Tmax 100/D76 ... Not much detail

I dont like Tmax 100 one bit and find the same problem. It looks either flat and boring or when stretched a hair for more contrast goes to 'blown' in an instant. if its not working for you it can be quicker tot ry something else.

This is a film I plain hate.
 
A few tweaks in LR3. You might not like it, but the point is that there are quick an dirty fixes for the low contrast and poorly separated highlights you appear not to like.

T

untitled-.jpg
 
Last edited:
I really like TMAX100 and I really think you have to refine your process. It is a studio type film but once you get metering, EI, and development times (regardless of developer) you can use it at anytime, anywhere. Here are two one bright sun and the other indoors:

5544060423_64ac94ea3a.jpg


Blazing noon sun in central California:

4916490169_4d3d084f4b.jpg
 
Thanks for the input everyone. As far as the weak shadows and under exposure I almost always over expose a little when taking photos of people so I don't think that's the issue. I really agree with Turtle on this one that the negs are really boring and it's rather difficult to add any sort if contrast without it getting severely blown out. A recent roll I shot on an xa2 with auto exposure and I had the same problems so I don't think it's the exposure.

The only other reason I can think of is that the film is slightly expired (11/2010). I bought several rolls from a fellow photog who said they were refrigerated since the day they were purchased. Perhaps this wasn't entirely true but I've shot film decades expired that look better and are easier to work with than tmax 100.
 
Last edited:
pryan9 said:
I really agree with Turtle on this one that the negs are really boring and it's rather difficult to add any sort if contrast without it getting severely blown out.
Click to expand...


I still think you are not being very objective. These TMAX and DELTA films are really good. It took me a while and I'm not a good tester of films, but you should either says I don't want to work this out or go with a traditional type of film. TRIX or the Ilford equivalent are exposure forgiving but in my experience do not have the latitude of the tubular grain films. Developers really don't make much difference, but there is a difference in developer causing film speed changes. Example; Rodinal and HC-110 both require lower speeds (ISO-EI). So, you are placing the the 3-4 Zone at a different place on the H-D curve.

Still, if you decide to go with a tradition film, like TRIX and you get the speed of the film set to your developer you can still get good latitude and contrast. This is TRIX at 250 in HC-110h and I added a little Rodinal. The camera was a BessaR and metered with the camera. Thankfully, I was able to get highlights that were not blown and sufficient shadow detail. I not bragging because this was just a quick shot taken when my granddaughter was looking at a house for sale:

5598131243_bd63ce94e2.jpg


5598128933_46692b6656.jpg


and finally my cousins condo:

5598126297_27edaa4523.jpg
 
charjohncarter said:
I still think you are not being very objective. These TMAX and DELTA films are really good. It took me a while and I'm not a good tester of films, but you should either says I don't want to work this out or go with a traditional type of film. TRIX or the Ilford equivalent are exposure forgiving but in my experience do not have the latitude of the tubular grain films. Developers really don't make much difference, but there is a difference in developer causing film speed changes. Example; Rodinal and HC-110 both require lower speeds (ISO-EI). So, you are placing the the 3-4 Zone at a different place on the H-D curve.

Still, if you decide to go with a tradition film, like TRIX and you get the speed of the film set to your developer you can still get good latitude and contrast. This is TRIX at 250 in HC-110h and I added a little Rodinal. The camera was a BessaR and metered with the camera. Thankfully, I was able to get highlights that were not blown and sufficient shadow detail. I not bragging because this was just a quick shot taken when my granddaughter was looking at a house for sale:

5598131243_bd63ce94e2.jpg


5598128933_46692b6656.jpg


and finally my cousins condo:

5598126297_27edaa4523.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight and posting those photos. I've had good results developing delta 100 and 400 with D76 1:1 so I don't think its my technique or workflow.

This last batch of photos you posted look a little more like the results i'm getting...maybe its just a matter of liking the "look" of the tmax film?
 
I just don`t want to repair what Chris Crawford said in post #8, so go back and read it again and pretend you read it here.

TM100 in D76 is beautiful.

To push up contrast in development will make it difficult to scan.
 
Freakscene said:
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.
Click to expand...

Marty, not to take away from the things you said, I find that even a "perfect" negative still can stand quite a bit of dodging and burning to produce a satisfying print.

That's why I advise anyone who asked me about darkroom printing to go ahead and learn the different ways to manage contrast, not so much for rescuing a badly exposed negatives (which you will need to do from time to time), but to get to a place where you know what you like in a print and how to get it out of any negatives that you care to print.

I agree with you, the Adox paper (MCP in my case) is awesome especially in 11x14 size. My plan is when I created a new darkroom, I'd be able to print 16x20 or even bigger.
 
shadowfox said:
Marty, not to take away from the things you said, I find that even a "perfect" negative still can stand quite a bit of dodging and burning to produce a satisfying print
Click to expand...

Of course to make your best possible print you almost always need to dodge and burn. Howard Bond had a nice, clear article in Photo Techniques a few years ago about the myth that the zone system should mean you don't need to dodge and burn, and I agree fully, however you expose and develop your negs and print them. But the first part of your job in printing - the basic exposure - gets easier the better the match between the film and paper curves.

Marty
 
beautiful is subjective. If you don't like it there is nothing wrong with moving on. life is too complicated to go struggling to find a way of making a film work because others like it.

I like some and don't like others. It keeps life simple enough to concentrate on making decent photographs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom