shooting tmy(2) at slower speed

[bruce_erickson1]

<p>I got a recommendation from an aquaintence that he gets better results with tmax 400 (tmy2 the new stuff) by rating it at iso 250. He did not mention developing time. I was in a hurry and didn't pursue the discussion. Have any of you found that shooting this film at iso 250 gives "better" results and if so what development time would you recommend using D-76 at a 1+1 mixture of stock and water? I would assume that one would develop for a shorter time than the 10.25 min given by Kodak when shooting at iso 400. The massive development chart gives 12 min at 1+3 dilution when shooting at iso 200.</p>

[bruce_erickson1]

<p>If one subtracts one minute of development time from the normal for each stop over exposure, then it would seem that one should develop (using D-76 1+1) for 91/2 min. at 20 deg C. Does this sound about right? I know, I know I have to experiment. (In previous post, that word should be aquaintance of course.)</p>

[jon_porter2]

<p>I shoot TMY at EI 250, though mainly so I can use fill flash with my Nikons; I can't say I've noticed any difference in quality over 400 except perhaps with contrasty subjects. I use HC-110 1:50 as my general developer, but when I've used D76 (Lauder 76, actually) I used it 1:3 for 11 minutes @ 68 degrees.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>As a rule of thumb I reduce development time by 10 percent per 1/3 stop downrating, e.g. if the dev time were 12 minutes at 400 ASA, then at 320, I would develop f0r 10.5 - 11 minutes. At 250, I would develop for 9.5 minutes. In all but the dullest weather I normally downrate film.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Depends on what you want to accomplish. Down-rating a film won't necessarily improve it, just depends on the lighting, desired contrast, developer choice, enlarger or scanner, etc.</p>

<p>There's a bit of conventional wisdom that's been floating around for decades that the rated box speed for Tri-X was bumped to 400 without actually changing the emulsion, which was true (back then, but it's since been changed a bit). However that doesn't necessarily mean that all ISO 400 films are actually overrated ISO 200 films.</p>

<p>I always found T-Max 400, including the original version, to be right at a true speed of 400-500 and pushes beautifully. It's my favorite film for pushing, even over Tri-X, because it retains a conventional looking tonality and contrast without becoming excessively grainy up to 1600 in the right developer. I've also rated it at 200 and souped it in ID-11 and Rodinal - didn't really seem to offer any benefits over rating it at 400 for typical daylight situations, including bright sunlight.</p>

<p>Now, I would say that both Tri-X and HP5+ are good candidates for down-rating to 200-250 with appropriately less development (usually ID-11 at 1+1) for controlling contrast in extremely contrasty sunlight. And the grain is very fine, good enough to withstand 11x14 prints from 35mm that would satisfy most discerning folks. But I haven't noticed any real benefit to doing that with TMY.</p>

As Chris implied (hope I'm not misinterpreting his comments), down-rating and pulling development in dull lighting or overcast conditions may produce flat negatives. That's fine if you want that effect. But if you end up needing to crank up the magenta filtration with variable contrast paper to compensate, down-rating and pulling development might not have been the best choice for that particular lighting situation.

[christer_almqvist2]

<p>To get the full advantage of shooting TMY at 200 you should use developers like Perceptol, Microdol-X, Raffay CG512 or Rollei RLS.</p>

[christer_almqvist2]

<p>QUOTE:" .......... T-Max 400 ................ retains a conventional looking tonality and contrast without becoming excessively grainy up to 1600 in the right developer."<br>

<br /><br>

Lex, please name that developer. Thanks, Chris</p>

[frank.schifano]

<blockquote>

<p>To get the full advantage of shooting TMY at 200 you should use developers like Perceptol, Microdol-X, Raffay CG512 or Rollei RLS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that's exactly right, though I don't see the point in using extra fine grain developers with this film at all. doing this at all. I don't know anything about the characteristics of Raffay CG512 or Rollei RLS, but I was a big user of Microdol-X in the past and Perceptol is widely regarded to be a virtual clone of that developer. My apologies to Ilford if the it's the other way round.</p>

<p>Microdol-X will indeed deliver finer grain than just about anything else I've used, if you use it at full strength. It will beat XTOL in that department, but only just barely. The difference is not noticeable in practical applications unless the viewer is an inveterate grain sniffer which in my opinion is no way to appreciate a photograph. </p>

<p>But you pay for that extra fine grain in film speed. Full strength Microdol-X can cost you up to a stop of speed. This might have been a reasonable trade off considering the grain characteristics of the films produced when ultra fine grain developers like Microdol-X were introduced. But with TMY, you're looking at a film with grain characteristics already on par with the almost 2 stop slower Plus-X, and better than some other films in the 100 speed class. And if that's not already enough, TMY has such a long straight line curve and so little toe, that any gain in shadow density does not automatically translate into enhanced low value contrast in the print.</p>

<p>Which brings us to yet another point. There is no arguing the fact that density equals grain. If you over expose a film, more silver will develop and as a consequence there will be more grain. So if you really want to minimize grain, expose only enough to get the detail you need, then develop the film to a contrast index you need to suit your vision. To effectively accomplish this, you need to know your light and your materials. Blindly following any of these "do this every time and everything will work out fine" bromides without that foundation is pointless.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Christer: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=304490">I use Microphen when pushing TMY</a>, usually to 1600 in stock solution, occasionally 1+1. It's less "flat" than <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=304508">Tri-X at 1200 in Diafine</a>, which can occasionally produce odd, murky midtone gradation. And much less flat and grainy than <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=324155">Delta 3200</a>. I like and use all three combinations, but tend to choose based on the anticipated lighting.</p>

<p>I've pushed <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=318832">TMY to 6400 in Microphen</a> and got usable results but I'd consider it strictly a rescue scenario only, if there was no other choice. Very difficult to print conventionally, scans passably.</p>

<p><br />I also use Microphen (usually 1+1) for normally exposed TMX at 100. Works great, especially in bight sunlight or high contrast lighting. Less fussy than ID-11 and other developers which tended to work best with TMX at EI 64-80 for me in 35mm and 120. Probably not quite as fine grain as with ID-11 but it doesn't matter - TMX has such fine grain it's unnoticeable in my prints up to 11x14.</p>

[William D. Lester]

<p>I rate TMY2 at 250 and develop it in Xtol 1:1 for 7 1/2 minutes or HC110 at 1:50 for 7 1/2 minutes. Both at 68 deg. I use 35mm, 120 and 4x5. I don't like empty shadows and down rating the film just insures a little extra detail. I have no doubt that rating it at box speed works well for a lot of users. This is what works for me. Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.</p>