Pulling TMY

[christer_almqvist2]

<p>I have been working on reducing the number of films and developers I use. It just got out of hand. Some time ago I was down to two developers and two films: a local German developer for TMX, and Xtol 1+1 for TMY.</p>

<p>I then took this one step further and I am now down to one film (TMY) and two developers. For high quality prints I use a local German liquid developer similar to Microdol-X/Perceptol and shoot at 200. When light is low, I shoot at 800 and use Xtol 1+1.</p>

<p>I found that pulling TMY to 200 and using a Microdol-X/Perceptol type developer gave better results than pushing TMX to 200; no matter what developer I used.</p>

<p>My next step would be one film (no question about it: TMY!) and one developer. Yet I still want to shoot at both 200 for high quality prints and at 800 when light is low. I have two camera bodies so I will not be shooting both speeds on the same roll of film.</p>

<p>Given the restriction I have set (one film and that being TMY), it seems I have no choice but using Xtol 1+1 for both pulling and pushing. I have been using Xtol 1+1 since it first hit the market, but I have not yet pulled a single film in that developer. </p>

<p>So, before I start my own testing, I would be interested to hear from people with personal experience from pulling 35mm TMY to 200 in Xtol 1+1 . The specific question is: can you see a real difference between 30x40 cm (12x16") prints made from 35mm negatives exposed at e.i. 200 developed in (a) Xtol 1+1 and (b) Microdol-X/Perceptol?</p>

<p>Is there a better Xtol dilution than 1+1 for pulling?</p>

 

[peterbcarter]

<p>For Xtol, I like to use 1:2 or 1:3 for almost everything I use. There is low enough grain that you should not have any issues puling or pushing 1 stop.</p>

<p>I have a 10 minute rule, when in small tank by hand. I like to stretch the time enough to minimize the effects of too little/too much development. I dilute the developer to give me this window. I find my images are more consistent the longer it takes to develop.</p>

<p> </p>

[brian_quinn2]

<p>Kodak used to publish pull times for all films in Xtol. Here is the Xtol sheet form 1998 with Pull times for the Old Tmax 400. Compare the times you use for the new TMY-2 to the published times for old version of this film. Then reduce the development time by the same percentage as a starting point.<br>

http://www.125px.com/techdocs/kodak.html#j109-XTOL-1998</p>

[William D. Lester]

<p>I use TMY-2 exclusively rated at 250 and develop in Xtol 1:1 for 7 1/2 minutes. I floundered around for years looking for the ideal film and developer. I found it when TMY-2 came along. I use it in all formats.</p>

[pc_b]

<p>You're almost on the same road as I am, Christer! I'm down to 4 films and 4 developers. :-)</p>

<p>I've dev'd E.I.200 Neopan400 and Tri-X in 1+1-Xtol with success. I inverted constantly all of the first minute, then three inversions every minute. Grain was smaller, but not like Acros (my comparison standard). I think Tri-X being grainier than Neo400 by a small margin.</p>

<p>A regime with quite a bit of inverting (maybe even once every 30s) helps with not loosing too much contrast. Xtol stock should give even less grain (and more contrast) but then dev times may grow really short ... then you may go to 18°C.</p>

<p>Good luck and please report which German specialty developer (almost) lost against Xtol, I'm ready to exchange one of my four developers for a(nother) German one!</p>

<p> </p>

[brian_quinn2]

<p>"I use TMY-2 exclusively rated at 250 and develop in Xtol 1:1 for 7 1/2 minutes"<br>

This is the same pull time listed in the 1998 Data Sheet for the old Tmax 400 1:1 at 68 deg.<br>

So it looks like we have somewhat of an agreement on starting times, dilutions and temps.</p>

[brian_quinn2]

<p>"I use TMY-2 exclusively rated at 250 and develop in Xtol 1:1 for 7 1/2 minutes"<br>

This is the same pull time listed in the 1998 Data Sheet for the old Tmax 400 1:1 at 21 deg. The 20 deg. time in 8 min.<br>

So it looks like we will have somewhat of an agreement on starting times, dilutions and temps if we use the old data sheet.</p>

[christer_almqvist2]

<p>Thanks to everybody for their comments. Still, new comments are welcome.</p>

<p>Well there might be a reason why Kodak does not list pull times for TMY2 in Xtol any more. I also see they now give the same development times for both ei 400 and 800, something they did not do in the 1998 table. Perhaps they think TMY2 in Xtol is not the ideal choice for pulling.</p>

<p>As soon as I have completed my income tax return, I shall start testing. I want to see if pulling TMY2 in Xtol improves sharpness and grain to be competetive with the Perceptol type developers.</p>

<p>PC B: the Perceptol type developer I used is called CG 512 and is the same as Rollei LS (Low Speed) developer. It was formulated by a Mr Raffay some time after WWII.</p>

<p>I'll be back with test results in a few weeks.</p>

[christer_almqvist2]

<p>I have now finished testing and reached my conclusion: TMY-2 in Xtol 1+1 is all I need for my 35 mm work; I will use this combination from EI 200 to 1600 (with different development times). I will not use slower films.</p>

<p>YMMV, but this is how I reached my conclusion: Real low ISO films (Tech Pan type) are tremendous films, but unfortunately not all of the time. Besides from being to slow for my type of work, I have been disappointed with the final prints more often than has been the case with "normal" films. Anyway, I usually print 12x16"/30x40cm and the quality from normal films is quite adequate for this size prints from 35 mm negatives - with meticulous work all the way.</p>

<p>After testing quite a few developer/film combinations, I was down to TMX in a high acutance developer (shooting at EI 164) and TMY in Xtol 1+1 for EIs from 400/800 to 1600. Still too many films I thought and tried TMY at EI 200 in a speed reduction developer. I was surprised to find that the quality obtained was equal to that of pushed TMX.</p>

<p>So I was down to one film (TMY2) and two developers. Too many developers I thought. Tried pulling TMY2 in Xtol 1+1. Low and behold, the print quality was equal to what I obtained with TMY2 in the Microdol-X type developer. Aha, I thought, that's the reason why Kodak has stopped selling Microdol-X; there is no need for it!</p>

<p>So there I am, TMY2 in Xtol 1+1 for all EIs from 200 upwards and no need for any slower films because they do not contribute to better prints. As I said, YMMV. I am happy with mine.</p>

 

[William D. Lester]

<p>Christer. I'm not the least bit surprised at your results. As per my earlier post, I have come to the same conclusion. TMY2 is the best film I've ever come across and coupled with XTOL makes a terrific combination.</p>

[dustin_dufault]

<p>Sorry to revive the thread, but I believe this to be on topic.<br>

Accidentally shot a 120 roll of TMY-2 at EI100. Wasn't sure how to develop, or if any thing would even work being that I was pulling two full stops. At the film's rated speed, I normally use XTOL 1:1 from between 8.5 to 9.25 minutes, depending on temperature. Kodak has no recommended time for TMY-2 at anything below EI400 in XTOL (undiluted or otherwise). Being that I was pulling two stops, and to have some leeway in time, I decided to try developing the roll in XTOL 1:2 at between 20-21C for 8.75 minutes. <br>

Results? Amazing. Probably even better than if I had shot it at EI400 and did regular developing. Looks as if the shots were shot on TMX. Previously, I had been using both TMX and TMY-2, but after seeing this, I think moving forward I'll be using only TMY-2 and pull/push according to my needs.</p>