film

[richard jepsen]

I am familerizing myself with several B&W films such as Delta 100, T-

Max 100 and 400, and Tri-X. I use a comercial lab with T-Max

developer. My best print is a 1/2 to 1 stop under-exposed Tri-X

negative in an office environment (60/F3.5). The showdows which (if

correctly exposed) could have detail, slide to black, other grays

shift to darker tones but I have full tonal range with white shirts

showing detail. Skin tones are nice.

 

1. Does T-Max lack a wide tone scale I see in the above print using

Tri-X and underexposing?

 

2. Outside using the ISO 100 films do mid tones suffer with the T-

Max films?

 

3. I read that Tri-X compresses highlights. Is this another way of

saying Tri-X lacks highlight detail? If so, will underexposing

compensate?

[djphoto]

To answer your third question, no, it does not mean that Tri-X lacks highlight detail. In fact, just the opposite. Tri-X will give you printable highlight detail where the T-Max negatives, especially 400, block up with unprintable density.

[davidgarth]

If the commercial lab you are using is not a pro custom lab, you are probably getting poorly devloped film and machine made prints. Neither will allow you to ever know the beauty and power of good black and white photography. They usually develop all film for the same time, and then print all prints with the same contrast paper. Dodging and burning is impossible with machine prints. While this may work OK for color, it hardly ever does for B&W.

 

If you want to learn B&W, see if your can borrow or rent a darkroom and learn to develop and print your own work. If that's impossible, try to find a pro custom lab (there are several good ones who do mail order.) They're not cheap, but it's worth it.

[ben_mcree]

The most beautiful black and white print I have was made in the same way--Tri-X underexposed by one stop with processing done by a pro lab using TMAX chemistry (the underexposure was an accident in this case--I don't normally try to push Tri-X). I just love the tones. The only modern film that I've found equally satisfying is T400-CN. I have not had good luck with TMX and TMY (again, processed at the lab); they are certainly sharp, but I don't care for their look. From what I've read here, most satisfied users of these films do their own processing and have been able to tweak the process to get exactly what they want.

[richard jepsen]

Today I got back Tri-X and T-Max 400 test prints. Using the same subject (office environment), same lighting, same exposure, same lab and developer, the Tri-X print is richer, skin tones have correct highlights, you can see text on paper (T-Max is washed out) and

unlike T-Max, the Tri-X print has delicate soft greys in the folds of a white shirt. I realize several variables may exist, but I see a trend.

[richard jepsen]

Today I got back Tri-X and T-Max 400 test prints. Using the same subject, same lighting, same exposure, same lab and development process the Tri-X print was richer, skin tones had more beautiful highlights, text could be read on white paper (washed out with T-Max) and unlike T-Max there is delicate gray tones in the folds of a white shirt. I realize variables exists, but I think I see a trend.

[gene_crumpler6]

Ben has a good point. I've done all of my B&W film and printing for nearly 50 years.

 

I did some testing of 120 films, Tri-x, Tmax 100, Pan F, XP2, Tech Pan, FP4, etc last year. The tri-x was ok, but very grainy(just like the first roll I shot in 1954). The grain is noticable in an 8x10 print from 6x7 negatives!

 

I settled on tmax 100 because of the tight grain structure, high sharpness, ability to print 16x20 + with no visible grain, and reasonable speed with my favorite developer. Tmax developer does not give the clear highlighs and shadow detail that other developers can give. I throw mine out!

 

In B&W work, it is almost a necesity to do your own work to get optimum results. Optimizing and controlling ever step leading up to the final print, will give you the good results that most labs charge premium prices for. I use to teach beginner classes in my camera club and I was always suprised just how bad the commerical B&W work brought in by the students was!!!

[tim_brown]

If you're sending out your B&W film to a lab, the safe bet is to use a chromogenic film (XP-2, T400CN etc.).

[james_d._steele]

If you are stuck using a commercial lab, you have to adjust to the lab. Modify your technique to take advantageand approach to what the lab does best.

[richard jepsen]

The Film Developing Cookbook by Stephen G. Anchell and Bill Troop has been mentioned in this forum. Last night I bought a copy from Borders Book Store. What a great resource. I can not say enough about this book for explaining what the issues are between conventional films and tabular films such as T-Max. The Cookbook confirms that Tri-X has a longer tonality scale not available from T-Max and works well slghtly underexposed.