Tmax 400 exposed at 100 ISO

<p>That was my first roll with my newly purchased M6 and first Leica. I forgot to set the iso wheel on the back, which was locked at 100 iso. I decided not to process it for three reasons: two new parameters at the same time (camera + iso) would lead to results difficult to interpret, overexposed Tmax 400 is difficult to recover, and at first I did not remember to have met great photo opportunities.<br>

Well, I am having now second thougts. This photo session was at the Luxembourg garden in Paris with plenty of interesting people around, and great light. From subsequent rolls I know that I had probably done things right. And this was the first time...<br>

I still have the film, but I dont now how to adapt my processing conditions in only one trial. Perhaps somebody could tell me how I should do it? My well calibrated standard for Tmax 400 is Xtol 1:1 21°C 9'10".<br>

Thanks in advance</p>

<p>I've never overexposed TMY that much and I'm not a fan of Xtol. Under the circumstances you've described I'd use the most dilute standard solution of the developer for which there is any available data, in order to get a reasonable developing time of around 5 minutes or more.</p>

<p>You described "great light" but not whether it was open sunlight, overcast, open shade, dappled sunlight under partial shade, etc. For example, if it's bright daylight you might want to cut development a bit more. If overcast conditions, or early/late clear sky with no direct sun, it might not be necessary to cut development too much.</p>

<p>I'm more familiar with ID-11/D-76 than Xtol, so I'd probably try ID-11 at 1+1 for 6-8 minutes, depending on scene contrast.</p>

<p>Thanks Lex, By great light I meant direct lateral sun (mid october afternoon) with contrasted shadows.<br>

Also I scan my films</p>

<p>Would it be worth acquiring a developer known to reduce speed, such as Microdol-X or Perceptol?</p>

<p>At least given your contrasty light a reduction in development time to reduce highlight density would help in controlling contrast.</p>

John, sure I could change the developer, but that would add an untested parameter to an unknown situation.

<p>EI100 instead of EI400 is only two stops, not that much when scanning.</p>

<p>If you would develop it as normal you have in worst case lost 2 stops of dynamic range, turning turning very light gray into white without detail.<br /> If you shorten your development a little you might be able to save a little of the lost highlights with the lower contrast negative.<br /> Other than that there is not much too do. A lot of development tricks are for getting the contrast right for wet printing. For scanning it just doesn't matter because you can adjust the tones after you have scanned what's on the film. As long as it's on the film in the first place.</p>

<p>I would either develop as normal hoping I could retrieve most of the highlights with the scanning process or cut the development time 20% - so about 7 minutes.</p>

<p>Check out this thread for some more extreme over- and underexposure with 400 film that was developed as normal and then scanned and postprocessed to retrieve as much as possible. Notice especially the EI12 shot with ISO400 film, that's 5 stops overexposed.<br>

<br /> http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00SJEb</p>

<p>I would just develop it normally in XTOL 1+1 as you have been. The negatives will be a little dense, but should print fine. They will be a bit grainier, and have a bit more shadow detail. But the midtone contrast will be the same, since the film has such a straight curve over such a long brightness range. If the thought of increased grain bothers you cut the development time by 15-20% and plan on printing a grade or so higher.</p>

<p>If you are scanning, then it might make sense to reduce the development time by 20% to keep the density down. This will make more difference with a consumer scanner compared to a drum scanner. But either should be able to handle two stops of additional exposure density.</p>

<p>Given the ability of TMAX to block in the highlights, I'd do at least a 1 stop pull. Say reduce your time by 15%?</p>

thank you very much for your answers. So I will reduce the development time by 15-20%, and work the result with my

Coolscan 5000. I will post the best scan here.

<p>That's 2 stops over-exposed so I would reduce your dev time by about 55 percent. However that will give you a dev time of about 4m 15 s which is rather too short so I would increase you dilution to 1+2 and give it 6.5 minutes.</p>

<p>I'm inclined to agree with the recommendations to cut development *more* than 20% or so, to minimize the risk of blocked up highlights that would be difficult to scan through.</p>

<p>It's already done with Chris' parameters (dilution 1+2 and 6.5', instead of 1+1 9'10"). Still drying, looks pale but recoverable. I will post scans here tomorrow</p>

Post some photos of the actual film frames themselves.

<p>Or you a slow development and pull development by 1/12 to 2 stops.</p>

<p>Here are the results:<br>

A = TYM2 (400 iso) exposed at 100 iso and processed with Xtol 1+2, 6.5', 21°C.<br />B = TYM2 (400 iso) exposed at 400 iso and processed with Xtol 1+1, 9'10", 21°C (my SOP);<br />same Xtol batch as A, same camera, same kind of light. <br />16 bits B&W scan, basic Epson flat bed scanner.<br>

C = A scanned with a Coolscan 5000 ED, greyscale 16 bits 4000dpi, no post-processing, except resizing without sharpening.<br>

Well, I think that we can declare that this ressucitation is a success..<br />Thank you Chris and all contributors!</p><div></div>

<p>Here is C:</p>

<p>Good that it worked out for you.</p>

<p>Looking at the A+B image the film looks underdeveloped compared to your usual development. But it's easy enough to put back some contrast into the image in photoshop.</p>

 

<p>Pete, even without photoshop, the ~raw scan of (A) is already not that bad, see the the attachement file9P91yg just before your post.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pete, even without photoshop, the ~raw scan of (A) is already not that bad, see the the attachement file9P91yg just before your post.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I agree it's not bad at all. I just commented that the negative looks underdeveloped compared to your usual development, simply because I think that you cut the development times more than needed. Either way as long as you are satisfied it's all good!</p>

<p> </p>

Negative A definitely looks a lot thinner than negative B, much less contrast. Not enough development. That is why I prefer to see the negative, not a print. It should print okay with printing adjustments.

<p>That negative didn't appear overexposed. You should probably double check your camera's meter against another meter to be certain. If it had been overexposed at 100 I'd have expected to see much denser highlights in the white trousers, windows and clouds. It appears pretty close to a normal exposure, but definitely underdeveloped.</p>

<p>" You should probably double check your camera's meter"<br /> Lex, this camera had just been fully checked at a major Leica-approved shop. Moreover, B had been shot with the same camera a few days later, and it seems to me ok, see below B', no post-processing, taken at f11 1/500 with a ZM Planar 50/2. Unfortunately I have thrown away the paper with my record on the A film thinking it was hopeless... Although I remember that I had a light yellow filter (Heliopan ~0.5IL) with A (but not with B).</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Didier<br>

I often use TMax 400 at 200asa and develop in Perceptol 1+3 for 14 minutes and get great results. Frames taken at a stop over, at 100 asa should print well with filter 1 or 2. I've gone off Xtol as I find it gives rather flat mid-tones, Perceptol is much better for this. I use it for most films at 1+1 or 1+3. </p>

<p>Peter, thanks for the information. Which temperature are you using? Ilford says that the shelf life of an open vial is just 1 month, do you follow this recommendation?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Ilford says that the shelf life of an open vial is just 1 month..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perceptol is a powder that's mixed to stock solution like ID-11, Microphen, Kodak's D-76, etc. Shelf life, usage and storage considerations are all comparable to those developers.</p>

<p>The only developer I've tried that comes in small vials is Tetenal Neofin Blue - a good acutance developer but not comparable to Perceptol.</p>