sooner
Well-known
Hi Folks,
I just developed another roll of outdated but otherwise fine Kodak tmx3200 film exposed at asa 1600 and souped in Xtol 1+2. I used the massive development chart time of 16 minutes, but removed the film after 15.5 minutes. Somewhere I heard that slight under-development may mean less grain. However, I've noticed the last few rolls of this film, even ones fully developed, coming out rather dark. Wouldn't that suggest underdevelopment, that I need further development to bring out the highlights? The shadows aren't blocked or anything, they're just darker than they should be, and little contrast. Any advice would be appreciated. --John
I just developed another roll of outdated but otherwise fine Kodak tmx3200 film exposed at asa 1600 and souped in Xtol 1+2. I used the massive development chart time of 16 minutes, but removed the film after 15.5 minutes. Somewhere I heard that slight under-development may mean less grain. However, I've noticed the last few rolls of this film, even ones fully developed, coming out rather dark. Wouldn't that suggest underdevelopment, that I need further development to bring out the highlights? The shadows aren't blocked or anything, they're just darker than they should be, and little contrast. Any advice would be appreciated. --John
MartinP
Veteran
If the film looks too dense then there is either too much light or too much development. Without seeing the neg it is not easy to say which is going on here. Note that a mix-up involving the times for a 'thin' dilution, then using your usual 'thick' dilution of developer can have a similar effect . . . I wonder how I know that . . . . In other words double-check the dilution, times and temperature 
Last edited:
Svitantti
Well-known
The more you develop, the more you get grain (usually, if the other variables are kept about the same). It also adds contrast. Usually highlights develop relatively more than the shadows, but you can try to get compensating effect by agitating much less and diluting the developer (as you have done, 1+3 could be used but it makes the grain sharper too).
Exposure is the second and very important key to get good negatives... So if you underexpose too much, no development will get you good negatives. Push processing can be used to some extent of course. So it could be also underexposure.
TMZ:s real ISO sensitivity is around 1000, so 3200 is already almost 2 stops push. Tmax developer could help to get a bit more out of this film, but I personally still prefer Xtol.
These days when most scan their negs, the scanning and photo editing (done also in most scanning softwares) will distract us when we are trying to determine correct exposures and development methods, so be careful of what you decide on scans only.
It would be probably better to just take a good look on the negatives and see if you can add more development or if it will be too much for the highlights.
Exposure is the second and very important key to get good negatives... So if you underexpose too much, no development will get you good negatives. Push processing can be used to some extent of course. So it could be also underexposure.
TMZ:s real ISO sensitivity is around 1000, so 3200 is already almost 2 stops push. Tmax developer could help to get a bit more out of this film, but I personally still prefer Xtol.
These days when most scan their negs, the scanning and photo editing (done also in most scanning softwares) will distract us when we are trying to determine correct exposures and development methods, so be careful of what you decide on scans only.
It would be probably better to just take a good look on the negatives and see if you can add more development or if it will be too much for the highlights.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I've shot a couple of rolls of TMax 3200 at ei1600 recently and developed in Tmax dev have been very impressed. Also with Tmax 100 - cleaner look, but great for scanning. Both seem to have nice highlights
Mike
Mike
venchka
Veteran
Ancient, first version, (in other words, very expired) Tmax 3200 shot last December @ 1600. Xtol 1:3, 19 1/2 minutes, continuois agitation. Fabulous combination. I will do it again.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I much prefer Tmax 3200 in Tmax Developer over Xtol or D76 (the other two developers I have used for it). If I were you, no matter what developer you use, i'd stick to Kodak's recommended times, which are VERY accurate for this film.
R
ruben
Guest
I assume you hold a stock of tmz so my idea is not going to be of much use. Nevertheless I have carryied long ago an iso 1600 film home competition with prints of 12 by 10. The racers were Neopan 1600, Tmz pulled 1 stop, Tmax and Tri-x both pushed two stops.
My eye evaluative results were as follows: first place high above the others - Neopan 1600.
Second place Tri-X, who although grainy kept a lot of charachter and detail.
Third place the old Tmax 400, which was supposedly to be close to its nominal 400 look, but in fact although keeping grain at bay could not rival Neopan by far. Nevertheless Tmy pushed two stops remains highly usable.
As for Tmz pulled one stop, ugly and by far, relative to its competitors. Yet to be fair I must reveal that I have never been a fan of tmz as 3200 either.
Cheers,
Ruben
My eye evaluative results were as follows: first place high above the others - Neopan 1600.
Second place Tri-X, who although grainy kept a lot of charachter and detail.
Third place the old Tmax 400, which was supposedly to be close to its nominal 400 look, but in fact although keeping grain at bay could not rival Neopan by far. Nevertheless Tmy pushed two stops remains highly usable.
As for Tmz pulled one stop, ugly and by far, relative to its competitors. Yet to be fair I must reveal that I have never been a fan of tmz as 3200 either.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
sooner
Well-known
Freakscene
Obscure member
>outdated but otherwise fine
If you are developing less than the recommended times and the negs are dense, particularly in the highlights, the film is probably fogged. Not really surprising for TMZ.
TMZ @ EI 1000; Xtol 1+1. Leica RE, 80/1.4.
If you are developing less than the recommended times and the negs are dense, particularly in the highlights, the film is probably fogged. Not really surprising for TMZ.
TMZ @ EI 1000; Xtol 1+1. Leica RE, 80/1.4.
Last edited:
sooner
Well-known
So what does it mean to have film that is "fogging?" Should I try to overexpose to get more out of the highlights or what? Is there anything to be done?
Freakscene
Obscure member
It means that the film has been partly exposed by ambient radiation, to which TMZ is quite sensitive because of its very high speed. The high speed also makes it vulnerable to chemical changes in the emulsion. You can use a developer that produces the lowest fog, like HC110, but with old film the overall pre-existing level of exposure (observed most easily in the highlights) will remain.
Exposing some more will help raise the general density over the fog. The scan you provided above doesn't look too bad, so maybe you can just carry on if you're happy with your results.
Marty
Exposing some more will help raise the general density over the fog. The scan you provided above doesn't look too bad, so maybe you can just carry on if you're happy with your results.
Marty
Pablito
coco frío
having shot hundreds of rolls of this film, I suggest:
Don't shoot out of date TMZ. It can fog if it's just a few months out of date. Does not matter if it's been refrigerated.
Develop only in T-max developer.
Don't shoot out of date TMZ. It can fog if it's just a few months out of date. Does not matter if it's been refrigerated.
Develop only in T-max developer.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I agree with Pablito on both counts. TMZ declines in quality FAST when outdated, and I have tried Tmax Developer, Xtol, and D76 and Tmax is far and away the best developer.
Fresh TMZ, Tmax Dev. EI 1600
sooner
Well-known
Thanks Guys. I've been using Xtol recently because it gives me much less grain than when I used to use HC110 all the time, but I'll use the Tmax developer from now on. Guess I'd better shoot this film fast, as I bought quite a lot of rolls fairly cheap on this site. Didn't realize at the time this film goes bad so fast past the expiration. Live and learn! I like your shots, Chris, especially the top one from the fair at night; it's that kind of grain-free shot I always seek in my own pictures.
venchka
Veteran
Like many things in life, YMMV.
My experience with very old Tmax 3200 and Xtol 1:3 was exactly the opposite.
Who knew?
My experience with very old Tmax 3200 and Xtol 1:3 was exactly the opposite.
Who knew?
Svitantti
Well-known
I havent noticed fogging, at least nothing critical and been using some old stock too.
Try some photoshop (or other image editing) adjustments, levels, curves,... None of us can tell you much about a photo that is scanned with automatic adjustments used anyway.
It is best to leave the final adjustments anyway for later phases than the scanning and scan a "loose" file that you can then work on.
To me, the example photo looks very good, for exposure and development. You can add contrast if you like it that way. I dont think you need to adjust dev. time in this case, but this is judged from just a scan anyway.
Try some photoshop (or other image editing) adjustments, levels, curves,... None of us can tell you much about a photo that is scanned with automatic adjustments used anyway.
It is best to leave the final adjustments anyway for later phases than the scanning and scan a "loose" file that you can then work on.
To me, the example photo looks very good, for exposure and development. You can add contrast if you like it that way. I dont think you need to adjust dev. time in this case, but this is judged from just a scan anyway.
Svitantti
Well-known
..and remember, the given dev. times, even from Kodak, are a starting point. You all have different agitation, tanks, water, ... so the correct dev. time will probably be a bit different for all of us. Metering or exposure preferences and personal taste are probably the most important variables in this .
.Chuck Albertson
Well-known
This picture looks fine, but I wouldn't add any deveopment time---that will just blow out the highlights. At an EI of 3200 or even 1600, you're going to lose shadow detail. I agree with Christopher, TMax is the best developer for this film (Microphen is also very good). Shooting outdated TMZ is dicey; don't buy up huge quantities of outdated TMZ just to save a few bucks---buy a few rolls of fresh stuff shortly before you shoot it, and don't waste much time before developing it. It's not Tri-X.
Freakscene
Obscure member
One thing to keep in mind. The real ISO of TMZ is somewhere in the 800-1000 range. Anywhere up to and including that, Xtol is better, but anywhere over that, TMax or TMax RS developers (NOT the same thing, handy, huh?) or other dedicated push developers are better. Xtol gives good speed, but isn't great for pushing these superspeed films.
TMZ, EI 6400.
Marty
TMZ, EI 6400.
Marty
Last edited: