Newbie needs help: Used wrong ISO setting, should I pull my Tmax 400?

[platorulez]

Hi,

I forgot to change the ISO setting on my camera from 100 back to 400 when I loaded my Tmax 400 film in it. I don't do my own development so when I send it to the lab to develop, should I develop it normally, or should I ask the lab to pull it by 2 stops?

And what is the effect of doing so? I've read that pulling will decrease contrast, but I've also read somebody on another forum who said he deliberately pulled Tmax 2 stops and it came out fine, though he developed it himself.

Really appreciate any opinions on what I should do. I took a lot of evening shadow type of shots today (high contrast stuff), and I hope I didn't screw up my photos with this silly mistake.

 

[elshaneo]

Well I guess that the best thing to do is to indeed pull it two stops ;-)

 

[Al Kaplan]

Pulling two stops will give you some really low contrast images. You might be best off with a one stop "pull" and put up with the slightly dense negatives and slightly low contrast negatives. The push/pull mystique affects contrast far more than it does real speed or sensitivity of the film.

Stick with ONE FILM and ONE SPEED RATING. For everything! Pretend that you're shooting Kodachrome and you have no real choice. Learn that film, what it can do, what you can do with it...and life will once more be both simple and filled with joy! (We hope!)

 

[MCTuomey]

If you're going to be scanning and then processing the file in PS or an equivalent, and not printing traditionally, then I'd have them pull 2 stops. A thinner negative generally scans better, at least in my experience.

Also, if you're fairly new, you might consider Tri-x as your introductory film. Compared to Tmax, Tri-x is more flexible and forgiving of the usual errors we make. At least for me anyway. Just a thought.

 

[platorulez]

Pulling two stops will give you some really low contrast images. You might be best off with a one stop "pull" and put up with the slightly dense negatives and slightly low contrast negatives. The push/pull mystique affects contrast far more than it does real speed or sensitivity of the film.

Stick with ONE FILM and ONE SPEED RATING. For everything! Pretend that you're shooting Kodachrome and you have no real choice. Learn that film, what it can do, what you can do with it...and life will once more be both simple and filled with joy! (We hope!)

Thanks for the tip, that's good advice, and I do try to follow it normally. I usually shoot everything at ISO 400 (Tmax 400 for BW and Kodak UltraMax 400 for colour), and that's probably why I am so bad at remembering to change the ISO setting whenever I change my film. This week I decided to try something different for a change, and bought a roll of Reala to try. I remembered to change the setting after popping the film in, but promptly forgot to do the same thing when I popped my Tmax 400 back in. Doh!

 

[platorulez]

If you're going to be scanning and then processing the file in PS or an equivalent, and not printing traditionally, then I'd have them pull 2 stops. A thinner negative generally scans better, at least in my experience.

Also, if you're fairly new, you might consider Tri-x as your introductory film. Compared to Tmax, Tri-x is more flexible and forgiving of the usual errors we make. At least for me anyway. Just a thought.

Yes, I do scan my negatives, so that tip will certainly come in handy! I only began shooting film regularly at the beginning of this year, and I did start off with Tri-X. However, I find that I prefer the look of Tmax. Guess I'll just have to be more careful in future. Actually this is one reason why I like film over digital now. It really makes me think a lot more as compared to when I was shooting digital and could always rely on the safety net of RAW post processing to fix my mistakes.

 

[35mmdelux]

depends if you want to pay extra for push/pull process. This may be important -- as when I photograped US Senator John McCain -- or not, or toss it out and start over.

 

[MCTuomey]

Tmax scans well for a silver-based film, imho. Glad you like it. I like its look too. It's pricey though, same for its chemistry.

 

[JohnTF]

Hi,

I forgot to change the ISO setting on my camera from 100 back to 400 when I loaded my Tmax 400 film in it. I don't do my own development so when I send it to the lab to develop, should I develop it normally, or should I ask the lab to pull it by 2 stops?

And what is the effect of doing so? I've read that pulling will decrease contrast, but I've also read somebody on another forum who said he deliberately pulled Tmax 2 stops and it came out fine, though he developed it himself.

Really appreciate any opinions on what I should do. I took a lot of evening shadow type of shots today (high contrast stuff), and I hope I didn't screw up my photos with this silly mistake.

Nothing probably everyone has not done on occasion.

For years, Kodak included a "safety" factor and Tri X, for example, was sold with ASA 200 on the box.

It may well be ok from your description of your subject, I strongly recommend you set as a goal your own processing, especially as it is so easy with B&W film.

I know several photographers who expose at lower EI's and pull their film as a normal technique.

I do not have as much experience with Tmax, but you are really in the right direction of exposure errors, the subject and the fact you are dealing with negative materials-- the direction of more latitude.

I understand the preferred developers for many for Tmax are Xtol and D76, so you might want to ask what they are using. B&W developing is so bad locally I just cannot in good conscience send normal film out. I used Tmax developer on Tmax and did not like it at all.

I would only pull it one stop given the subject.

It is also not unusual for metering to be off a bit, maybe you got lucky and your system is on the under side a bit. You might look at it and walk back through your exposures. How were your exposures determined?

You may have exposed for the shadows and not can develop for the highlights. ;-)

You also might do some searching on line to see what people are using with this combination of film, exposure, and developer.

And if you have the time, write Kodak, they used to have terrific quality control and customer service.

Probably TMI. ;-)

Regards, John

 

[Al Kaplan]

The original reason for T-Max and Delta, both "tabular" grain films, dates back to about 1980 and the "great silver crisis", when silver prices shot through the roof. A relatively thin Aspirin shaped chunk of silver was as effective as a thick round ball of silver, and required a lot less of the stuff. The trade off was exposure and developing latitude, and it just "looked different". This was also the main reason for making and marketing "chromagenic" C-41 process B&W films, where the silver is replaced by a dye image. It had little to do with being able to run the stuff through a mini-lab processing machine. Within a few years the printing industry had "gone digital", photo labs started making ink jet (or similar) instead of wet process prints, even X-rays stopped using silver based film. With all of the industrial uses for silver gone the price dropped like a rock! Factor for overall inflation and film is cheaper now than it was in in 1980.

Ilford Delta and Kodak T-Max were not invented for aesthetic reasons, although some photographers do like the look. They'll continue to be marketed because they do require less silver. That increases the profit!

 

[bsdunek]

But! ... But! ... But! So much film - so little time. I want to try them all!

 

[charjohncarter]

I would (pull), I shot at 100 with Tmax400 one time (bad meter on an Olympus 35RC). I developed normally, and it was bad. I usually shoot Tmax400 at 250, so two stops was enough to screw things up (not like TriX).

 

[platorulez]

I would (pull), I shot at 100 with Tmax400 one time (bad meter on an Olympus 35RC). I developed normally, and it was bad. I usually shoot Tmax400 at 250, so two stops was enough to screw things up (not like TriX).

Thanks for sharing your experience. Based on what I'm reading here, and also factoring in how I normally shoot (my lens only allows for full stops, so if the exposure is at a half-stop, I usually over expose). I think I'll probably pull it 2 stops.

 

[charjohncarter]

Let us know how they come out. Like I said my negatives were very dense. It was hard to get anything out of them; here is one, it probably worked because the meter misread in my favor:

 

[platorulez]

Let us know how they come out. Like I said my negatives were very dense. It was hard to get anything out of them; here is one, it probably worked because the meter misread in my favor:

Ok I'll update this thread once my film comes back. Thanks everyone for the advice! 🙂

 

[JohnTF]

Let us know how they come out. Like I said my negatives were very dense. It was hard to get anything out of them; here is one, it probably worked because the meter misread in my favor:

Might have been the normal exposure with such a light subject. ;-) I have not figured out the "new" rules on this with digital yet for sure.

Regards, John

 

[JohnTF]

The original reason for T-Max and Delta, both "tabular" grain films, dates back to about 1980 and the "great silver crisis", when silver prices shot through the roof. A relatively thin Aspirin shaped chunk of silver was as effective as a thick round ball of silver, and required a lot less of the stuff. The trade off was exposure and developing latitude, and it just "looked different". This was also the main reason for making and marketing "chromagenic" C-41 process B&W films, where the silver is replaced by a dye image. It had little to do with being able to run the stuff through a mini-lab processing machine. Within a few years the printing industry had "gone digital", photo labs started making ink jet (or similar) instead of wet process prints, even X-rays stopped using silver based film. With all of the industrial uses for silver gone the price dropped like a rock! Factor for overall inflation and film is cheaper now than it was in in 1980.

Ilford Delta and Kodak T-Max were not invented for aesthetic reasons, although some photographers do like the look. They'll continue to be marketed because they do require less silver. That increases the profit!

Al, am not sure I am willing to grant you all these conclusions, for one thing, B&W film has been a rather small niche for a long time. When the Hunt brothers drove up the silver price, it went up something like 20x and folks were selling grandma's silver and coins for huge profits. Film prices went up (Kodak was said to already have a supply of silver second only to the US Mint), and essentially stayed up, even though all the silver in color film is removed during the processing. Prices are "sticky". Before that, as I recall, prices were very low, -- penny a shot from bulk film.

I think it was similar to the time sugar shot up, and the price of diet pop went up with the regular, and, again, the prices were "sticky", they did not go down after the price of sugar dropped.

My friends and I, being the science and geology types, determined that at one time as silver has many commercial uses, and it was very low in price then relative to its utility, it was time to invest.

Mexico ramped up silver production.

Lost our total investment in one year.

Prices on film remained up.

I think the market forces are a bit complex and artificial.

Price on maintaining X Ray machines dropped, the service kept the reclaimed silver.

Regards, John

 

[Al Kaplan]

Those conclusions weren't just mine. They were batted around both the photography press and the financial press at the time. I remember talking with other photographers back then about the likelyhood that we'd soon be seeing a dye image B&W film. Within months Ilford came out with it.

 

[JohnTF]

Those conclusions weren't just mine. They were batted around both the photography press and the financial press at the time. I remember talking with other photographers back then about the likelyhood that we'd soon be seeing a dye image B&W film. Within months Ilford came out with it.

Reasons become a bit like politics when a couple of Texas guys can manipulate the market like that.

I do not think I noticed any of the newspapers switching to Ilford, and besides, the film cost more, and it had silver, before it was processed.

I was always grateful that Agfa and others hung in as long as they did with B&W as it was not much of their bottom line but according to the guys working there was more of a support of the arts.

Ilford's line was that while Kodak was perfecting color, they were perfecting B&W, and I thought that the XP line was yet another move in that direction.

I used it only occasionally, until the labs started getting RA 4 B&W paper, unless I printed it myself.

It scans also with Digital ICE, and I have picked up what I could find at a reasonable price to help space out the hot dogs in the freezer.

As a WAG, I might say that there is perhaps .1 oz of silver or less, in a roll of film? My friends who have a processing lab have yet to cash in the silver they have been pulling out for ten years.

I guess going to college when Nixon was president makes me suspect there are always more reasons to raise the price of a product than lower it, and the price always finds what the market will bear. ;-)

John

 

[charjohncarter]

I doubt if you heard much about the Hunt brothers accumulating silver during the Nixon years, but they did start in 1970. It wasn't until the Carter years that silver became almost completely held by the Hunts, and that was 1979. It wasn't until 1978 that the price of silver used in my busniess went sky high.