Tmax400 exposure index

Hi all

 

I'm fairly new to this b/w photography thing. I've been shooting

with Tmax 400 thru my Nikon F3 and developing in xtol for the

recommended 6.5 minutes.

 

My negs are coming out quite underexposed, I have a feeling I

should be rating the film at iso 200 rather than 400.

 

Does anyone have any experience and opinions on Tmax 400

 

Thanks

 

Steve

Steve

 

My experience has been EI250 - Xtol 1:1 for 8 1/2 minutes @ 68 deg.

Steve - only because you say "I'm fairly new to this B&W photography thing" do I ask if you can identify the difference between under exposure and under development in a negative. They are quite different things but if we can take you at your word the cure is to be found in either the way you are metering or by rating the film lower as you suggested.

If you are new to film developing...and you prefer the grain structure of Kodak Tmax films.....start with Tmax developers. They seem to give the best results on this film when used as reccomended by Kodak. After a while you may want to experiment with other developers that may work better with your enlarger settings and paper choice. As you can see in many of the other threads posted here....most advise Tri-X or HP5 with D76 or ID11 as a starting point. Most of us usually go back to that standard after experimenting. That combo works well with most lighting situations and papers.

Xtol may give thinner negs if it's failed. Suggest trying with another developer to see if that's the problem.

 

If you use a condenser enlarger, develop less than recommended times by about 20% so your negs won't be too heavy.

 

If you're using 35mm, develop even less so your negs will print well on #3 paper, not #2. This will give finer grain and better sharpness.

Hi!<P>With the photography I create, I switch from black & white to color during a session. This is done with removable film backs (Mamiya 645 Pro TL system). If I use TMY I expose it at 400 ASA, then I will switch to a color film and expose it at 400 ASA. I keep the ASA the same because I do use other films, color, black & white like the situation I just mentioned. I believe in K.I.S.S.<P>I use a lighting setup for much of my people photography. I play around with the shutter depending on what I want to accomplish. I usually leave the f stop alone. And I always overexpose by one stop. So if my flash light meter says f11, I'll set the lens at f8. That's my insurance. As you can probably guess, I operate my Mamiya camera in manual mode for my flash photography. I use a flash that has the thyrister sensor and may move into a until that works with the TTL on my camera.<P>Negative film has a lot of latitude and I much rather error on the side of overexposure rather than under. I have all the images digitized by Pictage and the results have been wonderful!<P>If conditions are such that I need a lower speed film, I have a back with TMX at 100ASA and another back with color, usually Fuji Realea at 100 ASA.<P>I develop the black & white film and this works for me. I do TMY at 400 ASA in Ilford ID-11, 1:3 and develop for 17.5 minutes at 68 degrees.<P>I recommend that you play around with developing times rather than exposure ASA setting. At least that's what I do and it works for me. Thought I would share with you!

Steve:

 

Are you sure they're undersexposed and not undeveloped? Are they weak overall, but is shadow detail present? Or are they weak in the shadows?

I'd guess you just need to increase the dev time.

Also are you sure the negs are too thin?

My aim is to get as thin a neg as I can get without losing shadow detail.

Thin negs are easier to print with. Pulling Tmax400 is pointless.

Can't help with xtol, I use Ilfosol S @ 1/9, for 400asa 7minutes 40 seconds.

I'm going to play devils advocate instead of offer weird advice...<p>Have you shot any slides with your F3? Any C41? If so how does that look? What do your negs from other B&W film souped in your Xtol look like?<p>Have you got a 2nd body or a hand light meter to compare your F3's meter to?<p>Your time of 6.5 minutes is for <i>undiluted</i> Xtol at 68 degrees correct? Are you sure your thermometer is correct?

I would shoot a roll and have it developed at a lab, that way you can kind of determine if the problem is your development or your processing.

Rick said, >>>"can identify the difference between under exposure and under development in a negative?"

 

Please explain how to tell the difference.

 

I developed 2 rolls of tmax 400 in ilfosol s (1:9 at 68 degrees) yesterday and they look horrible. The rolls were taken with 2 different cameras and with one of those I never have exposure problems so I know the error was in the developing but I'm not sure yet what I've done wrong. I developed the recommended 7.5 min. Agitation followed my usual pattern.

They both give you thin negatives. Underdeveloped negatives will be quite flat, lacking incontrast and require a higher number grade paper (or variable contrast filter) for printing, but should still have decent shadow detail. Underexposed negatives have good contrast in the mid tone through highlight areas but the shadows will lack detail.

Those new to B&W may misjudge a perfectly good negative and believe it looks too thin and too flat. Do not attempt to evaluate negatives by appearances. What matters is how they print. A good 35mm negative has far less contrast than a good print. Enlarge these negatives using a grade 3 paper and report back on your results.

Janet, how old is your Ilfosol-S? It's one of those developers that's sensitive to storage - too much airspace in the container and it'll go bad within a few months, at most.

 

Also, Ilfosol-S is not a good choice for films with a nominal speed faster than around 100. In my experience TMY easily has a true speed close to 500 in a speed enhancing developer like Microphen, but not with something like Ilfosol-S or Rodinal. The negs will also have a gritty grain that, to me, is aesthetically unappealing.

 

And suggested development times are just that: *suggested*. With some films and developers it can take several rolls to find the right exposure index and time.

 

So what you may have seen is the result of a combination of unfortunate circumstances.

This is the only neg I've tried to print from either roll. This is an old remnant of Ilford pearl rc paper, I think. I also printed it on glossy fiber and selenium toned it. I've not sharpened or cleaned this up so you can see it as is. That's natural light and the other rolls (xp2) were just fine. But of course I didn't process those films.

 

My Ilfosol S is about a month old.