Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,217   Posts: 1,532,168   Online: 983
      
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2678910111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 123

Thread: Tri-X vs. T-Max

  1. #111

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,606
    Just keep in mind, it's not a sharp developer. The snappy contrast helps, but its image structure characteristics are similar to say D-25 or Microdol/Perceptol. Extra solvent action for extra fine grain - at the expense of acutance. You can't have it both ways!

  2. #112

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,044
    A related formula, Windisch 665, is quite sharp. It has been discussed here before and is really a quite remarkable developer. I have used the CD-2 variation and have been quite pleased with it with Tri-X. CD-2 is more active than OPD, and the speed gradation, sharpness, and grain are all excellent with this developer. Speed is nearly up to box speed (allow a third of a stop); grain and sharpness both appear to be a bit better than D-76.

    Windisch W-665
    Ultra-fine-grain film developer
    Water (38C) 750 ml
    Metol 15 g
    Sodium sulfite (anh) 90 g
    Sodium bisulfite 16 g (10g?)
    o-Phenylene diamine 12 g
    WTM 1 l

    Variation (using CD-2):
    Water 700 ml
    Metol 8 g
    CD-2 15 g
    Sodium sulfite (anh) 65 g
    Sodium metabisulfite 5.5 g
    WTM 1 l
    Mix in the order shown. This formula substitutes a roughly equi-molar amount of the more commonly available CD-2 for o-pheylenediamine. Grain is noticeable finer than with D-76. Gives full or nearly full film speed with Tri-X. Develop Tri-X about 20 minutes.

  3. #113

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,562
    So Tom, could it be that you're getting visually similar results because you are using a dev which
    acts like a silver solvent, of a class which is semi-compensating? That would certainly change
    the steep toe of TMY, as well as soften the visible grain in TriX. Have you compared the same dev
    with HP5+?

  4. #114
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,656
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    So Tom, could it be that you're getting visually similar results because you are using a dev which acts like a silver solvent, of a class which is semi-compensating? That would certainly change
    the steep toe of TMY, as well as soften the visible grain in TriX. Have you compared the same dev
    with HP5+?
    According to Formulary's info it is a fine grain developer but specifically not a compensating developer. http://stores.photoformulary.com/ima...n1/01-0210.pdf

    What am I missing here?

    I'm also wondering if/thinking that "12" might just naturally create a curve "of its own".

    The other wild card I see for many shots is print placement. If detail from the toe areas, from either film, aren't included in the print (they are simply black), then toe shape simply doesn't matter.

    I know that with Delta 400, which I have more experience with, incident metering at box speed reliably leaves me 1-2 stops of underexposure latitude before it starts affecting the print so the toe shape isn't normally a big consideration for me. (My experience with TMY and TX is less formally tested but seems very much the same.)
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #115
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,213
    Images
    296

    Tri-X vs. T-Max

    I will try to explain. My approach is anything but scientific, but based on observation.

    I print on Ilford MGIV fiber. Before that it was Fomabrom 112. Whether the film is Tri-X or TMY, I always keep my paper in mind. The print developer I use is replenished Ethol LPD, which is softer working than Ilford Multigrade or Dektol.
    Because this combination of Ilford and LPD takes a pretty high contrast negative to make a print I like, my negatives are developed as such.

    Using Tri-X I expose normal contrast at EI 250 to get shadows off the toe a little bit. This isn't necessary with TMY so it's exposed at box speed or 500.
    To match tonality of Tri-X I agitate less with TMY, normally every 2.5 minutes, which bends a slight shoulder, and Tri-X is agitated every minute.
    High and low contrast lighting is compensated for by altering developer, exposure, developing time, and agitation, in order to shape negatives that fit the paper well. I ALWAYS target the print. Everything else is an intermediary and serves the final print. The negative - well I just don't think it's a good idea to talk about it unless we also discuss the resulting prints. A good film, to me, is one that is flexible enough to alter into fitting the tonality of my paper and developer. Both TMY and TX does this with flying colors, as does FP4 and Delta 100, and a few others.

    So, tonality of the two films have both been adjusted to fit the paper to make prints that are highly similar in tonality.

    What about grain, then? Well, if you look closely enough of course you will see a difference between TX and TMY. I sometimes make comments to provoke, to steer away from conventional thought and stimulate new ideas.
    As it happens, both Xtol and Edwal 12 are solvent developers. I also use them replenished, which means there are process by-products in the solution, which helps yielding higher sharpness, finer grain, and different tonality. I lose about 1/3 stop of speed, but that does not worry me in the least. Both developers give exceptionally fine grain, and make for, to my eyes, exceptional enlargements where it can be difficult to separate one film from the other, based on how they're treated.
    Xtol is awesome for subject matter with intense highlights, or where light hits the subject directly. Edwal 12 is incredible when light is flat to normal.

    I hope this makes sense. It took me a couple of years to put all the pieces together, and today I have stopped using TMax, because life is easier with just one film, and in 35mm there is a toss up between the slightly smoother tonal transition of TMY compared to a slightly more interesting texture that TX yields. I could go either way.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  6. #116
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,193
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I will try to explain. My approach is anything but scientific, but based on observation.
    I am humbled by your method and observations, they seem quite scientific to me...

    Instead of learning different possibilities by altering process, I always do the same thing...

  7. #117
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,832
    So you always shoot an entire roll under similar light?

    I can vary development for subject easily with sheet film, and sometimes with medium format if I shoot at least most of a 120 roll. But 36 exposures of 35mm are apt to have all kinds of mixed subjects, lighting and exposure on them. I have to standardize on one developer, time and method for the entire roll.

  8. #118
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,213
    Images
    296

    Tri-X vs. T-Max

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    So you always shoot an entire roll under similar light?

    I can vary development for subject easily with sheet film, and sometimes with medium format if I shoot at least most of a 120 roll. But 36 exposures of 35mm are apt to have all kinds of mixed subjects, lighting and exposure on them. I have to standardize on one developer, time and method for the entire roll.
    I try to, yes. I only pick up my camera when something really touches me, and I go to town.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #119
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,832
    I can't seem to do that. One of the (admittedly a smaller one, but still a reason) reasons I tend to shoot more and more medium format is that 36 exposures is just too darned many. I end up with a roll of film in the camera for weeks, sometimes months. 12 shots in my Yashicamat or 15 in my 645 are a lot more reasonable for me. YMMV of course. I do load shorter loads of bulk film.

  10. #120

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,606
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    According to Formulary's info it is a fine grain developer but specifically not a compensating developer. http://stores.photoformulary.com/ima...n1/01-0210.pdf

    What am I missing here?
    You're not missing anything. It is an extra fine grain developer formulated to give snappy contrast as opposed to some "semi-compensating" formulas. But most fine grain and especially extra fine grain developers are not compensating developers anyway. The developing agent concentration is too high, the preservative too high, and the alkali too weak (also many fine grain developers are well buffered). Consider Perceptol - it produces essentially the same curve shape at stock as it does at 1+3.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin