be more than enough for wet printing or scanning with very high quality.
Cheers,
Juan
Yes, a little less time than you use for 1600 will be enough...
And don't worry: you won't burn highlights... Real film's ISO is close to 800, so shooting at 400 is just getting richer shadows... You'll get great negatives reducing your developing time a bit: results will be very close no matter if you reduce 1 or 2 or 3 minutes, and that will be more than enough for wet printing or scanning with very high quality.
Cheers,
Juan
Rhodes
Time Lord
Thank you! I will develop latter this day, then I will post here what were the results!
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
Kodak's datasheet for T-Max films has development times for TMZ at a variety of speeds, including EI 400:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf
Tim Gray
Well-known
But not in DD-X.
gho
Well-known
Thank you! I will develop latter this day, then I will post here what were the results!
Cool, I am curious how it will turn out. I do a lot of underexposing/pushing but am not very experienced with overexposing/pulling. Basically I like the idea of using one film for different light situations and adjusting the film development time according to the exposure.
Rhodes
Time Lord
But not in DD-X.
You're right!
I scanning now! I think they come out pretty good. Let's see if my scanner do not ruin it since "he" tends to add things that aren't in the negatives...
Rhodes
Time Lord
Here are a few from the roll. Sorry to be this kind of scenes, but I need to ask the people if I can post here their portraits!



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
After scanning, used lightroom to convert in grayscale and some corrections.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
After scanning, used lightroom to convert in grayscale and some corrections.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
You got a beautiful tone! Clean, separated grays, popping whites, rich shadows and deep blacks... Perfect! That's an incredible film...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
martin s
Well-known
You probably didn't fix long enough, there are stripes all over your first two images (vertical ones).
Cheers
Cheers
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Agitation, maybe...
Tim Gray
Well-known
Looks like agitation to me.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.