T-Max 100 One stop underexposed. PUSH

[luis_modesti]

<p>Let say I made a mistake and underexposed the film by one stop. I will be processing using Tmax developer which is supposed to help the shadow detail. However, to further help I am thinking of pushing by developing say 30% more time, but reduce agitation as to not push the highlights too far up. Will this help the mid-tones or low zones that may have been underexposed ?. At least a bit . and save the highlights from not going too high. Does this make sense ?<br>

thanks,</p>

[al_derickson]

<p>I have found T-Max 100 to be prone to uneven development if not given sufficient agitation so I'd be wary about reducing agitation.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Before pushing film you may want to consider whether it's really necessary.</p>

<p>First, are you scanning or optically enlarging the negatives? If scanning, pushing may not be necessary. Pushing may increase contrast and make scanning more difficult.</p>

<p>Second, what were the exposure conditions? Was the lighting contrasty? If so was it bright sunlight or stage lighting? Or overcast, hazy or diffused indoor lighting? If the lighting was bright daylight, pushing may not offer any advantages and might even make matters worse by raising contrast without any benefit to shadow detail. If the lighting and subject matter are low contrast, pushing may help a bit.</p>

<p>In my experience with several developers, T-Max 100 pushes poorly: ID-11, Rodinal, Ilfosol-S, Diafine. It doesn't even tolerate careless exposure at the rated ISO 100. And it becomes very contrasty with excessive development, making it difficult to scan well. After trying several developers I settled on Microphen, which seemed to control contrast a bit better.</p>

<p>A couple of alternatives to consider:</p>

<ul>

<li>Ansel Adams described a technique in which the negatives are moved at intervals between developer and a water bath.</li>

<li>My variation of this is to modify agitation, starting with normal agitation for the first two or three cycles, followed by longer durations between agitations - two minutes or longer between agitations. Microphen at 1+1 for up to 20 minutes with this type of modified agitation schedule worked pretty well for some rolls of underexposed TMX shot in contrasty or nighttime conditions. This might work as well for you in T-Max developer, but I've never tried it.</li>

</ul>

[luis_modesti]

<p>These are pictures of father with baby sitting on a chair on the balcony under the shade of trees. Ambient daylight was low so I bounced a speedlight off of a white umbrella and metered at F/5.6 , then by mistake I dialed f/8 . I dont expect the contrast to be either high or low but just about normal considering the conditions. Since I did not meter by zones, but for the entire flash exposure I dont know when my low zones will fall. It may not even be necessary to push but I want to consider my options just in case. I will print in enlarger for the final prints to the customer but I will also scan for social sites.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Do you recall your shutter speed? The photos may not be underexposed overall and may only need a bit of dodging and burning to balance out where the flash exposure was a stop below what you intended.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>I've never tried this with TMX, but I once accidentally exposed some Plus-X at E.I. 400 and after an extended time (don't remember how much) time in Kodak's HC110 dil. B, I poured out the developer and let the film soak in water for several minutes. With some film the remaining traces of developer may develop shadows a bit more without burning out highlights. </p>

[cj8281]

<p><a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf</a><br>

Page 2, Right column under Features about halfway down: "No increase in processing time required for one-stop “push” with most developers".</p>

 

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>I have found T-Max 100 to be prone to uneven development if not given sufficient agitation so I'd be wary about reducing agitation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've gotten burned real bad by this. What I've found is that I can give it plenty of agitation on the front end and then cut agitation by half on the back end. I took to presoaking my film in distilled water and agitating vigorously for a full minute initially. Then I let it sit for 30 seconds. Then agitate. And then after that I went to 1 minute intervals on the agitation and I was okay. But that first couple of minutes you have got to agitate the film alot. This is not a fine tuned method. Because the initial agitations, I would think, have more of an effect on contrast than agitations in minute 8 (I shoot at ISO 50). I am still tweaking.<br>

Kodak recommends 30 second intervals of agitation throughout but for me after the initial crazy first two minutes I start doing everything on a one minute interval.</p>

[nathancraver]

<p>I regularly shoot T-Max 100 at ISO 200 and have never had any issues. I do this with both 35mm and 120 mainly to reduce the need for using a tripod as I prefer to shoot handheld. I have also shot TMX at 400 in 120 with great results. When I shoot TMX at 200, I develop with HC-110 (which is what I use almost all the time anyway) in dilution H (1:64, which is the dilution I always use for HC-110) at 70 deg. F (21 C), for 11 minutes, 30 seconds of agitation to start, then 2 inversions at every minute. This is the same routine I use for ISO 100 and have not seen a need to alter development for a one stop push. The dynamic range of the film is sufficient enough (for me) to not require any change in development, and, if needed, I compensate for contrast with split grade printing.</p>