Difficulties with TMAX 100

[andy_mclean]

I have shot and developed TMAX 400, DELTA 400, TriX and TMAX 3200

without any problems with printing. However I shot a roll of TMAX 100

this weekend along with TMAX 3200 and TriX. All were devloped in

TMAX, the former two rolls were fine; could print for deep blacks,

decent greys and detaled highlights. Not so the TMAX where the

highlights shot in contrasty scenes were all blown, and very little

shadow detail is discernable. The TriX under similar conditions was

fine and have previously used TMAX 400 in such conditions without

problems.

 

I was using M6 and 50mm cron which will add to contrast problems. I

know that TMAX films are very contrasty and TriX gives a broader grey

scale and is easier to develop, but has anyone else had similar

problems with TMAX 100? I stuck to manufacturers guidlines for

developing. Should I have shortened the development time

significantly?.

[douglas k.]

T-Max 100 isn't good stuff. If you must use it, try developing in good old D-76 1:1, as that's the soup that Kodak used to test the T-Max 100 before bringing it to market. For what it's worth, I think that the T-Max developer, at least used 1:4 as recommended, really only gives good results with T-Max 3200 - with the other films you've mentioned, D-76 and some other developers will give much better results.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

I disagree about TMax-100 being bad. It has a totally different look and feel than say... Plus-X, but that doesn't mean its bad.

 

As for your problem - lost shadows blown highlights - I'm wondering if you exposed it correctly. I've never seen a loss of shadows on the negative with TMax-100, except where it was underexposed.

 

Highlights, on the other hand, sometimes can be a problem unless developement temp. is really watched. I find it less forgiving than any of the non-Tgrain films as far as temperture goes.

[lee_shively]

I have absolutely no use for any of the "new technology" black and white films. I shot a lot of T-Max 400 and T-Max 100 and never was able to print a decent print from any of the negatives.

 

Try Ilford Pan F+. It's beautiful stuff. Process it in D76 or any of the Ilford chemicals according to directions. I like D76 diluted 1:3 at about 20% less than Ilford's recommended time but I have a tendency to overexpose black and white. Some people report difficulties with contrast using Pan F+ but I've never had a problem with it over 20 years of use.

[grant_.]

tmax 100 is extremely fine grain and an excellent film if you develop it right. i use hc110 with great results and have never had any probs printing or scanning it.

[peter_free]

(1) I never had any luck with TMax Developer and 35mm TMax 100. D-76 gives me excellent results. (I'm not one to fuss over development in most circumstances.) Many photographers report equally good results with other developers.

 

(2) Properly developed, I think TMax is an outstanding film. Though I agree it has a different look than older emulsions.

 

For what it's worth, Ctein ("Post Exposure: Advanced Techniques for the Photographic Printer, 2nd Edition," 2000, Focal Press) makes the point that it's important to match paper to the film. He shows density/log exposure curve for TMax 100 developed in TMax Developer density/log exposure curve on page 41. Then does the same for Polymax RC, Polymax II, and Multigrade IV RC papers on page 46. His illustrated discussion of the issue is very helpful.

[andy_mclean]

Thank you for the rapid responses guys. Hhhmmm, I guess it is down to a development problem... I have been developing my own negs for about 2yrs or so with TMAX dev. Stuck with it because I had no problems with TAMX 400 & 3200. TriX was fine too and I was reluctant to add too many variables to the overall process of producing a print (Multigrade IV). I find that TMAX 400 prints at 00 and 01 when shot under very high contrast conditions...

 

I asked the question because I was wondering whether the contrast of the 50 cron was leading to bleaching of highlights in a very high contrast situation.... strong sun through canopy of trees after rainfall and whether TMAX 100 had a steeper curve than TMAX 400.

 

I accept that there may have been a development problem and also that it is a good film in others hands. However, if results really are so critically dependent on processing vs other films, I will not be using it again.

[mike_elek]

I found TMax 100 to be rather flat until I started processing it in Rodinal. In TMax developer, the negatives seemed thin and low-contrast -- lower than expected. I've been pleased with the results in Rodinal (1:50 or 1:75 dilutions, generally).

[lex_jenkins]

Rather than quibbling over technicalities of whether this or that film is more or less contrasty, etc., I'll just say that TMX is a bit of a melodramatic film, best suited for unpeopled subject matter unless lighting can be carefully controlled or is serendipitously suited for portraiture.

 

I like the stuff for architectural studies, preferring to expose it at close to the nominal speed and develop it in ID-11, 1:1. For landscapes or anytime foliage is a primary subject I'd lean toward an EI of 64-80 (it seems to have less sensitivity to deep greens and needs the additional exposure). In ID-11 the negs are virtually grainless yet still sharp.

 

I plan to try some 120 TMX in Neofin Blau, a high acutance Beutler type developer. But if it results in *any* visible grain in large expanses of sky I'll go back to ID-11. No point using a nearly grain-free film and then spoiling the stuff. I've already tried TMX in Diafine and Microphen - ugh. Not bad in Ilfosol-S, tho'.

 

There's little in common between TMX and TMY other than the T-Max name. TMY has huge, heaping loads of latitude - TMX does not. TMY has a true speed close to its nominal speed of 400 yet can be pushed to EI 1600 and still deliver excellent midtones with very reasonable grain and gradation, while retaining some shadow detail and resisting blocked up highlights - no way TMX can handle a two stop push with such ease.

 

OTOH, TMY has nasty, gritty grain at its nominal speed in most developers - totally unlike the creamy TMX. And TMX has a unique silvery appearance when used on the right subject matter, giving TMX prints on ordinary gelatin silver prints some of the characteristics of a silver chloride contact print. TMY is a more balanced looking film, tho' less dramatic than its slower cousin.

 

My favorite use for TMY is pushed to EIs of 800-1600 in Microphen stock solution - straight up, no rocks, no chaser. A nifty alternative to pushed Tri-X for casual photography with a unique look all its own.<div></div>

[travis1]

OT:

 

Who posted the picture above? Mike or Lex?

 

This is an instance where there's no separation of posts by having the names on top and a picture above the name making 2 consecutive posts , one with pic a total reading nightmare.

[skeeter]

travis,

the posts are separated by two little parallel lines that look like "=".

lex posted the pic.

[steve_barnett2]

I also didn't like T-Max 100 much because of the easily blown highlights, very bad on a sunny day. But then I tried Ilford DD-X developer which not only gives even finer grain than D-76, but keeps the highlights in check and gives very good tonality. I also think the T-Max developer is not very good and may be your main problem.

[scott_k.]

Granted, TMX is sharp as hell, but just a paint in the ass to work with.... and is really not worth the trouble of fooling with because you could always use neopan or delta if you need 100 speed film.

 

You can use it to interesting effect with hc110 developer to attain a "plasticy" look... which is interesting. Blown highlights, but only the tip top.

[lex_jenkins]

Yeh, it was my pic. Taken with a Rollei 2.8C, not a Leica. YMMV. I expect the Leica would do a better job with Tri-X. Just as my Isolette V prefers APX 400. :p