4x5 Tmax 100 zone tests very contrasty

[macgregor_anderson]

I have just completed the first couple stages of testing Tmax 100 4x5

sheet film developed in D76 1:1 and processed in trays. I have been

using the book Zone System by Brian Law, which provides for testing

without a densitometer. I chose Tmax because I've had my favorite

shots on it, but also find it is unpredictable. I recognize that

true zone system testing requires a densitometer, but I found the

concept of these tests to make sense and thought they'd improve the

predictability of my results.

 

I first found my EI by shooting a grey card in the shade exposed to

Zone 1. Developed 8 min (my best guess based on experience). I

found my standard contact printing time and then compared zone 1 to

paper black. First discernable grey appeared at the recommended film

speed of 100. This was just barely lighter than black, but you could

see the seperation (sheet film exposed with darkslide half out).

 

I then exposed for zone V and varied development times until the

contact reached zone V. For me, this was only 7 minutes.

 

I then exposed 11 sheets across the zones, developed for 7 minutes,

and printed the results.

 

I do have a grey scale. Zone 0 is paper black, and 1 again shows the

slightest variance. Zone IX is nearly white, but you can see the

borders on the print. Zone X is paper white.

 

Problem: While Zones 0, I, V, IX, and X look "right" to me, the mid-

tones seem bunched at the ends. Zone III is very dark compared to

any greyscale I've seen, and Zone VII looks too white.

 

Before I start fooling with plus and minus development, I hoped

someone here could offer advice. Is my agitation likely to be a

problem? If I had to guess, I'd say I'm fast, though consistent.

 

Also, these development times seem very short. I've read diluting

D76 past 1:1 can cause problems. Should I try a new developer? I've

been very careful with development temps (68 +/- 1/2 degree to start,

with about a 1 degree rise over processing).

 

Perhaps I should allow more seperation between zone 0 and zone 1,

shoot at say 64, and test again?

 

The good news is that I was able to achieve consistent results

several times. I know this because I repeated every stage of the

testing several times.

 

Anybody have any thoughts? I can switch to FP4, and I will test with

it next, but I was really hoping to nail down this finicky but

sometimes great film.

 

mac

[tim_curry]

mac,

 

I seem to remember a thread which had to do with the slope of tmax 100 being concave in the middle section. I don't remember the developer, but it seems to be a problem others have encountered. This would account for your results.

 

I would try Efke 100 or FP4+. They are both a bit more forgiving, but "older" technology films.

 

Another approach without a densitometer is to use a Stouffer step wedge (21 step works well). It makes seeing this relationship of film speed, highlights and developer much easier. Just shoot, develop and print on the paper of your choice. Much easier to see trends this way. tim

[ronald_moravec1]

Make sure you print developer is fresh. I got weird results similar to what you describe when I kept using developer from a stock bottle without decanting into smaller bottles to limit air contact. It still seemed to work, but the tones weren`t placed properly. I tried the same neg with fresh developer, and got a decent print. D76 1:1 is a great combo, but tray development of T Max is not a good idea. That film is very sensitive to agitation changes and tray development is hard to control. Others will probably disagree! I find 8 1/2 min about right at at 68 deg, so 7 may be correct at room temp (how do you control temp in a tray) with more agitation. Kodak does not recomment hc110 (see website ). I seem to get good overall contrast, but intermediate tones don`t look as good. This problem is insoluable.

[rowland_mowrey]

Kodak's current recommendation for T-Max 100 sheets with tray processing is D76 straight for 5 3/4 mins. The aldternative is HC110, dilution "B" for 5 1/2 mins. This assumes continuous agitation at 68 deg F. They don't recommend 1:1 dilution for this film with D76 for some reason.

 

This is in the latest guidebook from EK which was published in 2002.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Ron Mowrey

[peter_svensson]

When you're saying that the "mid- tones seem bunched at the ends," aren't you just seeing the curve of the paper? T-Max films generally have a fairly straight "curve," but papers generally have an S-shaped curve that would explain what you're seeing.

[lex_jenkins]

Keep trying with TMX awhile longer. Yes, it's a tricky film but I find the results worthwhile.

 

Try it in Microphen. Sure, normally we'd think of Microphen as a speed enhancing developer for push processing, so why use it on properly exposed TMX? Well... because it works.

 

I don't do zone-type tests. Don't have the means or inclination. Usually a single roll, sometimes two, is enough to tell me what adjustments I need to make. The first time I saw the results of TMX exposed on an extremely contrasty day, of subjects including deep shade and blistering white, developed in Microphen, I knew I'd found a match for this tricky film.

 

Shoot it at EI 100 - that's appropriate for Microphen. Don't worry too much about the highlights - the developer has a compensating effect that tames those problems. The only challenge will be finding the appropriate combination of development time and agitation frequency to walk the line between sparkling highlights and dull, compressed whites.

 

I'm no graph master like Stephen Benskin but I'm betting TMX in Microphen describes a rather flat characteristic curve. You may or may not like the midtones. I do.

[stephen_benskin]

Hasn't anyone wondered about MacGregor's printing conditions? What paper and what grade / filter is he using. Plus, let's not forget the perceptual aspects of viewing a gray scale. The lower tones will look more compressed than they really are.

[macgregor_anderson]

Thank you all for some very helpful comments. This is a really great source of information.

 

Regarding the printing, I am using a Saunders LPL 4500 II with the variable contrast head (diffusion) set to filter 2 on the Ilford dial, and Ilford MultiGrade IV fiber based paper. Developing for 3 minutes in Dektol 1:2 at 68.

 

Room temp in the darkroom is as close to 68 as I can get it. I'm using 8x10 trays for my film and print developing with enough solution to keep the temperature pretty constant. I can get it to within 1/2 degree on my thermometer, and it generally rises a half to a full degree through processing, probably because of my body temp. My agitation is pretty consistent...I always develop four sheets and rotate through them at a constant pace of roughly 5 to 6 full cycles per minute.

 

I just shot some real live pics and I'm going to see how they turn out now. I went up to a wilfire area and shot some trees with burnt bark and exposed very light bark on a fairly sunny day. I'll see how the detail looks in the zone 3 and zone 7 areas.

 

Mac

[macgregor_anderson]

Ronald, forgot to address the fresh developer issue. This was freshly mixed that day Dektol, but it was used a fair amount by the time I got to the end of testing. I did a lot of testing, botched testing, retesting, etc. I know I changed it once, but perhaps this is an issue worth looking at again. I did get very solid black out of my zone 0 neg, so I assumed the developer still had it's kick. But that may not tell the whole story.

 

I will test FP4 as well. And I'll try those other developers too. I'm trying to balance time spent testing with time spent shooting. At the very least, I now know how my Tmax will turn out shot at 100 and developed under these conditions. And that's very useful.

 

mac

[macgregor_anderson]

Temperature control in the trays is pretty simple. I use two plastic ziploc sandwich bags, one with a few ice cubes in it, one with hot water in it. So long as you remember to stir before checking temperature, it seems very workable.

 

Should I be trying dip and dunk? A jobo is too costly for me right now.

[everheul]

Since TMX is the only B/W film in readyloads, I use this film when I hike. I shoot it at an ei of 50 or 64 and i develop in X-tol 1:3 which seems to have enough of a compensating effect to prevent my highs from getting to blown out. 80deg, 9.5 minutes (10% less if the scene is really contrasty)

 

I wish this film would stain in PMK pyro.

[William D. Lester]

I stuck with TMX in both 120 and 4x5. I'm glad I did as I find the film highly reliable and the results absolutely repeatable. I have used a variety of developers, but find both HC110 and Xtol 1:1 very well suited for this film. I always tray develop the 4x5 film and find that to work well also. Very consistent and even development. I rate the films at 50/64 for HC110 and 64/80 for Xtol. FP4 is a good film but if grain is important, TMX wins hands down. The only problem is finding enough grain to focus the enlarger on.

[conrad_hoffman]

You don't need a densitometer for Zone testing. Even if you had one, who's to say what target numbers you should use? They vary, depending on your enlarger, paper choice, and a few other things. What I definitely would recommend is a step tablet. It will show you what your paper and printing process are doing. Specifically, it will show you if you're getting the paper grade you think you are. You can also do film tests with it, but that's somewhat overkill. I've had good results from TMax 100 in Xtol and Rodinal. No reason other choices shouldn't work as well. Whatever you do, be completely consistant about it.

[ken_lee11]

I got the same basic results with TMax 100 and D-76 1:1 I now use TMax 400 and PyroCat HD. Vive la difference !

[kirk_keyes]

Eric - "Since TMX is the only B/W film in readyloads..." Fuji Acros 100 is available in Quickloads. It does cost a bit more than 100TMX. I wish FP4+ or Tri-X were in readyloads...

 

"I wish this film would stain in PMK pyro." TMX DOES stain in Pyro - not as much as FP4+ or Bergger 200, but then how much stain do you want? TMX in PMK is disctintly different looking than TMX in XTOL.

 

MacGregor - Definitely get youreslf a Stouffer 4x5 21-step tablet. It will save you a lot of time and money when testing. Also with the money you save, look into getting a densitometer. Check around with universities, schools, or labs in your area to see if there is one you can rent or use. Your testing will only be as good as the tools used to measure the results of your tests with.

[paul_hoyt]

Mac, My hat is off to you, that is a lot of work! I noticed in your discussion that you develope in Dektol (1:2) for 3 min. Dektol is an aggressive developer and a more dilute solution may change the print values that seem bunched. I have noticed photographers are not consistent in what they mean by a dilution of 1:2. The first number is the concentrate and the second number is the total volume. A 1:2 dilution would mean equal parts concentrate and water, 500 ml Dektol + 500 ml water in a total of 1000 ml solution (500:1000 = 1:2). 1:2 then becomes a ratio, Dektol is at half strength. Many photographers think 1:2 indicates 1 part Dektol and 2 parts water, that is actually a 1:3 dilution. If you are diluting Dektol with equal parts water, try 1 part Dektol and 2 part water (1:3) and also try 1:4. The 3 minutes is a good developing time for both 1:3 and 1:4, it is too long for 1:2, your lower zones will be pushed down and seem too dark. The higher zones are less effected by a 1:2 dilution but are not immune. I would be interested to hear if increasing the dilution gives you print values more like you expect to see.

 

Paul

[everheul]

Kirk:

 

Thanks for the tip about acros100 in quickloads, I'll have to try it out once I finish off my last three boxes of TMX. I did read in viewcamera that this film stains well in pmk.

 

You aptly pointed out TMX stains in pmk. It does, but not enough for my liking...I guess I'm just used to the PMK/Tri-x combo.

[macgregor_anderson]

Paul, sorry for getting just getting back to this thread. I was indeed careless in how I quoted my ratios. I am diluting one part Dektol to two parts water. 1:3.

 

I've since tested HP5 to the same level. Why HP5? I wanted a bit more speed and a traditional style film. And I had a full box. It was a little smoother in transition, though not as much as I'd hoped. It was a lot less responsive to change in developing times which makes it a little easier for a beginner like me. And I've still not tested the contracting/expanding of the zones, which is the whole point. I do, however, have a better feel for what my meter is telling me. How something will look on the print if I expose at three stops under the reading. And I know that I can be consistent. So it's already paid off.

 

Now I'm having trouble working with filters. It's endless, but endlessly fun.

 

Mac