Help with pull processing Kodak 400 TMY

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by ke6igz, Aug 12, 2012.

  1. ke6igz

    ke6igz Member

    Messages:
    31
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Today I shot models in daylight in front of murals with fill flash. Film is Kodak 400 TMY. Format is 645. I ended up setting the camera to 400 ASA but because of lighting conditions shot overexposing 2 and 3 stops. I am looking for suggestions for developing this film. I have never pull processed before. I have HC110, Rodinol and D76 developers to work with. Suggestions please. Thank You.
     
  2. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,054
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    How contrast was the lighting setup?

    EDIT: That should be "contrasty"
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2012
  3. Bill Burk

    Bill Burk Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,026
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I have overexposed Kodak T-MAX 400 film in 4x5 format and the negatives were very good. In the galleries, Bear Creek and Beneath Squaw Lake were shot with the film rated at EI 64.

    I developed the film normally in D-76 1:1.

    You may not need to compensate for the overexposure at all in development. There is a risk of graininess, since Rodinol has a reputation to give grainy results - you might avoid that developer. There may also be a risk to sharpness, but I don't think it will be much.

    When printing you may find that your negatives are more dense than expected.

    I think you will get great results. But if you are disappointed, keep in mind next time you shoot at rated speed your results should be sharper and exhibit less grain than what you get from this shoot.

    p.s. I work for Kodak but not in film. The opinions and positions I take are my own not necessarily those of EKC.
     
  4. ke6igz

    ke6igz Member

    Messages:
    31
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I would say it would be fairly contrasty. Between the models wearing white and black and the murals with bright and dark colors.


     
  5. ke6igz

    ke6igz Member

    Messages:
    31
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Yeah I agree about the rodinal. I think I will leave that developer on the shelf this time. I know film is generally slower than box speed so your right I may get away without any changes in development.


    I am now developing some Fuji Acros 100 that I shot at its rated speed during the same shoot. I am using Rodinol 1:50 for that. Its in the wash now. Interested to see how that come out.


     
  6. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,054
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think what you are telling me gives me more information about the range of tones in your scene than it does about the nature of the light.

    To be more detailed in my original question ...

    What was the nature of the light source(s)? Direct sun, high overcast sun, sun diffused by a scrim, open sky, daylight assisted by a reflector - either brought to the scene or built in to the location (like an adjacent wall)?

    Was it diffused fill flash, direct fill flash, bounced fill flash?

    Was the daylight mid-day or early morning/late afternoon?

    I ask this type of questions because the nature of the light will determine how contrasty the film image is. Pull processing has its greatest effect on contrast. You would only want to use it if your lighting was quite contrasty. When over-exposed TMY-2 itself is capable of retaining the wide range of highlight details.
     
  7. ke6igz

    ke6igz Member

    Messages:
    31
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Its was in sourthern California. The time was between 4pm and 6pm. It was outside. The murals and the models were in the shade, not in direct sun. I used a speed light (vivitar 285) with a white plastic diffuser snapped on the front. The flash was a few stops down from the ambient light exposure. Flash mounted on a stroboframe bracket just off camera. Flash was pointed directly at the scene.



     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2012
  8. Bill Burk

    Bill Burk Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,026
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    MattKing knows this better than me, but this sounds like a fairly low-contrast scene (open shade) made even less contrasty with the additional fill-flash. So normal development still sounds to me like the right thing to do.

    p.s. This logic is easy to do from the comfort of the computer chair... I can't do this kind of thinking on my feet with a live scene in front of me... I could easily have made an exposure mistake if I were in your shoes.
     
  9. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    17,054
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks, this really helps.

    I agree with Bill - this sounds like a scene where the local contrast would be moderate, so most likely you wouldn't want to decrease it further with a pull process procedure.

    Rodinal would probably give you the least "natural" speed but might give you more grain than you want (or at least more visible grain).

    D-76 would be most likely give you full speed, which in this case would be a disadvantage.

    If HC-110 is something you use regularly, that is what I would recommend.

    If you wanted to experiment with other developers, I would recommend one of the "fine grain" options like Kodak's discontinued Microdol-X or the Ilford comparable.

    And by the way, I also agree with Bill about how easy it is for all of us to make an exposure mistake in the field. You should feel heartened though - if all your exposure mistakes involve over-exposing TMY by a stop or two, you have great instincts and pick just about the best film to do it with.:smile:
     
  10. polyglot

    polyglot Member

    Messages:
    3,472
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    South Austra
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I agree that it sounds low contrast, so I would not be inclined to pull the film because that would reduce contrast. Just do normal development on a single roll and see how you go; you'll have very dense negs but they'll probably print OK. Two stops over is nothing really and three isn't very different from that. I did some testing with Portra recently from -1 to +3 and while the +3 looks subtly different (more shadow separation) from the +0 exposure, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and I would expect you to get results nearly as good with TMY2.

    The use of Rodinal or HC-110 to drop the speed is a good suggestion. Rodinal with continuous agitation is the best option I know of for achieving good contrast with minimum speed. With TMY2 it'll look great.

    The only additional suggestion I have is that you should absolutely strictly follow the "minimum developer quantity" guidelines, perhaps with some extra for safety. Your negs will be dense and will therefore exhaust the developer more than usual; if you don't have enough in there then you will end up with flat, dead highlights. For example, I'd be tempted to use 500mL of Rodinal 1+25 per roll, i.e. 20mL of concentrate per roll vs the 10mL minimum specified.
     
  11. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,575
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I would not recommend using a specific developer to reduce film speed. It will not improve image quality. Assuming that the total subject brightness range still fits within the straight line part of TMY's characteristic curve even with 3 stops overexposure, the only compromise versus the "correct" exposure would be a small increase in graininess and a slight reduction in sharpness. And using a speed-losing developer will not really improve either of those characteristics - particularly in the case of Rodinal which yields relatively coarse grain to begin with.

    So to repeat, assuming the total subject brightness range is within the scale of the film even with overexposure (and that would appear to be the case here given the description of subject contrast, and the long straight-line curve of TMY), I'd suggest you use D76 the way you normally would. This will ensure total and local contrast remain normal, and you'll simply have a more dense negative that needs longer printing times. Not a problem.

    In other words, don't pull-process this film (which would reduce contrast) and don't change developers in an attempt to reduce speed. The exposure is already on the film. Use it.
     
  12. Ronald Moravec

    Ronald Moravec Member

    Messages:
    1,266
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Location:
    Downers Grov
    I always tell people to make the same error on a fresh roll and use it for practice.

    I use D76, but most developers are -20% for one stop over.
     
  13. c6h6o3

    c6h6o3 Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    TMY has about the longest scale of any film you can buy, way longer than any paper you'll ever print on. Unlike HP5+, which has a relatively abrupt shoulder, TMY's characteristic curve is straight as a die out to a density of way over 2.0. Overexposure will just slide the tonal range up the straight line portion of the curve without clipping. When using roll film and an incident meter I rate my TMY at 100. You should be fine.
     
  14. ke6igz

    ke6igz Member

    Messages:
    31
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Thanks for all the advice. I ended up using HC-110 with dilution B. 5.5 min at 20 c. (Normal Processing). The negatives look a little dense but seem to scan well.

    Culver-City-Mural-2.jpg