Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Last month I was surprised at how well Tri-X at 3200 works with Xtol 1+1...
Yesterday I thought "it's as good as to imagine even 6400 is possible...", and that would be the first time I do it in my life, but as I had a new TMY roll in my camera, I decided, instead of testing Tri-X at 6400 (next week) testing half a roll of Tmax400 at 3200 and the other half at 6400, to check a couple of development times and see how TMY likes underexposure and Xtol...
Should I expect a big difference from great, really pushable Tri-X?
TMY's smaller grain aks for a try at least...
Cheers,
Juan
Yesterday I thought "it's as good as to imagine even 6400 is possible...", and that would be the first time I do it in my life, but as I had a new TMY roll in my camera, I decided, instead of testing Tri-X at 6400 (next week) testing half a roll of Tmax400 at 3200 and the other half at 6400, to check a couple of development times and see how TMY likes underexposure and Xtol...
Should I expect a big difference from great, really pushable Tri-X?
TMY's smaller grain aks for a try at least...
Cheers,
Juan
Corran
Well-known
If you are experimenting here's an idea.
Get one of those "white balance" lens caps and put it on your lens on a camera with a TTL meter and expose it at -3 exp. compensation aimed at a constant light source (which should give you a uniform tone across the field). This'll give you a uniform Zone 2 shadow density. Then shoot it (again) at 6400 and develop with a bit more time than your 3200 recipe.
I did this with some 4x5 once and it worked. Haven't tried with small format. Anyway, just rambling here I guess, but might be fun to try if you are "pushing" the boundaries.
Get one of those "white balance" lens caps and put it on your lens on a camera with a TTL meter and expose it at -3 exp. compensation aimed at a constant light source (which should give you a uniform tone across the field). This'll give you a uniform Zone 2 shadow density. Then shoot it (again) at 6400 and develop with a bit more time than your 3200 recipe.
I did this with some 4x5 once and it worked. Haven't tried with small format. Anyway, just rambling here I guess, but might be fun to try if you are "pushing" the boundaries.
icebear
Veteran
I never pushed TMY beyond 1 stop, as ISO800 was usally enough for my lenses at the time: 1.2/85L, 2.8/200.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
I've had great results with TMY at EI-1600.
I prefer it to Tri-X overall - better grain, snappier contrast, film stock that doesn't curl so badly. YMMV but it seems TMY is more sensitive to imprecise development, in other words its latitude or margin of error *seems* less (to my eye) than Tri-X.
You'll only find out by doing it, so...give it a try.
I prefer it to Tri-X overall - better grain, snappier contrast, film stock that doesn't curl so badly. YMMV but it seems TMY is more sensitive to imprecise development, in other words its latitude or margin of error *seems* less (to my eye) than Tri-X.
You'll only find out by doing it, so...give it a try.
mfogiel
Veteran
I think Corran is suggesting to pre-flash your film, which would be a bit tricky on 35mm and impossible on MF. I think that for pushing, it is better to stick to traditional, MULTILAYER emulsion films like Tri X or HP5+, because they contain silver crystals of varying size, therefore some of these are more sensitive than average, thus letting you get at least SOME particles activated by light. I have seen Tmax 400 pushed to 1600 but not really more than that.
Ljós
Well-known
Hi Juan,
first of all, XTOL is a good choice for TMY when it comes to film speed, so you have that part covered.
In my opinion, the latest version of TMY deals with underexposure quite well. Whether TMY will "catch more light" than a more traditional emulsion (HP5) I cannot say for sure (I doubt it though), but certainly the grain size is considerably smaller.
Ultimately your own personal aesthetics of what a decent/acceptable print looks like will determine the outcome.
As much as I am a fan of HP5, I would have to say that the new and improved TMY is probably the finest 400 speed film there is, all things considered.
Greetings, Ljós
first of all, XTOL is a good choice for TMY when it comes to film speed, so you have that part covered.
In my opinion, the latest version of TMY deals with underexposure quite well. Whether TMY will "catch more light" than a more traditional emulsion (HP5) I cannot say for sure (I doubt it though), but certainly the grain size is considerably smaller.
Ultimately your own personal aesthetics of what a decent/acceptable print looks like will determine the outcome.
As much as I am a fan of HP5, I would have to say that the new and improved TMY is probably the finest 400 speed film there is, all things considered.
Greetings, Ljós
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Thank you all for your comments...
To my surprise TMY deals very well with underexposure, at least when that underexposure is treated with Xtol... Not only at 3200 I get usable negatives: at 6400 too, and I would have never believed it!
Obviously at 6400 I can't get a negative that's the best possible one for wet printing, but I can get one that's more than good enough for scanning and for digital printing, and with TMY at 6400 I clearly get less grain than with Tri-X at 3200. This is soooooo new to me!
If you got a roll of TMY and some Xtol, you can do a first quick test with the time I'm using: Xtol 1+1 27C 25min, Tmax400 at 6400 (metering is critical of course), first minute of constant fast, wild inversions, then ten fast, wild inversions every third minute.
Of course this speed is seldom needed, but it's great to know this can be done when there's no other option... And I guess it must be fun to do it with my Hasselblad too...
Finally, I think all this makes some sense: those two products are the most recently designed film and developer by the most successful company in photography history...
Cheers,
Juan
To my surprise TMY deals very well with underexposure, at least when that underexposure is treated with Xtol... Not only at 3200 I get usable negatives: at 6400 too, and I would have never believed it!
Obviously at 6400 I can't get a negative that's the best possible one for wet printing, but I can get one that's more than good enough for scanning and for digital printing, and with TMY at 6400 I clearly get less grain than with Tri-X at 3200. This is soooooo new to me!
If you got a roll of TMY and some Xtol, you can do a first quick test with the time I'm using: Xtol 1+1 27C 25min, Tmax400 at 6400 (metering is critical of course), first minute of constant fast, wild inversions, then ten fast, wild inversions every third minute.
Of course this speed is seldom needed, but it's great to know this can be done when there's no other option... And I guess it must be fun to do it with my Hasselblad too...
Finally, I think all this makes some sense: those two products are the most recently designed film and developer by the most successful company in photography history...
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
A sample of my test here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/40894234@N07/14607716544/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Cheers,
Juan
https://www.flickr.com/photos/40894234@N07/14607716544/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Cheers,
Juan
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
... and all bottles empty!
well - at least, an interesting result. maybe i should have a go with TMY myself, even if i prefer rodinal (i do not like developers that come as powder).
cheers,
sebastian
well - at least, an interesting result. maybe i should have a go with TMY myself, even if i prefer rodinal (i do not like developers that come as powder).
cheers,
sebastian
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Sebastian,
Although those bottles were used last week in the restaurant I own, I accept I did a small collaboration in the full to empty process, mainly a few Tanqueray Gin Tonics...
About Rodinal, it's lovely for its tone and grain, and I'll use it all my life, but no matter how much I tried to use it for wild pushing, 400@1600 is the limit for it, IMO...
Hope you enjoy Xtol too...
Cheers,
Juan
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
hello juan,
i agree, more than 1600 are tough - and even 1600 can be a stretch already. well, however much i like rodinal, it is not the first choice for pushing. with my current preference of iso100 material, it's all a different game anyway. but that also means, that i do not need to hurry with that funny powder business.
cheers,
s.