Xtol & TMX 100 Time Trial

[gmc]

I thought I?d post this for what it?s worth. I haven?t been at all

satisfied with the results of my newfound film-developing hobby so I

thought I?d dig in a little deeper and start with a controlled test

on the effects of developing times with 100 speed TMX 120 film.

Forget push/ pull and so on, this is by Kodak?s normal developing

times at normal film speed. As a beginner it seems that 1-degree

here and 1 degree there always has a different time attached. So

just how critical is time, say at 30-second intervals? I spent

probably too much time doing this and I?m sure there?s many easier

ways, but this is what I did:

 

Walk out in the back yard. Set the old tripod up on the first thing

I see. There it is, poplar tree in the shade with a high contrast

background. Look up in the sky make sure no clouds are around to

mess with the lighting. Snap off 12 frames (quickly) with the SQ-Ai

and off to the dark room. Cut the film (TMX 100) in four sections.

Mix my Extol 1:1 (total of 18 ounces of developer, sorry don?t do

ml) and check the temperature. Temperature is at 69 degrees (sorry,

don?t do Celsius). Check Kodak?s new film emulsion time; split the

difference between the recommended time for 68 deg. & 70 degrees,

which calculated to 9 mins. First strip at 9 mins., second strip at

9.50 and up to 11 mins at 30 second intervals using 5 inversions of

agitation every 30 seconds. I used the same film developer with all

4 trials. I actually had a few inches of film left only snipping

enough to make sure of at least one complete frame per trial.

 

I will try to post the scanned results of the negatives as well as

the final prints. I used the 9 min. snip for a test strip then run

the other 3 negatives through the enlarger without changing

anything. Then took 30 % of the exposure time off the 11 min. snip

to end up back where I started on the 9.0 min print (now I did loose

some background).

 

I think everyone will notice a dramatic shift from the 9.0 snip to

the 9.50, more so than the other internals and it is possible that I

goofed up on the time setting. And even if I did, there is still

little difference in the 9.5 on up to the 11.0 min snips. So

basically, I could have mistakenly dev. an entire roll at say 10

minutes and naturally compensated for it after developing my test

strip. A couple of seconds less worth of enlarging exposure time.

What am I missing? Somebody get me straight here. At this point, I

would not hesitate throwing a roll of TMX 100 in the same soup bowl

with a roll of Plus-X with only a 45 second difference in developing

time.

 

Please, somebody dig me out of this before I get in trouble....

[gmc]

Prints

[gmc]

30% reduced (enlarging)exposure time on the 11 min. snip.

[ronald_moravec1]

It would be better if you found a test subject that filled the frame without all the excessive contrast. It should have a complete range of tones from a textured white to dark tones with detail. 45 deg side lighted stucco is an example of textured white and car tires in sun light is an example of a dark tone with detail. This should be a subject you can go back to often for further tests. A bride in a white dress and groom in a black tux is another example.

 

Do not reuse developer.

 

Start with the recommended time and print the result. Print so the blacks show the required detail, but not too light. If the whites are blown out without detail, reduce the time for the next test. If the whites are grey, you need to increase time so there is more density in the neg.

 

Scanning to detirmine if contrast is correct is not a good practice as experts say a good scan of a perfect neg is low in contrast, therefore not good for evaluation.

 

You are also working with the MOST fussy film there is. Exposure must be perfect and development right on. Small changes in agitation routine or temperature will throw off contrast and you will not understand why.

 

Tri-x film is somewhat more tolerant, and will make nice prints in 120 size. You need to learn what a good neg and print look like and can routinely make them before changing to something else.

 

Remember the golden rule, exposure puts the detail in the dark tones, and development controls the density of the lights. Always has, always will.

 

Xtol is also fussy. It works well when it works, but doesn`t turn brown as it spoils. It needs to be mixed with distilled water and at 85-90 deg. Put into small full bottles filled to the top so no air can get to it. Kodak has confirmed to me there is no way a home user can check the activity level and detirmine if it is good.

 

Whatever developer you use, mix and put in small bottles to keep air away from it. Hc110 is easy to use, but you need to mix it 1 oz to 31 oz water, or better 10 cc syrup stock to 310 cc water for a bit over 8 oz.

 

Last bit of advive is metric. Scientests and engineers all over the world use it because it it is simple. Lab measuring tools are calibrated in it and not English. I can`t even function with a receipe book any more. Film development is precision work for repeatable results. If you do not take the time to develope with consistency, every print will be a fight. Develope properly and they print without effort.

[ronald_moravec1]

One last thing to consider, two part developers. Usually about three minutes in the first and three or more in the second. They only develope with as much as was absorbed in the first solution so the contrast is self limiting.

 

They work well with high contrast subjects as the highlights don`t blow out. The down side is there is less contrast in the highlite region, but you need to be an expert to see it.

 

If you send me contact prints and the negs thru the mail, I`ll help you through this. Sort of a correspondence course. Find

my e mail address in the community section.

 

I will need the negs so I can reprint them if necessary. The hardest part is knowing in your head what a good print should look like so you can see your goal.

[Alan Johnson]

What may be missing is a book that tells how to change EI and development time for different lighting conditions.Edge of Darkness by Barry Thornton is one such book.For subjects with sharp shadow try exposing TMX at EI 40 and reducing development time by 17.5% from manufacturers recommendation.

[rick_jones5]

Greg-one thing you mentioned struck me as the key to some of your problems. "-- there is little difference in the 9.5 on up to the 11.0 min snips". That's a 22% increase in development time and with TMX should show a dramatic increase in contrast. Maybe your hugely contrasty test scene simply masked the effects of increased development. But then again, TMX can be quick to reveal processing inconsistencies. If you are not prepared to tightly control your processing variables choose a different film or go to two part developers as was already suggested. TMX simply requires more attention to details: accurately prepared developers, tight control of temperatures (I use 1/2 degree as a benchmark), same agitation sequence time after time and careful timing. While this ain't rocket science some people just don't want to sweat the details and TMX simply is very intolerant of the "close enough for government work" approach. Best advice is to take Ron up on his offer. Bet he'll have you straightened out in a jiffy.

[gmc]

Yes, I am taking Ron up on his offer. Ron has already been a big help and I appreciate the other responses as well. I plan to try this again with a different approach as Ron has instructed. Also using different film & developer.

 

Thanks guys for taking the time to share your knowledge & experience.

 

Greg