Tmax 100/D76 ... Not much detail

P

pryan9

Member
Local time
5:34 AM
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
47
View My Gallery
So I am pretty new to developing at home and I've been trying out a few rolls of tmax 100 in D76 and they seem to be very dull. I scan my negs and end up having to bump the blacks a little to "fill in" the extremely grey shadow areas but then I feel like they have way too much contrast.

Could this be a result of the tmax/d76 combination or perhaps my developing techniques?

I am developing at 1:1, 68 degrees F. I can't remember the exact time but I believe its 9:30. Agitation for the first 60 seconds and then 2-3 agitations every 30 for the rest of development time.
 
I have the same problem with this combo. I tend to think this film has to be shot in the best circumstances, not in direct or full sunlight, and using a none flare prone lens or using a good lens hood.
Maybe it is better to use Tmax developer with it, I don't know. I hope someone else can give intelligence on this, 'cause I just bought 50 120rolls of Tmax100.
 
Try the tmax dev. I use it at 1:4 68'. Mixing at 1:4 the developer can be re-used for many rolls. Tmax films require extra attention during fixing in my experience. If your blacks are flat maybe you have some silver remaining in the shadow parts of tge neg. Unlikely but.. Just sayin.
 
Here is a sample image that I've had to do some retouching with. The original scan was very flat. Although I like this image alot, I hate the bottom corners and the lack of detail under his right armpit as well as the blownout cheeks. I added a slight vignette to try and draw the attention to the center of the frame a little more. I'll try to post the originals tonight or tomorrow.

This image was shot using a Nikon S2 rangefinder and the 5cm f1.4 lens.

sQ9sV.jpg
 
You might want to try PMK Pyro by Photographers Formulary. I just did TMAX 400 @ 200 in 5ml + 10ml + 450ml water at 20 Degrees Celcius for 13 mins.
 
Try developing longer for increased contrast.

I normally use Rodinal for TMX because I like the look/sharpness/tone of that...but D76 is a good all around developer.

I'd suggest increasing the development time by 20% and see how that works for you.
 
The owner of the camera shop where I go told me to shot T-Max 100 at asa 64. I did that and developed in D-76 and I thought I had good results. I've been shooting it at that speed all along so I haven't compared it when shot at asa 100.

Mike
 
The original scans are always flat, from all films. This fallacy that the scan should look perfect without any post-process is all over the internet, and believing it is the single biggest mistake you can make as a photographer.

Tmax 100 in D-76 1+1 is a beautiful combination, nicer than in Tmax Developer. You just have to accept that you increase contrast with a curves adjustment in Photoshop after you scan.

branstrator-fog6.jpg



monroeville-rd-1.jpg



branstrator-fog2.jpg
 
I'm not much of a scanning expert and can't comment on the right way to process T-Max for scanning. For silver printing I think D-76 (and other MQ developers) has some limitations. Actually I've never been completely happy with T-Max for silver printing; I rather prefer Delta 100 and Delta 400. But that's another matter. I think that for the printing I've done, on Ilford paper, the T-grain films come out better with a phenidone based developer. It doesn't have to be T-Max developer, which is really a push developer. It doesn't have to be HC-110 either. Ilfotec DD-X for instance, gives me nice printable negs. So does Microphen, if I want to push. The frustration I've had with T-Max is a lack of local contrast. Things just looked too flat. I've been trying a little T-Max 400 since they changed it. I haven't seen anything yet that would make me switch to it. It still lacks a nice tonality, IMO. But that's just my taste. I think Zawadski and Dikerson were on the right track with XTOL, which is a phenidone/sodium ascorbate formula, as I have gotten good pictures when using it with T-grain films. It's a pain to mix, but it keeps well, and the price is right.
 
I never did darkroom prints of Tmax 100 developed in D-76; those have been scans only. Back when i had a darkroom, I used Rodinal 1+50 with Tmax 100 and I still like it for scanning. It made negs that printed well on Ilford MG-IVFB paper
 
I have to say that my experience has been that (AristaPrem400)Tri-X with D76 gives me really good results. All the other B&W's I've been experimenting with (Acros, HP5, FP4, Delta100, Delta400, PanFplus 50) have come out better in Rodinal/Blazinal compared to D76. Plus, premixing chemistry is a pain.
 
Fireboy said:
I have to say that my experience has been that (AristaPrem400)Tri-X with D76 gives me really good results. All the other B&W's I've been experimenting with (Acros, HP5, FP4, Delta100, Delta400, PanFplus 50) have come out better in Rodinal/Blazinal compared to D76. Plus, premixing chemistry is a pain.
Click to expand...

I like Rodinal with Acros, Pan-F, and FP-4 too. Been too long since I've used Delta 100 and 400 or HP5 to comment, but I remember that Delta 400 was nice in rodinal, but was slow, like EI-160. That was 15 yrs ago though, its probably changed.
 
All the T-Max films have curve mismatches when used with Ilford papers. You can certainly make great prints from TMax films on Ilford papers, but it requires more skill and work than if the curves matched better. In some ways it's a real shame, because Ilford papers have beautiful surface finishes and tones and Kodak films scratch less easily, have better latency and in many places are more readily available and cheaper than Ilford's.

Marty
 
Thanks for all the input everyone. I think I may just steer clear of tmax for a while now. I just had a bunch of free rolls so i figured they would be good to learn on.

I recall having some rolls processed by a lab now come to think of it and they were just as dull and lacking contrast. So maybe it's not my developing technique.

I always do some slight post processing with levels and curve adjustments - its just that this film I feel needs to be overly processed after scanning and then I feel like its almost not even the same image by the time im done (which i don't like).
 
Freakscene said:
All the T-Max films have curve mismatches when used with Ilford papers.
Click to expand...

I do not agree. Of course you have to experiment with the development of the film. For Tmax 400-2 I use Ilford Perceptol, 1 part developer + 2 parts water @ 23 degrees C. for 10 minutes. Perfect for Ilford MGIV fb-papers. I use the filters 0 to 2, never a higher number. So I have the choice between the filters 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2, wich is enough choice for me.

Erik.
 
I've used Tmax 100 shot at 50 and developed in HC-110h or Rodinal (and sometime I use them together). Tmax 100, I may be wrong, came out before Tmax developer and the then recommended developer was D-76. These films are controlled light film which means to me you have to meter right on. You should not be having these problems, maybe run us though you work flow and metering flow.
 
semilog said:
Marty, I would be grateful if you would elaborate on this point, particularly with reference to 2TMY.
Click to expand...

I don't mean that you run out of contrast.

I was about to qualify my comments above by saying I haven't worked with 2TMY much at all, although I used a lot of the old TMY. What 2 TMY I have used I haven't printed wet.

My observations on the older films and Ilford MGVFB are that the optimum contrast is mismatched between the highlights and the shadows. When you wet print you superimpose the film's curve onto that of the paper. If these are well matched the tones place out well, roughly where you would like them to, with little dodging and burning. If they are mismatched getting the tones how you want them is harder, typically involving more shadow dodging and highlight burning, or increasing the need for unsharp masks and other tone and contrast-modifying heroics. Highlight contrast doesn't shift as much with VC paper as the shadow and midtones do. This is really critical because your eyes perceive highlight detail and contrast more than shadow contrast, at least for most people.

This all comes down to personal preference too. I like the HCB Zone V kind of look in prints, and find that Kodak films, particularly Tri-X and Plus-X print best (of modern FB glossy papers) on Adox MCC, a copy of AGFA MCC.

TMax films print best on a paper with lower highlight contrast than Ilford FB, and printed well on Cachet and Sterling papers. I still have a stock of these, so I don't know which current FB papers might suit them best.

You can make great prints from any film on any paper given sufficient skill and patience, but I strongly believe in making things easier for myself wherever possible.

Marty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom