Kodak T-Max P3200 shot at 1600- developed in TMAX RS = insane density?

G

GarageBoy

Well-known
Local time
3:29 AM
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
838
View My Gallery
I'm not sure if something went wrong or not, but last night, I souped up some P3200 in TMAX RS at 75 deg F, for 9.5 min 7 agitations/30s after initial agitation and this came out...

They all came out thick, unless I really underexposed

This one is okay


Kinda gritty?



Then there was this portrait...

The negative is THICK

and this, which was very thin...


Is this combo really going to be this grainy?

Thanks
 
Negs look fairly normal to me. Thick means brick-walled - blackness throughout the entire strip, and these don't look like that. Other than the thin negative, I see nothing majorly wrong - other than the fact that you need to increase contrast and/or adjust black point. Sprocket hole surge is somewhat evident which would point to semi-vigerous agitation (but not always) and/or strong developer. I wouldn't use 7 agitations per 30 seconds, I would use 4-5 max. That being said, it's not a neg-killer if you used too much agitation; just the final results will be a bit "hot."

I usually use XTOL 1+1 or Rodinal 1+25 with TMZ and get reasonably predictable results if exposure was sane.
 
Another way to judge development, roughly, is the density of the frame numbering. Looks pretty good here. I would hazard to suggest your exposure was frequently on the generous side. 🙂 Also agree about toning down the agitation. Might have even been ~5 inversions on the minute instead of every 30 seconds.

I shot a ton of TMZ back in the day, though not for a long time now, and it's going to be somewhat grainy. Loved that film. Quite amazed you can still buy it.
 
Thanks

Surge marks are from using a single roll in a 2 roll tank, I think (two reels)
Is there a way to prevent this without buying a single roll tank?

I assumed I over cooked them because when I went to scan, the levels histogram on Epson scan was all the way over to the right
 
OK, I looked up the T-MAX developer info and it does say every 30 seconds... but noticed there are two different TMZ versions. I assume you've shot the current version which does call for 9.5 minutes. Refer to the versions on the last page of this PDF.

On Kodak's site, I learned TMZ was discontinued last year. And they note this about TMY:

TMY-2 delivers very good results when exposed at EI 1600 with increased development time.

Even though P3200 is approx 2 stops faster than TMY-2 at comparable contrast levels, that extra speed comes with a very significant grain penalty. In fact, for most applications TMY-2 is actually the better film choice. The exception would be extremely low light situations where P3200 might be able to pull out some shadow detail that would otherwise be lost with TMY-2.

If you're concerned about grain at ISO 1600, then TMY might be the better option.
 
GarageBoy said:
Thanks

Surge marks are from using a single roll in a 2 roll tank, I think (two reels)
Is there a way to prevent this without buying a single roll tank?

I assumed I over cooked them because when I went to scan, the levels histogram on Epson scan was all the way over to the right
Click to expand...

I wouldn't pay attention to the histogram really, just set the black point and contrast to what looks preferable to you.

As far as the single roll in a 2 roll tank, just put an empty reel in it along with the spooled reel.

P3200TMZ isn't that grainy, IMO. Sure, of course the grain is there, but it's not objectionable.
 
I think the negs look really heavy, they are in all probability overexposed which will give thick negatives as will overdevelopment which is also an issue here.
Frames number 20 and 21 are grossly over-exposed, resulting in the signature 'crushed whites'
Just look at the black trousers, they should have little detail in them (around density 0.30-0.50) rather than the upper mid tone that shows in the negs. The grain also looks softer when massive overexposure is present due to the light spreading through the film-look how soft the grain is on the portrait of the man vs the barman.

Frame 15A is very high contrast though which is the sign of underexposure and overdevelopment.
When in my teens I studied under a master printer who showed me the trick of placing the highlight over the print in a book-if you can read the print though it then exposure/development is OK.
Those surge marks are also interesting, I often process single reels in a tank, never seen them. Edge marking's are also not a good metric of density, you get different density edge markings on different batches (especially on Kodak)
The last shot of the barman is underexposed though by around two stops-hence the sharp pepper grain.

My prognosis is a three stop over-exposure on the worst frames and a global over development of around 30%
 
The blacks you see in 20 and 21 are not indicative of crushed whites one bit - atleast that's to say, it's not necessarily that the detail in the whites has been lossed. Compressed, yes, most likely.

You wouldn't believe how dark you can make a neg and still print through it (optically, atleast).

I do not see 3 stops of OE to these negs, maybe 1-2 at most. It looks more like hot development to me. Certainly there's nothing unrecoverable about these images and raw scans aren't going to portray them in their best light.

Additionally, grain is not softer when combined with over-exposure - OE increases grain. I'd say "maybe there's a problem" when the entire roll is a brickwall of blackness. These negs are not that - but even if they were, it's still recoverable.
 
Clayne:
The black trousers (frame 20a are darker than 21a) should plot in the toe of the curve, that is at the point where density starts to build. What I see is those black trousers at around 0.70 (guesstimate) which is on the linear part of the curve normally white skin tone would plot there.
Shadow information must not be on the linear part of the film curve to maintain good balanced negative ideal for reproduction.
I don't know what 'hot development' means-do you mean over development? Sure I see that as well as over agitation– those are not the reason for the 'crushed' lack of detail in the whites and lowering of definition of the grain.

Given that I trust that time and temp were ballpark for this film developer combination, and that the shadows on the underexposed area (in the bar shot) remain low in density but high in contrast development isn't the major factor, agitation can at maximum give a density of x2 (between no agitation and continuous)

Any variation in exposure will increase the appearance of grain. Overexposure increases grain especially in the area of mid-upper highlight.
The grain changes character as well depending on a host of factors, mainly as light scatter starts to be a factor within the emulsion softening the appearance. In our tests we found this 'grain blunting' normally occurs at around 3-4 stops overexposure.

Underexposure and correcting in printing give 'pepper grain' especially in the lower mid tones which is different to the appearance of grain in overexposed regions.
(you can see this in the thin and thick negs posted)

There is certainly a problem with these negatives; they are far from normal– the randomness of density in the frames points to overexposure with some frames and with normal under exposures on some; the contrast over the whole film showing slight over development/agitation.

They may be recoverable, and yes I've been able to recover both in the lab and under test environment of up to nearly 8 stops-but those are far from optimal.

My prognosis is mainly exposure, 30% overdevelopment and over agitation.
The neg on the left is how you see it posted by the OP above. On the right I've attempted to mimic a neg that looks normal-slightly over.
151228760.jpg

That is a difference of about 4-5 stops in density to make the left exposure look like the one on the right.
 
Thanks
I was blatantly overexposing to prevent loss of shadow detail, not knowing that the highlights and midtones would all bunch up like that.

The bar shot, was, IIRC, shot at 2 shots under because, a. it's dark in there, b. I wanted to replicate the darkness by placing emerging shadows (pretty much the whole scene) in Zone III or so, not realizing what I had done

Really curious about the overdevelopment. I dumped the developer 9:30s on the dot. Could overzealous agitation cause the overdevelopment?
Also, hot day, no A/C, developer was at 75 degrees when I started, but would it warm significantly ?
 
I'm presuming you had the correct solution strength (very important) time and temp.
In lab tests it was found the difference between no agitation and constant was about a doubling of density:

149188211.jpg


This was found to be consistent across developer types and film types, as you can see a little goes a long way continuous goes only a little further .

So yes, I think the film was agitated a little too much but not enough to cause the blocking of the highlights you see in 20A which is mainly exposure–as you say 'blatant overexposure'.

Correct exposure (which is a little misnomer) is about putting the emerging detail in the toe of the film curve.
With most films that will be at the point density builds just past filmbase+fog+0.1 which in practical use is around 0.28-0.30

The best way of exposing to get consistency is to meter for the point you wish to have the first perceptible detail then stop down two stops.

This will place emerging shadow detail on zone III or very close to the magical point where density rapidly builds just above fb+fog+0.1 previously mentioned.

In your image 20A taking your reading from the trousers and stopping down two stops would have given you all the shadow detail you require.
What I'd advise against is 'blatant overexposure' which in this case has put your shadow in the middle of the curve and your highlights over the shoulder (crushing/compressing them).

With the barman shot I'd have metered of the floor or the barmans face, with less light it's harder to say-still meter for emerging detail then stop down is the correct way...
 
Thanks
I won't over expose 2+ over midtone anymore and will see if my camera's meter is okay (Nikon F2AS).

Will use a full tank of developer instead of half, or buy a smaller tank (TMAX RS gets to be an expensive habit)
 
There's obviously additional grain compared to "perfect" negatives - of which all I'm saying is that I think the negs are quite dense. However, this is no great calamity here. Adjust the curves (if scanning) or expose longer and print at a normal or slightly higher grade (if printing).
 
Of course the analogue process has great latitude, and while not a total disaster the OP feels he could have done better.
With respect to his workflow, (which seems to be scan based) thinner negatives are often better, it takes a very good scanner to punch through dense contrasty negatives.
I don't mean to be argumentative just supportive of the OP 🙂
 
Does appear quite dense, I'd imagine you'd need low contrast grade printing in the dark room to print it anywhere near the low contrast you're displaying the scans at.
 
Yep, I hear ya.

I think the main things would be to make sure agitation is under control and make sure the tank has 2 reels with enough fluid for 2 reels (not half full). Other than a bit more grain, it looks like TMZ to me. TMZ is best printed optically, IMO. Scanners accentuate too much of the grain.

The OP's portrait shot has the subject behind the plane of sharp focus, and combined with the already present grain, I'm of the opinion that it's not as grainy as one thinks (grain is commonly more perceivable as focus transitions away from the optimum plane of focus).

The below shot is definitely overexposed in some areas of the frame, but there's not an excessive amount of grain where it matters:


Alan Dejecacion by kediwah, on Flickr

Could have definitely burned in the buildings better though. Darkroom print, xtol, dektol, rapid selenium, etc. scanned w/ a v700 so no excessive or artificial acutance from the scanning process. It'd take a while to find these specific negatives, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the frames were just as dense as the OPs.

P3200TMZ is a great film.
 
clayne said:
Yep, I hear ya.

I think the main things would be to make sure agitation is under control and make sure the tank has 2 reels with enough fluid for 2 reels (not half full). Other than a bit more grain, it looks like TMZ to me. TMZ is best printed optically, IMO. Scanners accentuate too much of the grain.
Click to expand...

The OP's negatives are over dense, contrast and over agitation play their part, but density with TMZ will only increase less than a stop with the function spread zero agitation (stand) to continuous (say in a rotary processor).

The 3-4 stops we are seeing here is the result of over exposure and to a lesser degree development factors.

Overexposure results in less sharpness because of emulsion spread function which is known as turbidity.
There are many studies that clearly show what some call grain 'blunting' due to spread function– but if you would like more information on this I suggest you read 'The structure of the developed image' particularly the work of Schwarzschild on radiative transfer and photographic turbidity (I can supply reference material if you're interested)

You can clearly see this in the difference the grain character of the shot in the subway (20A) and the barman.

TMZ is (was) a wonderful film well controlled gave fine grain and contrast.

59765841.jpg

TMZ at 3200EI developed in Rodinal scanned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom