T-MX 100 in Xtol - poor performance, but why?

[Ko.Fe.]

On my developing tank (using paterson, white plastic reels) I have instruction at the bottom.
I'm using in total 250 for one roll, 475 for two. I'm back to XTOL for now. Using with HP5, 1:1, no problem, but I use massive chart only for reference for any film.

So, if negative is thin (very bright, low density, but correct initial exposure) it is over developing most likely and 15, 30 seconds aren't going to give significant difference for 1:1 mix.

The other possible reason might be in over fixing. You could fix it with shorter time and if not enough re-fix it.
Is Fixer the regular Kodak one?

 

[Highway 61]

So, if negative is thin (very bright, low density, but correct initial exposure) it is over developing most likely and 15, 30 seconds aren't going to give significant difference for 1:1 mix.

Kostya, overdeveloping produces a dark negative with blown out highlights on the positive. You can't think of overdeveloping to look for the causes of too thin a negative.

You're right to say that overfixing can weaken a negative, but to achieve this, you must fix for about 30 minutes with some fresh fixer...

 

[Ronald M]

It is very unlikely that 250 ml will be enough to fully cover one roll, as according to the OP the tank has a specified min. volume of 580ml for two rolls. A quick test will show, but it is more likely that he would then need at least 300ml for a single roll.

As written in my post above, the correct minimum amount of stock when using dilutions is 100 ml per roll, and I assume the OP is aware of that. He used 145ml of stock only to achieve the specified volume of the tank for two rolls in 1+1 dilution (4x145=580).

IMO the OP has the maths correct. He used sufficient stock developing agent and he used enough volume to cover the two reels in this tank. So, I do not think that any of this has contributed to an alleged underdevelopment.

8 oz or 250 ml covers a single reel in a stainless tank. More can be added but it impedes agitation.

Paterson plastic requires 310 if I remember correctly. It is stamped on the tank bottom. It is foolproof tank as all common agitation errors are addressed. I still seldom use it. All one has to do is pour water over the reel until covered and them measure the volume.

When I did use Xtol, 125 + 125 worked fine.

 

[Ronald M]

On my developing tank (using paterson, white plastic reels) I have instruction at the bottom.
I'm using in total 250 for one roll, 475 for two. I'm back to XTOL for now. Using with HP5, 1:1, no problem, but I use massive chart only for reference for any film.

So, if negative is thin (very bright, low density, but correct initial exposure) it is over developing most likely and 15, 30 seconds aren't going to give significant difference for 1:1 mix.

The other possible reason might be in over fixing. You could fix it with shorter time and if not enough re-fix it.
Is Fixer the regular Kodak one?

Use Rapid fix without hardener or Photographer Formulary TF4. Fixers that work on trip x, HP5 etc will not work on TMax fully.

TMax negs properly developed do appear slightly thin, but print or scan fine

 

[joeswe]

8 oz or 250 ml covers a single reel in a stainless tank. More can be added but it impedes agitation.

To put that matter to rest it would be good to know what type of tank the TO is actually using, he does not mention it. He only says his tank takes 580ml, but rereading his post I am not sure if that number refers to the volume that is needed to cover two reels (in which case 250 ml will not be enough to cover one reel) or the maximum volume when filled to the top (which should be avoided because it interferes with proper agitation).

 

[traveler_101]

To put that matter to rest it would be good to know what type of tank the TO is actually using, he does not mention it. He only says his tank takes 580ml, but rereading his post I am not sure if that number refers to the volume that is needed to cover two reels (in which case 250 ml will not be enough to cover one reel) or the maximum volume when filled to the top (which should be avoided because it interferes with proper agitation).

Hi,

Yes, I use a Paterson tank. It says specifically at the bottom of the tank that you must have 290ml per roll. 580 is enough for two rolls, but I think it still leaves room for the liquid to move. I put in right at 580-585 to be sure.

I shot the roll with a Leica IIIf; some shots were with the 25/4 Snapshot Skopar, others with the 50/3.5 Elmar.

Under-exposure: I don't think so. I generally overexpose a half stop or so having read something here about improving detail in shadows. Of course with that camera I am not that precise when I meter. The meter is the old analog type (Sekonic L-208); problem there is that the large numbering matches the shutter speeds of a modern camera, not mine. I have started recently to pay closer attention and not estimate as much as I had been doing.

I am concerned by the comment that there may be something wrong with the camera. Is this a suggestion that there might be a light leak?

There are many conflicting things being said, but it seems to me that one step I can take is to develop one roll at time. Another step would be to increase development time substantially to start.


I mostly shoot Tri-X developed in D-76 and I only develop one roll at time: 200ml of D-76 to 200ml of water = one roll. I often get nice results with that film that don't require fiddling with the scanner. I like D-76, but I have also been looking for other film/developer combos in order to match what I shoot with a certain looks. I have been trying to think about the relation of subject to lens to film to developer.

I don't know anything about the scanner, except that it is the only part of the process I don't like. What a bore.

Keep in mind I have never had a minute of instruction or in person guidance; anything I'm doing comes from what I've picked up on fora. This is far and way my favourite one; thanks for the advice.

 

[traveler_101]

By the way, Highway 61 -- really brilliant shot! I have had better results with D-76 and T-Max before so perhaps I will go back to it.

 

[traveler_101]

It is very unlikely that 250 ml will be enough to fully cover one roll, as according to the OP the tank has a specified min. volume of 580ml for two rolls. A quick test will show, but it is more likely that he would then need at least 300ml for a single roll.

As written in my post above, the correct minimum amount of stock when using dilutions is 100 ml per roll, and I assume the OP is aware of that. He used 145ml of stock only to achieve the specified volume of the tank for two rolls in 1+1 dilution (4x145=580).

IMO the OP has the maths correct. He used sufficient stock developing agent and he used enough volume to cover the two reels in this tank. So, I do not think that any of this has contributed to an alleged underdevelopment.

Well, I may be a failure at photography but at least I can do my arithmetic (laughs)! What I had read posted by someone on this focum some years ago was that the required minimum extol stock per roll was 115ml. With that in mind I figured that 145ml per roll was a safe bet.

I don't think I'll try two rolls at once again, but it also seems likely that under-development was the main culprit.

 

[joeswe]

Well, I may be a failure at photography but at least I can do my arithmetic (laughs)! What I had read posted by someone on this focum some years ago was that the required minimum extol stock per roll was 115ml. With that in mind I figured that 145ml per roll was a safe bet.

I don't think I'll try two rolls at once again, but it also seems likely that under-development was the main culprit.

I like the bicycle shot best and it shows two things: you did NOT under-develop (the highlights look about right, although difficult to judge as you never know how much the scanning process altered the image) and you did NOT underexpose this scene significantly (the shadow areas are well defined).

I repeat, I don't think that it is a development problem and don't let yourself be fooled by the way the negatives appear to you, as others have said, when looking at the bare negative, not all types of film appear equally dense even when developed correctly. If you extend your development times, you might end up blowing your highlights in contrasty scenes like the one with the bicycle and leading to ugly tonality.

In the scenes that appear too dark (like the dark piazza in front of the church) I think your main problem is metering. Simply overexposing everything by one stop will not protect you from underexposure in some situations. You have to know how to meter correctly. Now, the scenes with the piazza in front of the church has the main subject (e.g., the piazza) in the shadows with no direct light on it, but you have a bright sky as part of the image. This is a typical situation where unreflected use (pun intended) of a reflected light meter will lead to underexposure. It is more or less a contre-jour situation and when you hold the meter straight in front of you in such a situation, it will usually lead to underexposure of the main subject (as the meter is fooled by the very bright parts in the background of the scene, the sky).

Simply extending development time will not help very much with such a scene, it will make the highlights (the sky) even brighter and might blow them beyond recovery in the positive process before it will add significant density to the shadows (= your main subject in this case) such that they appear of to be of "normal" brightness.

The solution is rather to meter carefully such as not to get the sky within the field of view of the meter or, better, to use an incident meter.
Then, be careful to control the highlights (the sky) by not developing too long, so they can later be toned down while maintaining good tonal separation in the positive process.

That being said, you are not too far off in most pictures, they look like they can be recovered with some tweaking in the positive process. It might even be that you did everything right and it is just the scanner software that misinterprets the negative.