Tmax 100 Professional

Sorry to bother, but I have looked all over the boards and have not

really come up with any definitive answer to my question.

 

My question is,

 

What is the best developer, dillution, time and temp to process Tmax

100 Pro in, to get the absolute sharpest details that are possible

with this film?

 

I've only processed about 3 rolls of B&W and would really appreciate

any advice. I am using D76 stock 6.5 min @ room temp(i don't really

have an adequate thermometer, suggestion on models?), kodak indicator

stop and rapidfix, but am looking to try some other alternatives.

 

If I am looking for total sharpness and detail, would I be best off

using this film?

 

Thanks,

Dan

Dan, you need a themometer first and foremost. If you want the best, you have to have a controled condition. Otehrwise, you are shooting in the dark.

 

Look at digitaltruth.com for developer and film times. I ue XTOL for this film and find the results great. D-76 is very similar. But, you have to be able to regulate the process to get consistently good results. The 10-20 for a themo is well spent.

There's one thing you can be sure of. Asking this question on this forum will usually net you at least a half dozen different opinions on what is the "best" developer for this or any other film. It all comes down to a matter of personal taste. My $.02? I like dilute developers especially for slow films. It's too easy to over develop these films with very active developers. Dilute solutions take longer to work which gives you more "wiggle room" with your time and temperature control. XTOL at 1+3 for 16 to 17 minutes at 68 deg F. works well for me with this film. You might also want to try D-76 at 1+1 or 1+3 as well. Consult the "Massive Dev Chart" at http://www.digitaltruth.com for good starting times. Since they don't list the high dilution developers for the current versions of this film, go ahead and use the original chart. There's little if any practical difference between the two film versions despite all the hubub you might have heard or read about. Typically, you'll get more sharpness with dilute developers at the expense of a little bit more grain. But I find that to be a non-issue with this film for up to a 10x enlargement.

 

My baseline thermometer is a Paterson Color Thermometer which I picked up for about $20 US. I also have a couple of adjustable dial type thermometers which I calibrate to this unit. I have no good use for digital thermometers. They read pretty fast, but no two ever agree completely and sooner or later you'll get it wet, it will short out, and that will be that.

You do not tell us what format you are using or what lind of enlarger and lens you have.

 

I am not fond of T-Max films in general, precisely because they do not reveal the very fine detail that conventional films do.

 

I would suggest you try Paterson FX-39 1+14 for 8 minutes to start.

There is no single correct answer and there are dozens of opinions.

 

Here's mine.

 

TMX is an ultra-fine grain film. That's what makes it unique - extremely fine grain with good speed. In the past we had to settle for very slow speed films to get such fine grain.

 

If I'm willing to compromise a bit and accept a little grain, I'll choose another film. Agfa APX 100 is one excellent choice. Efke R100 is another. Either in an acutance developer like Neofin Blau is razor sharp with a tonality that suits my aesthetics.

 

Otherwise, I'm content developing TMX in ID-11 (Ilford's equivalent to D-76) at the 1:1 dilution. I use it almost solely in medium format. I'm satisfied with the apparent sharpness while retaining absolutely fine, practically invisible, grain.

 

Some folks prefer an acutance developer with TMX to sharpen up what they regard as a "soft-looking" film. Not me. I'll choose another film. I've tried TMX with other developers. I didn't care to accept the grain penalty. When I want grainless skies or other large expanses of same or similar toned areas, that's what I want. TMX in ID-11 does it for me.

I know it's weird and contrary to much of what you might hear here...but I actually have had happy results from TMax 100 Pro with Rodinal 1+50...

 

...worth an experiment to see if you agree, but don't risk paying work until you test...

Hans is wrong. Tmax can resolve as much detail or more than any "conventional" film.

 

T-MAX 100

63 lines/mm (TOC 1.6:1)

8

 

200 lines/mm (TOC 1000:1)

I use Rodinal 1:50 at 68deg for 12 minutes and it works just fine.

I always recommend to beginers in b&w photogrpahy to start with XP2, then move on to a 400asa speed traditional film.

 

However if you want to start with tmax-100 then why not.

 

"If I am looking for total sharpness and detail, would I be best off using this film? "

 

T-max 100 will record a lot of detail. However total sharpness and detail do not go together. If you develope for detail you will loose sharpness and vice versa(for sharpness you need well defined grain). With T-max 100 you can go for sharpness and still have a lot of detail.

I've had good results with Ilfosol S.

If you decide to stick with T-max100, pick a developer and stick with that combination until you are confident with it.

You could always go with T-max developer, can't really go wrong there.

 

You need a thermometer, anything that is repeatable will do. Dev times mean nothing unless related to temperature.

Jay De Fehr , feb 20, 2004; 12:10 a.m.

<i>Hans is wrong. Tmax can resolve as much detail or more than any "conventional" film.

 

T-MAX 100 63 lines/mm (TOC 1.6:1) 8 200 lines/mm (TOC 1000:1)</i><p>

 

I beg your pardon, sir. 'Resolution' is not what I was talking about. See Anchell & Troop, p 14�15.

You're picking nits, Hans. "...reveal the very fine detail..." sounds an awful lot like another way of saying "resolution." And I'm even allowing for acutance, knowing this is a pet issue of yours.

Well, it is explained quite thoroughly in Anchell & Troop, page 14-15...

Well, I'm not gonna argue with them either. I may choose to differ over parsing but I don't consider that quite the same as arguing.

 

It's rather difficult to define "detail" in photographic terms without using the word "resolution" and vice versa.

 

From The (Ilford) Manual of Photography:

 

"Generally speaking, resolving power measures the detail-recording abilities of photographic materials."

 

Doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

Grab a thesaurus and parse away, tho'. There's probably a way to define each term without referring specifically to the other.

Hans, I included the resolution figures for TMX because resolution and grain are the only quantifiable elements of sharpness. Can you name another film that is sharper, yet resolves fewer L/mm? You can refer to A&T all you want, but you're statement about TMX sharpness is still wrong.

Jay De Fehr , feb 20, 2004; 10:36 p.m.

<i>Hans, I included the resolution figures for TMX because resolution and grain are the only quantifiable elements of sharpness. Can you name another film that is sharper, yet resolves fewer L/mm? You can refer to A&T all you want, but you're statement about TMX sharpness is still wrong.</i>

<p>

 

Hardly. MTF curves show the quantifiable differences that matter for human vision. Look at the curves for Kodachrome versus E-6 films, for instance. Sharpness is not measured by resolution, not even close.

Velvia has higher resolution than Kodachrome 25, but the latter is far sharper.

Hans, do you have an MTF curve for TMX? How does it compare to "conventional" films? I'm still interested to know how good your advice is. You advised Daniel that TMX does not reveal the very fine detail that conventional films do. Which conventional films reveal more very fine detail than TMX, and how do you know this?

By "sharper" are you referring to the combined elements of acutance, contrast and resolution? I can't think, offhand, of any factors other than those three that are used in technical evaluations of film.

 

Unless I'm missing something, when discussing film "sharpness" is just a form of shorthand we've agreed to use. The definition may vary from one photographer to the next, since some of us emphasize acutance over the other two factors while others of us insist on resolution as the predominant factor. That appears to be the case here.

The discussion in Anchell & Troop on page 14-15 is the best place to start.

That's about what I thought. Make erroneous statements of fact, refer to some authority and retreat. Your M.O. is becoming very evident.

Take it easy there, folks. This is just a discussion. A debate doesn't have to become personal or unpleasant.

 

I still think that Hans, I and others may be parsing words over this issue, but there's no need to pick up sticks and bricks over it.

I spent years fighting this sharpness/acutance/resolution battle. Old TMX (I haven't bought any recently) would resolve more lpm than anything else I've ever used. I have prints of electronic equipment across a room where you can read every number on every dial with a magnifier, and the grain is invisible. Part of the key to that kind of resolution is thin negs. In spite of that, my prints didn't look crisp. With a magnifier, I could see more detail on the prints than I could see in the original scene using my eyes, yet there was something unsatisfying about them. Not to mention that controlling the contrast and lighting of the original scene is really important to using this film well. At some point I switched over to FP4+. There is no question in my mind that it's grainier and has lower resolution than TMX in any scientific shootout. It was also like buying an entire new set of lenses. Prints were crisp and satisfying. The difference may lie in the edges, but that's probably not the whole story. I think it's subject sensitive. If I were shooting "soft" stuff, people, nudes, or pets, TMX would be high on my list. I typically shoot landscapes and small hardware type catalog items. My best results with TMX were in Xtol 1:3 so far as contrast control. The best tonal quality (whatever that is) came from Rodinal- can't remember if it was 1:25 or 1:50. Problem is, the grain isn't any better than FP4+ when processed in Rodinal, so why bother. FP4+ responds well to Xtol, D76, or my favorite, FX2. If you want acutance, FX2 is hard to beat. Though I've only shot a little, I suspect everything I've said applies to Plus-X about as well as to FP4+. Also, find a thermometer. Even a $2 alcohol type outdoor thermometer would be better than nothing!

As I said, there is much more to 'detail' than merely resolution.

The best T-Max 100 negs I ever got were done in Rodinal 1+25 at an ei of 80. These were the last rolls I shot of T-Max and that's only becuase they were a gift. If I ever get more, I would like to try it with Rodinal 1+50.

 

I've never been really happy with this film. Sure, the grain is fine, but it always seemed wimpy, punchless and flat. And the purple dye drives me nuts. I know it's no big deal, but just aesthetics. I shot a bunch of this stuff for a while and went back to conventional films. I would gladly sacrifice some grain to get tonal quality. When a photo is displayed, you can spot tonal quality from across the room. You have to get closer to the photo to see grain. I know a lot of folks like T-Max and that's ok. I've seen some good work done with it, but I've always wondered if the shot would've been better on Plus-X, or APX 100.

 

Daniel, Rodinal will give you lots of sharpness (whatever that is)

Thank you everyone, all of your comments are much appreciated coming from a beginner in B&W.

 

When I said sharpness, I meant I wanted to be able to count the stitches in people's clothes. But the discussion on apparent sharpness vs resolution really opened my eyes to the possiblities of B&W.

 

I figure that I had better ask the people who have been doing this for a lot longer than I, than risk messing up some negatives.

 

Another question I have is. About the purple anti-halation backing on TMAX (or other films). Will I have noticibly better film performance if I remove this layer? I remove the layer by presoaking in regular water for 5 minutes, correct?

 

Thanks, Dan

daniel:

 

Simply try some FP4 Pluse in Acutol. You will be flabergasted. Try 1+14 for 6.5 minutes.