tmax 100 N+2 development experience

I`ve searched the forums without luck for a response and I`m hoping

someone out there has experience developing tmax 100 in D76 1:1. I

have to expand my development time in order to compensate for a low-

contrast night scene (3 stop range, placing my shadows in Zone 3).

This is for a school assignment so I can`t experiment, and thus far

I`ve had AWFUL experience with Kodak tmax 100. I need to know what

percentage more time per stop is required. I`ve heard 15% per stop

and others say 25% or more sometimes. I haven`t found any information

on this subject and I understand that it varies depending on

technique. I`m using a patterson tank and the Kodak method for

inversions. Much appreciated!

Sorry, I forgot to mention it`s 35mm.

Kodak say that to DECREASE contrast by 20%, shorten development in D-76 @ 68' by a factor of .8, to INCREASE contrast by 20% extend development by a factor of 1.2, for 40% increase, extrend by a factor of 1.4. Do you see a pattern? Good luck.

For push processing, which is another form of N+, the current recommendation for D-76 and T-grain films is to increase dilution -- use 1:3, or possibly even 1:5 (be sure you have enough stock solution per roll, I don't recall the figure for D-76 since I don't use it, but you may need to use a larger tank with an empty reel for a spacer to accomodate a larger solution volume). Then increase development over normal by 50-100% for a two stop push, which I presume is similar to N+2; this would normally be combined with exposing at an uprated EI to account for the small increase (1/3 to 2/3 stop, probably) in shadow speed that results from the extra development.

 

That said, unless you've tested your techniques with the particular combination of film and developer and dilution you're using, you're guessing on anything you do, and anyone teaching Zone techniques ought to know that.

Thank you. I did see that on Kodak`s site but what I`d really like to know is if anyone has had experience doing this with tmax 100 in D76 1:1 The best lesson I`ve learned in my photography program is that manufacturer`s recommended suggestions don`t always produce the best results, and I`ve had awful results simply following the suggestions for this film.

Even if I'd done this exact expansion on TMX (and I've never even shot TMX; I use TMY and 400TX for everything), my times wouldn't be transferrable to yours. I find that, for my techniques and with my scanner, developing in HC-110 at half of Dilution B strength for barely over the Dilution B times gives better negatives than Dilution B at recommended time (which tends to be too dense and contrasty to scan well). So, if I told you I developed TMX in D-76 1:1 for 8 1/2 minutes at 72 F to get N+2, you'd still only know that's what I was doing -- if you agitate differently (likely), or your themometer and mine disagree by two degrees (quite possible), or your D-76 is mixed from published formula instead of a Kodak packet (or vice versa), your results and mine might look as different as night and day.

 

So, the best I can tell you is take whatever time you're using now for normal in D-76 1:1, dilute your 1:1 with an equal amount of distilled water to give 1:3, develop one roll in a two-roll tank, and double your time with other factors the same, and you should be pretty close.

I would advise you <b>not</b> to extend development on 35mm stock. The 'awful' results are typical of trying to use extended devlopment on 35mm film. This should be reveleatory of the fact that the zs is a mistake.

Thanks for the tip. I have to do this tonight and since I`ve had terrible luck with manufacturer recommendations, and I too have found my negatives much too dense for this film, I`ll try this. I`ll post results later for those interested.

Are you required to use TMAX 100? In my opinion there are better films to use: Plus-X, FP-4 and APX 100. I've always found the t-grained films to be flat.

Yes, for these assignments, I am required to use T-Max 100. I didn't get a chance to develop the film tonight and will have to do it tomorrow, so if anyone else has any experience with this question of N+2 development, I'll be checking back tomorrow morning.

The Contrast Index for N+2 with a diffusion enlarger is 0.88. Attached is a CI / Time curve from the Kodak website. I've indicated where 0.88 is and also had to extend the D-76 1:1 curve. I know it's for a small tank, but they didn't have D-76 1:1 data for a deep tank. Still, it should be close enough for government work.<div></div>

Aleksnadra, its too bad that you are REQUIRED to use this film; many students are in the same boat. IMHO, and I do teach photography, t-grained films are not the way to go, especially for students. Conventional films have much more latitude for exposure and developing. Students are just that, learners and they need more flexability.

 

When you end this course, try a conventional film. I shot globs of TMAX 100, and other t-grain films, in years past and souped them in every kind of dev. out there. I was never happy with what I got, although they were supposed to be **THE** films. I went back to conventional films because I liked the look they gave me much better. But, to each their own!

 

Good luck!

Afternoon, FWIW If you have street lights and lighting from buildings, in your scenes ie. city street shots, you will need to do contraction development. I know you said you had a 3 stop range, but, I think you might be mistaken( tricked by the meter)I say this because this weeks assingment at the college is "night shots" also and we advise every one to reduce development and the prints show who followed the advice and not.

Dante should have created a special level in his Inferno for photo teachers who ask their students to perform zs procedures with 35mm film, or ask their students to use T-Max films at all. To do both is unconscionable. Tell your teacher that you refuse to this absurd thing.

Jim, I am not a teacher and lack your expertise in that arena, but isn't a very responsive film like TMX ideal for illustrating the response of a film to its exposure and development parameters? It would seem to me that a more "forgiving" film with greater latitude would be exactly what one wouldn't choose to learn these cause and effect lessons with. Isn't the point of the lessons to see evidence of exposure and processing errors, and not to mask them in the latitude of the materials? As for teaching ZS controls with 35mm film, that's another question entirely, and one that puts me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Mike/Hans. If the ZS is to be learned, then by all means give your students sheet film so that they might at least learn the lessons that the ZS has to teach.

Jay, interesting point and I agree with you. However, I only teach beginners and believe me, they need all the help they can get! I don't require that any student use one film over another, but I try to steer the t-grained films mostly toward the advanced students where they can see (hopefully!) the differences in developing, agitation, time, etc. I tell them that there are certain advantages to each film, but I let them choose their own.

I wish I had had the benefit of a teacher such as yourself. I learned what little I know the hard way, ie, buy and try. I need all the help I can get as well.

Thanks Jay, but I am a long way from perfect, although I try, and I myself am still learning after 26 years. I did have the benefit of a great teacher who taught both the art and science of photography. I remember when he used to bring in his b/w photos and show us how to do things. I remember thinking, "That's how I want my stuff to look." I also learned that to teach photography you must walk the walk and talk the talk. To this day I show my students the photos I have taken, whether they are good, bad or ugly!

My teachers have been and continue to be Roger Hicks, Ansel Adams, Richard Knoppow, John Cook, John Hicks, Jorge Gasteazoro, Sandy King and many other contributers to this and other internet forums, none of whom I've had the pleasure of meeting in person, and with the exception of Jorge, none of whose work I've ever seen in person. It's not the best way to learn, but it is one way. Thank you all.

I have some information on D76 (1:1) om TMX here:

http://www.geocities.com/hmlai88/