Teus
Thijs Deschildre
I've been an HC110 addict for quite some time: nice snappy highlights, full tonality (when well exposed), long lifetime and very cheap. Now I want to go try T-grain films & developers with an s-curve (compensating developers). I'm mostly using Kodak film/developers.
Please assist me in tackling these things:
according to this priceless Kodak chart, XTOL is pretty close to TMAX developer but gives finer grain. How would they compare otherwise?
Note that the chart doesn't mention what tonality the developer gives (upswept, s-curve, straight).
TMAX films give strange tonality. in HC-110 and my Amaloco developers (straight curve I think), tonality looks pretty odd. I heard the curve of TMAX film would be hollow-shaped, and I think that's what my photos look like: deep darks, muddy midtones, hard highlights. a sample of mine. TMAX film would supposedly only work in TMAX developer, and it does look a lot better in it indeed.. albeit a bit grainy. What do you think about this, and would XTOL give similar tonality as TMAX dev?
I'm now trying some delta 100 & 400 to see how they work, they would give more "normal" tonality like the classic grain films. A lot of "I heard" and "I think"... lets hope you know some more facts
Please assist me in tackling these things:
according to this priceless Kodak chart, XTOL is pretty close to TMAX developer but gives finer grain. How would they compare otherwise?
Note that the chart doesn't mention what tonality the developer gives (upswept, s-curve, straight).
TMAX films give strange tonality. in HC-110 and my Amaloco developers (straight curve I think), tonality looks pretty odd. I heard the curve of TMAX film would be hollow-shaped, and I think that's what my photos look like: deep darks, muddy midtones, hard highlights. a sample of mine. TMAX film would supposedly only work in TMAX developer, and it does look a lot better in it indeed.. albeit a bit grainy. What do you think about this, and would XTOL give similar tonality as TMAX dev?
I'm now trying some delta 100 & 400 to see how they work, they would give more "normal" tonality like the classic grain films. A lot of "I heard" and "I think"... lets hope you know some more facts
Last edited:
JeffGreene
(@)^(@)
Roger Hicks just reviewed the new TMAX film in the latest Shutterbug and he used Xtol as his developer. You might want to check the article out. He seemed very taken by the new film. I'm sure he may chime in here. He is probably one of the most knowledgeable people on the forum in this area.
Teus
Thijs Deschildre
got a link for me? can't find it on shutterbug
charjohncarter
Veteran
Every time I try one of these projects, I'm disappointed. I can never see any difference. I have my time/temp/agitation down for Tmax100 in HC-110h and I think down for Tmax400 (new) (400TMY-2), so I thought I'll go to something different; Rodinal. I can't see any difference. I would like more shadow detail (or lighter shadow detail), but later someone told me I wouldn't see much difference with Rodinal, they were right. Here is on, it is too small, but I think you will get the idea, when you lighten the right image to equal the left no difference:
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Someone on apug a while back (prob. a year) did a test with 1 film for like...20 developers. He discovered that he could get identical results, in terms of contrast and tonality, with all developers once dialed in (time, dilution, etc). The only difference was speed and grain.
Having said that, XTOL is often used for this kind of stuff because it is the dominant commercially-available phenidone/ascorbic acid developer out there. It's the most modern design, plain and simple. Good speed, low grain.
There is still this fear about the famous "xtol death" problem that plagued many users when it first came out. For some reason it doesn't happen with FX-39 from Paterson or PC-TEA, so it must be something in XTOL, not just all phen/asc. devs in general. But use 1L bottles and you'll be fine.
Having said that, XTOL is often used for this kind of stuff because it is the dominant commercially-available phenidone/ascorbic acid developer out there. It's the most modern design, plain and simple. Good speed, low grain.
There is still this fear about the famous "xtol death" problem that plagued many users when it first came out. For some reason it doesn't happen with FX-39 from Paterson or PC-TEA, so it must be something in XTOL, not just all phen/asc. devs in general. But use 1L bottles and you'll be fine.
JeffGreene
(@)^(@)
It's in the current issue (May 2008), and thus not available online yet. You would need to get a copy. Sorry.
Teus
Thijs Deschildre
really... sounds pretty odd, got a link to this?
I wonder why all the different developers exist then. I'll think about it, what grain & speed developers give, regardless of their tonality. some might have a higher efficiency: both medium-low grain and fairly good speed.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I'll give a search a try, but finding just 1 article on developers on apug is like trying to find ...a specific pair of chopsticks in all the stores in chinatown...
And to qualify a bit more - there was one more difference - toe and shoulder. So certain developers had a longer toe than others, which also affected speed, of course. But as far as the middle of the curve, he got them almost identical.
And to qualify a bit more - there was one more difference - toe and shoulder. So certain developers had a longer toe than others, which also affected speed, of course. But as far as the middle of the curve, he got them almost identical.
Last edited:
Photon42
burn the box
This will be my next try with the TMAX.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Kaiyen, thanks for that information. I love it when you post. Always something interesting.
charjohncarter
Veteran
kaiyen, I've reread your 2 posts 4 times now, because in my limited experience with developers, (using HC-110 and Rodinal, and mostly viewing on the web) I can't tell one from another. But then I don't care about the speed of the film. All I want is good shadow detail, and unblown highlights. I actually don't care too much about grain. There is always 120. Do you think that PhotoShop has taken the developer out of the loop, if you limit your desires the the above two concerns? By the way, thanks again for the incite.
Turtle
Veteran
The tonal charatersistics are largely set by the film and partially altered by the developer. If you do not like the results you get with TMAX films at all I would strongly advise you to try another film. Delta films are a lot more 'normal looking' IMO and Acros still somewhat better, although evry modern looking. I still prefer traditional films such as APX100, FP4+, TriX, Neopan 400 etc and feel no need to shoot modern films really. FP4+ has a very smooth tonality and attractive look in Xtol as does APX100 although both can almost look too smooth in this developer if you want a more hard edged look. I have tried Tmax 100 many times and for me it just looks awful under most circumstances. Yes, fine grin and resolution but a dull, lifeless look, irrespective of contrast. I have never come across such a hideous film, although I know some who shoot very successfully with it. for some reason many of those who love it seem to shoot a lot of fairly high key work. This has nothing to do with contrast, just the curve and lack of acutance in anything apart from acutance developers.
Plop APX100 or FP4+ in pretty well any developer and it looks just fine.
Plop APX100 or FP4+ in pretty well any developer and it looks just fine.
Teus
Thijs Deschildre
good to know I'm not the only one that feels like this. I do like TMAX film for pushing film though, P3200 is great.
I'll see how my Delta turns out then. In the meanwhile, I'll re-read the pages at rogerandfrances.com about density, toe, etc.
chair_man
Member
My effort to remedy the hollow contrast curve of Tmax is that to use DS-12 developer as referred below. DS-12 is invented by Ryuji Suzuki, having the same character with Xtol but the difference is Metol instead Phenidon. The advantage of use DS-12 is to getting fresh developer for every time by home brewing. Metol/ascorbic type developer has tendency to have self-compensating effect. Especially gives it obviously by reduce the Metol concentration, not dilute the developer but the only Metol content. I have use in general 30% less content of Metol than Suzuki's presentation. I like the result with almost linear contrast character and marvelous fine grain.
http://silvergrain.org/w/Film_Developer_Recommendations#DS-12_Accutance_developer
http://silvergrain.org/w/Film_Developer_Recommendations#DS-12_Accutance_developer
Attachments
Last edited:
Ronald M
Veteran
T-Max does not look good in HC110. You think it does as it is not terrible. But then try D76 and the pictures come alive. D76 was the developer used to develope the T-Max films. T-Max developer is a push developer and not my favorite.
76 and Xtol work best to me.
76 and Xtol work best to me.
Teus
Thijs Deschildre
XTOL seems to be the solution. I'll see how it compares to TMAX, likely I'll keep Tmax dev for pushing.. probably more shadow detail along with the increased grain
the dev seems to be pretty rare, and silvergrain doesn't seem to sell it.
when do you use D76, and when do you use XTOL?
contrast is a bit flat, since you were shooting in the shadows. got another sample?
the dev seems to be pretty rare, and silvergrain doesn't seem to sell it.
Turtle
Veteran
Not wishing to let my dislike of Tmax100 show through too much, you might be better ditching this film and trying something else...Acros 100 will give you all the fineness of grain and a more pleasant look. Delta 100 IMO is more pleasant still. I confess I have not tried Tmax100 in D76. Pyrocat introduces some welcome acutance and helps tame highlights. I found that with careful processing excessive contrast has not been a problem, only the dull tonal range.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Ah. You know I'm getting serious when I start quoting
This is actually an important thing to note. For me, I use specific developers for special situations. Pushing, pulling, etc. I'm significantly altering the look of the film through those situations anyway, so there is a difference. But everyday, properly exposed? Pretty similar from one to the other. There are differences, though.
Actually, what you say later (not quoted), indicates that you do. But just in more practical terms. Film speed is defined by shadow detail. So a film that can get X shadow detail at f4 1/200 is slower than a film that can get X+1 shadow detail at the same exposure.
The highlights is about development, plain and simple. There is some film stock that is more sensitive about exposure and tends to blow out more often without correspondingly careful development. But 99% of highlight control is during development.
No, I don't think PS has done that. First, if you expose, say, FP4 at 180 (1/3 stop over box) and then use Rodinal, which is speed/shadow-detail-decreasing, you can't bring those shadows back in photoshop no matter what you do. It's just all black (and blank on the negative). And if you choose a very active developer and aren't careful with your timing, you will blow out the highlights and you can't recover that either - it's just too dense for the scanner to get through. This would be like shooting FP4 at 50 and developing with FX-1.
Having said that, I find that scanning gives me about a 1/3 stop speed increase from what I would get from a densitometer.
Onto the next quoted response!
This is actually an important thing to note. For me, I use specific developers for special situations. Pushing, pulling, etc. I'm significantly altering the look of the film through those situations anyway, so there is a difference. But everyday, properly exposed? Pretty similar from one to the other. There are differences, though.
Actually, what you say later (not quoted), indicates that you do. But just in more practical terms. Film speed is defined by shadow detail. So a film that can get X shadow detail at f4 1/200 is slower than a film that can get X+1 shadow detail at the same exposure.
The highlights is about development, plain and simple. There is some film stock that is more sensitive about exposure and tends to blow out more often without correspondingly careful development. But 99% of highlight control is during development.
No, I don't think PS has done that. First, if you expose, say, FP4 at 180 (1/3 stop over box) and then use Rodinal, which is speed/shadow-detail-decreasing, you can't bring those shadows back in photoshop no matter what you do. It's just all black (and blank on the negative). And if you choose a very active developer and aren't careful with your timing, you will blow out the highlights and you can't recover that either - it's just too dense for the scanner to get through. This would be like shooting FP4 at 50 and developing with FX-1.
Having said that, I find that scanning gives me about a 1/3 stop speed increase from what I would get from a densitometer.
Onto the next quoted response!
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I actually really like TMX (the designation for tmax 100 - sorry, I tend to do that) for landscapes. Delta 100, too. The t-grain and e-grain films excel at these because of their extremely short toe and shoulder. They have such straight curves (oxymoron alert!) in just about any developer.
Many like them for portraits, too, because they produce a very...crisp tonality from one tone to the next. I have not shot much with it, to be honest, for portraits.
Different strokes for different folks.
I would say that much of tonality is from the film. But I can cause some funky tonality issues with certain developers in certain methods. For instance, take just about any film, expose at your normal EI (or box speed, which is fine), and do stand development. You want to see some seriously compressed tonal range and contrast? There you go.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Kaiyen, you are right about me caring about film speed. I just don't need to push or pull, I just want the right speed for my tastes. Thanks for the reponse.