I'm tipping toward TMAX

[StuartMoxham]

I found no problem getting contrast with HC110 and APX400 my first roll was well over and far too contrasty. But the next rolls after cutting back the dev time seem fine it seems to be quite a nice combo but it does seem to be a little slower than TriX. I did think about giving straight D76 a try with APX400 but I don't know if I will bother at the moment.

[al_divenuti]

Peter -

 

That's a good point - you wouldn't expect to see texture.

 

I was referring instead to the appearance of tone in the chair highlights. I didn't consider the highlights blown out because I could distinguish a slight difference in tone between them and the background white of the web page.

 

I might be too forgiving in my definition of "blown out", but a highlight has to be absent both texture (not uncommon) and tone (e.g. "paper" white or RGB=255, 255, 255 for a monitor) before I consider it to be blown.

 

I think the trouble frequently associated with TMAX films is whether you can develop the negs to an adequate CI to impart decent-looking midtones without having your highlights become too dense for printing at "normal" contrast grades.

[frdchang]

tmax is a beautiful film.

 

i just use d76 and normal development that kodak recommends, sometimes xtol, sometimes tmax developer... ya know what? they all look the same, so once my tmax developer runs out, i'm going to use d76.

 

usually when people dislike the film, they either

1) metered incorrectly

2) developed incorrectly

 

there is no need to 'tweak' kodak's standard development times when you use d76.

 

metering incorrectly is very easy to do. once cannot simply just use a grey card and meter the scene.

 

meter the highlights, meter the greys, make sure they line up in there proper Zones. (zone VI, zone V, etc.)... i just let the shadows lie wherever the scene will dictate... just depends on what aspect of the scene you want accurately represented.