T-Max 400 overexposed three stops

[Kat D.]

<p>I shot three rolls of T-Max 400 last evening with my Hassy 201F and 110/2 lens…… not realizing the lens’s aperture blades were stuck open at f 2.0. I had set the aperture to 5.6. So the film is overexposed three stops.</p>

<p>I was exposing at 320 ISO using my Sekonic L-358 meter. My experience with this meter is that this 320 setting is really more like 400.</p>

<p>These were portraits in the evening by a lake, sun behind trees, very flat light. Two rolls are individual portraits, one roll is portraits of two people together. (Focus is a whole other issue: how many have eyes in focus at 2.0? I thought I was giving myself plenty of leeway at 5.6 ! )</p>

<p>How to salvage these rolls? I do not develop my own film, usually send to Lightside (LTI) in New York. Last I checked, they use Xtol. I don’t know dilution or development times but could ask. </p>

<p>LTI will pull 1/8 − 2 7/8 stops if requested. They also list “specialty film processing using Acufine, Microphen, Pyro, Xtol 1:1” for $50 setup fee. So I guess the normal Xtol developing is something other than 1:1. </p>

<p>Have done a lot of reading here and other places on the net and see that a lot of people routinely expose T-Max 400 at 200 and develop normally. Should I feel that takes care of one of the stops, then have LTI pull two stops? </p>

<p>Would any of the “specialty” film processing be of any value? </p>

<p>I read that pulling too much can be risky (muddy negs? uneven development?). Would I be better off just pulling one stop and having to deal with dense negatives?</p>

<p>I know it would be better if I were developing myself and could have more control, but I don’t have time to get back into that now (developed film, had darkroom many years ago).</p>

<p>I will be scanning the negs on my Nikon LS-9000, not printing from enlarger. </p>

<p>The photos are of my nieces who were just visiting from out of town and have left now, so I wanted to try to make these negs useable. </p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Scanners have trouble with really dense negatives. The highlights could really get dense, T-Max is known for being able to do that. The sun and other bright areas could easily get dense. So I'd say a 1 to 2 stop pull is in order.<br>

You could certainly shoot a test roll under the same conditions, and get that processed first.<br>

There's no developers which are "special good" for pulling. I'd expect fine pulling results with full-strength Xtol, which is probably what they normally use.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Xtol 1+1 for 7-8 minutes should be okay for T-Max 400 exposed as you described: IE around 100, flat or moderate/low contrast lighting. Shouldn't require any special handling or care.</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>Hi John. Good idea to shoot a test roll with same conditions. Might do that. Also, good point about dense negs being hard to scan. I will ask LTI if they use Xtol full-strength.</p>

<p>Hi Lex. If I exposed at ISO 400 for lens at 5.6, but lens was actually at 2.0, wouldn't that be ISO 50? I'll ask LTI about your Xtol 1+1 for 7-8 minutes, too.</p>

<p>Thanks to you both.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

What shutter speed?

[Kat D.]

<p>Lex: Varied, depending on light.....1/125 or 1/180. All f 5.6, which was correct exposure for ISO 400. But lens stuck open at 2.0 (unbeknownst to me).</p>

[lwg]

<p>With flat light I'd just develop as normal. The film will record the scene with the correct contrast, but it will just be denser. By pulling you will decrease the contrast, which is even worse than dense film for a scanner. If the scanner can handle slide film (and it can) then the slightly denser negatives won't be an issue.</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>John: You are right, LTI uses Xtol full strength normally.</p>

<p>LG: Justin King, my contact at LTI, also just recommended developing normally. So I might do that. Something that occurred to me is that maybe the aperture blades got stuck <em>at some point</em> during the shoot......not wide open the entire time. That would be another argument for developing normally.</p>

<p>I will let everyone know what I do and how the film turns out. Thanks so much.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

Sounds like EV 7-9 lighting. It could be

extremely contrasty if there's any dappled light

filtering through trees onto faces. And your

accident may have actually been a blessing, other

than the reduced depth of field.

 

I'd still suggest reducing development by a

minute from the guidelines. It's easy to

compensate for somewhat flat negatives, difficult

to work with negatives that are too contrasty.

[Kat D.]

<p>Hi Lex. There was no dappled lighting. Totally flat. Thanks so much for your input.</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>Quick update: Sent the film to LTI today and asked that they develop normally. So we shall see! I'm really wondering, too, how many are in focus at f 2.0 :)</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>UPDATE: So I had the film.....which was overexposed three stops....developed normally at LTI, because there were more people who suggested normal development than pulling, including my contact at LTI. They developed with Xtol full strength.</p>

<p>The negs turned out great!</p>

<p>I was shocked. I thought they would be really dense, hard to scan. But they were <em>easier</em> to scan than usual. I knew I should be giving my Tmax 400 more light because my negs tended to be on the thin side (I usually exposed at 320 which is really more like 400 with my Sekonic meter). But I thought one stop would be appropriate. But three stops is fantastic. At least it worked out well in this situation.....portraits in very flat evening light. Of course, I usually need the speed, so three stops won't be practical.</p>

<p>I scan my b&w negs as positive on a Nikon LS-9000, then invert in Photoshop (they turn out better scanned as positive). On my normally-exposed Tmax negs, I would have to struggle somewhat to get the skin tones right, do a couple of curves layers to get the tones of whole photo to look good. With these very-overexposed negs, I just had to do one curves layer and it was very straightforward.</p>

<p>Boy, this is a lesson in the value of overexposure!</p>

<p>I even managed to get some of the images in focus (remember the lens was stuck open at f 2.0, on medium format). Wish I had more of these nicely exposed negs with correct focus.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for their input.</p>

<p>On a separate but related subject: I took a look at some FP4 negs I shot recently at ISO 100 (again with my Sekonic which means it was probably more like 125 in reality), and I don't feel they needed more light. What is your experience.....do you feel FP4 doesn't need overexposure as much as Tmax 400? The FP4 was developed at LTI, too, in Xtol full strength.</p>

[Didier Lamy]

<p>"I scan my b&w negs as positive on a Nikon LS-9000, then invert in Photoshop (they turn out better scanned as positive)"<br>

Any idea why? Can anbody confirm this?</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>Didier: That is my experience. They are coarser-looking if scanned with "negative" setting in Nikon Scan 4 software. If you use this scanner and the Nikon software, you can try for yourself. Perhaps results would be different with other software.</p>

[Didier Lamy]

<p>I usually use Nikonscan 4.03 with a 5000ED, 16 bits grayscale, and most of the time with TMY-2. I will have a look at this setting, although I don't see why it could change something.</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>Didier: Just fyi, I keep my monochrome images in RGB, don't use grayscale.</p>

[Didier Lamy]

<p>then you cannot get the same amount of information as in 16 bits b&w</p>

[lex_jenkins]

Good that you found something that works for you.

 

I mostly printed b&w in the darkroom, and scanned

only to evaluate photos. And I shot a lot of T-

Max 400, including pushing it routinely to 1600

or more. It seemed to be a true 400 film. Best film I'd tried for pushing, even better than Tri-X.

 

But exposure techniques can vary, as well as

variables in equipment - shutter speeds that

differ from nominal, etc. So what works for one person may not be ideal for another.

 

Regarding FP4+, I liked it best at EI 64-80, in

ID-11, 1+1, for around 8-9 minutes. Especially

for mixed outdoor lighting. It lacked true shadow

detail at the box speed. Good film, though, very

classic look.

[Kat D.]

<p>"then you cannot get the same amount of information as in 16 bits b&w"</p>

<p>I think it is the reverse: there is more information in RGB than in grayscale. If I convert an RGB image to grayscale, the resulting image is 1/3 the file size. But, whatever....I don't want to get into an argument about technical things :)</p>

<p>Lex: Thanks for sharing your experiences with T-Max 400 and FP4. Maybe I will try giving FP4 a little more light next time. Good point that there are many variables.</p>

<p>I really love FP4. There's something about it that I really connect with. Maybe it's that classic look. Yet I don't get the same feeling from Tri-X. I've read the new Tri-X is very different than the old; don't know if my reaction is related to that.</p>

[Kat D.]

<p>In case anyone is interested, here are some of the photos from the Tmax 400 film which was overexposed three stops but developed normally. </p>

<p>Flickr sharpens photos. To see the image as it was uploaded -- before flickr's sharpening -- click on the photo after you are on its page.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/katdalton/20320170353/in/dateposted/</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/katdalton/20233793074/in/dateposted/</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/katdalton/20202414513/in/dateposted/</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/katdalton/20916089252/in/dateposted/</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/katdalton/20685553659/in/dateposted/</p>