I've been thinking I might try this eventually:
Wonder if it would work well with TMZ or Delta 3200? I can get a usable 6400 out of TMZ in T-Max developer. I'd love to get a useful 12.5k. Anything needing speeds faster than 3200 I honestly just prefer digital because film is at the very edges of workable at such speeds, and it's often enough I could use them. But if the miracle is out there...
Yes, practice but I can do it due to the "deadline" of the work. Will use XTOL and see what I got. Of course I can use Rodinal...ehehhehe
I've always liked Xtol for its ability to extract shadow detail. It really excels at this.
Some people like Xtol's tonality, and other people do not. Some people like its fine grain, and other people do not.
All I know is that I get almost normal tonality when I shoot TMax 400 @ 1600, and use Xtol 1+1 while agitating every minute. Times vary based on contrast while shooting. I also get near normal tonality when I shoot TMax 100 @ 400, agitating every 2 minutes. Times vary based on lighting contrast, of course.
With TMax 3200 I use replenished Xtol, because the inherent speed is so good. EI 1600 is never a problem, and my preferred speed with it, for best tonality in normal lighting.
Xtol gives finer grain than TMax. It's also sharper than TMax. And it yields pretty much equal amounts of shadow detail. But it gives a much more muted tonality, and if you can live with that I vote for Xtol. If you like a less muted tonality with highlights that are a bit more 'alive', then TMax should be your choice.
As for pushing, I don't think that one is all that much better than the other. It's a subjective choice, and your opinion of what the resulting prints look like should dictate that choice.
"Make good art!"
- Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
This may sound like an echo of Thom's response above me, but XTOL 1:1 has always been my favorite for push processing. With this combination, I've been able to achieve great looking results up to ASA 3200 with TMax 400 and Delta 3200, and ASA 1600 with Tri-X. In a pinch I've been known to use D76 1:1 for some much grittier push results than XTOL, but like many have said, it's all a matter of taste.
Yes, I always use XTOL 1:1, like all the results that I had so far. Thanks for all the replies, will use XTOL at 1:1.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Without the benefit of practice I'd suggest following the manufacture's published recommendations to the letter.
Originally Posted by Rhodes
Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO
"The mind that opens to a new idea never returns to its original size." Albert Einstein
Originally Posted by markbarendt
Haven't been much into push processing, rather the opposite! Once tried using ordinary developers (I think it was T-max-1 400 and T-max developer, maybe it was Tri-x and HC-110): result not very nice, grainy and ugly. Recently made a more convincing try. My idé was this: D-23 is supposed to take everything there is at the shadow part of the negative (the toe part), but suppseed to be slow att the highlight part (though often quite OK depending on the subject). Strongly overdeveloping underexposed negatives with this developer would reasonable be able to raise the middle and highlights enough to make a printable negative. I tried it at 22°C 16 minutes agitating the first minute and than each third minute, and got quite resonable printable negs on TMY-2 (120-film) exposed att iso 1000-1600 (made it possible to hand held Hasselblad 2000FC/M with Tele Tessar 8/500mm using shutterspeeds from 1/1000-1/2000 in not too good light conditions). Exposing att Iso 800 on this film should normally be no problem at all in most situations, as far as I can judge. D-23., perhaps the most simple developer ever formulated!!