t-max 400 TMY2 and tonal separation in shadow areas?

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by wiggywag, Apr 13, 2009.

  1. wiggywag

    wiggywag Member

    Messages:
    116
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Hi!

    I have learned that to get good separation in shadow areas it is best to half the true ISO-speed of the film. E.g. my true speed for FP4 is 100 in DDX 1:9, but I use it as a 50 ISO film to make sure that shadow details are in the a straight line portion of the negative for better separations in the shadows.

    I'm planning to use T-max 400/TMY2 to get better speed and I've heard that TMY-2 has a straighter curve than most classic film. My question is; is it not necessary for me half the the true ISO, because Zone 3 is already on a straight line on TMY2, and it has good separation here? Anyone with experience?

    Thanks,
    Stig
     
  2. BobNewYork

    BobNewYork Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Location:
    Long Island,
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    From my perspective your E.I. is the one which results in negatives that print easily, (in most instances) the way you want them - in your camera, with your meter, and your developer, with your technique in your darkroom. It's different for everyone.

    If say, you and I both like our negatives to look exactly the same. If I choose to place my shadows on Zone II and you choose to place yours on Zone III I would use an E.I. of half yours, (assuming same meter, camera, development etc.) Both our negs would look identical - we'd just be using a different method to achieve that same goal. If, on the other hand, I used the same E.I. as you then our negs would differ - on a full range subject I'd have greater highlight separation and you'd have better shadow separation.

    Box ISO is fixed and refers to a fixed exposure to light and fixed processing with a specific developer - under laboratory conditions which we will likely never experience in our photography. The behaviour of the film is also fixed under each processing variant. If the processing is consistent - then so too will be the film's response to it.

    If you get what you want then the E.I. you used to achieve it is exactly the correct E.I. - for you. It's just that there's more than one way to skin a cat!

    Bob H
     
  3. Bruce Watson

    Bruce Watson Member

    Messages:
    443
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Location:
    Central NC
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    The big differences, to me, between TMY-2 and FP4+ are that TMY-2 is a short toe film, and it has much better reciprocity characteristics.

    People do tend to over expose and under develop traditional films. They over expose to move the image data up the response curve and away from the non-linear toe (to improve shadow detail). They under develop to compensate for the over exposure so the highlights aren't so dense that printing becomes difficult (AKA "blown out highlights"). This is the right thing to do -- it's classic "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights."

    Modern short toe films do considerably less compression of the shadow details, so the need for over exposure is less.

    The reciprocity thing is more interesting in large format photography. Basically, the bigger the format the smaller the taking aperture, which also means the slower the shutter speed. I shoot 5x4 exclusively anymore, and I seldom use a shutter speed over 1/15 second with even 400 speed films. It's just the nature of the beast.

    What this means is that often shadow areas go into reciprocity failure. To maintain shadow detail in these conditions means... more exposure. And we've come full circle. Modern films like TMY-2 have much better reciprocity characteristics than traditional films, so one only has to deal with reciprocity failure under "extreme" conditions.

    In the end, if you want to gain control of the situation, you should consider doing the Zone System tests to find your personal EI for your film, developer, process, and equipment. Then do the tests to find your "N" development time. This will go a long way toward improving your understanding of what's going on, and therefore your control of the process.

    Why guess when you can know?
     
  4. c6h6o3

    c6h6o3 Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I both rate the film at 200 and place the shadows on Zone IV. This gives me plenty of detail in the shadows and good midtone separation.
     
  5. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I am just starting to mess with TMY-2 and think it's a rather terrific film.

    I shot this photograph at 400 and developed in xtol 1+1.
    No fancy tricks, no plus or minus.

    This is a scan of an RC print.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Chazzy

    Chazzy Member

    Messages:
    2,951
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Location:
    South Bend,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    How do you know that you won't like the film at box speed, if you don't give it a try? Or are you planning to use a developer which loses speed?
     
  7. Alex Hawley

    Alex Hawley Member

    Messages:
    2,894
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Based on my experience, rating TMY at half the box speed will give very dense and contrasty negatives. Its probably only necessary to this for some of the alt processes. For this shot, I rated at 2/3 box speed (~260) and developed for N+1 (pyrocat-hd) with shadows set in Zone IV. It gave a very dense and contrasty negative, contrasty enough to print at grade 0.5. I made the prints using split grade exposure.

    Therefore, I rate at 400 and set shadows in zone III. Works using pyrocat -hd at 2:2:100 and 8 minutes.

    You're right about TMY's curve. About as linear as it gets.

    This film has a great deal of exposure latitude. I dare say the most of any film on the market. Perhaps equal to or greater than the legendary Super XX.
     
  8. RJS

    RJS Member

    Messages:
    246
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Location:
    Southern Cal
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I shot a considerable amount of TMX a few years back, and while it is fine film, very sharp I think and practically grainless, I went back to Fp4 and HP5+. TMX, for me, had an almost 'glassy' look, very hard to define, but I found it somewhat cold looking. None of that makes sense beyond a personal preference for or against a particular 'look'. As to film speed, one must make tests with your own equipment, developers etc. No one can give you more than a starting point. Usually, following manufacturers recommendations will give quite usable negatives, but you can improve on their numbers by testing for yourself. For me, there is more than grain and 'sharpity' to consider with a film/developer combination.
     
  9. kompressor

    kompressor Member

    Messages:
    195
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Location:
    Norway
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    My shot

    Here is one of mine TMY-2 shots.

    http://www.tmax100.com/peopleimages/pl_images/ogs.jpg

    Its a portrait of the worlds most famous Norwegian. Its dev time is 8 min in Xtol 1:1 rated at 400 ISO done in just naturally ligthening. No reflectors or flags. Just me, some windows and my 500C.
     
  10. Harry Lime

    Harry Lime Member

    Messages:
    475
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    A two bath developer. Lots of shadow detail and you won't blow the highlights.
    Do a search for Barry Thornton's 2-bath. I use it with Tmax-2 400 and it works very, very well. Three ingredients, simple to mix and completely idiot proof in operation.
     
  11. Harry Lime

    Harry Lime Member

    Messages:
    475
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Ok, I'll bite. Who is he?
    ;-)