Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,338   Posts: 1,537,606   Online: 1065
      
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789
Results 81 to 87 of 87

Thread: TMAX XTOL

  1. #81
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,705
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by stevebarry View Post
    So I was forced into pushing a roll of TMAX400 to 1600 tonight and dinner, and am floored with the results.

    While I have not printed these, they seem (to me) to have less grain than trix at box speed.

    http://sgbarry.com/2013/07/howleys/
    Glad you like it. Did you use Kodak's instructions?

    So now you have 3 types of development instead of 2; sun (N), shade (N+1?), and night indoor (N+2?).

    And you are playing with placement. You used a personal EI of 1600 instead of 400.

    What didn't happen though is that the film speed didn't really change, you just gave up about 2 stops of shadow detail on the negative in exchange for faster shutter times. Did that real loss of shadow detail make any difference in the end?

    This is part of the joy of using TMax and XTol, there is generally room/latitude to reduce exposure from normal (400) and still get what you need.

    The thing you didn't learn anything about yet though is whether or not you really even needed to adjust development at all.

    In the same situation I would probably have reduced exposure like you did to get the shutter speed up but wouldn't have changed development, just would have used Kodak's normal 400 development instructions. We both would have ended up with similar amounts of shadow detail because the real film speed remains nearly constant.

    The advantage that gets me is that I can vary my EI from shot to shot across a single roll when needed which is pretty often for me.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  2. #82
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,867
    Under exposing two stops without change in development always gives me uselessly unprintable thin and flat negatives. YMMV of course, especially if you are scanning instead of optically printing. It's true that you won't get much additional shadow speed with conventional developers (I do seem to get at least a stop with Tri-X and Diafibe and other combos will also give a bit more - it's simplistic and in my experience not really true that you never get ANY shadow speed increase) but can get maybe half a stop or so with some film/developer combos. More importantly, pushing will give you considerably more midtone and highlight density and contrast making the negatives far easier to print and just better looking than simply under exposing without changing development - again IME and YMMV.

  3. #83
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,705
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Roger I'm not talking about underexposure, the loss important detail; I'm talking about purposeful placement knowing full well what I'm giving up and what I'm keeping.

    I'm not guessing when I reduce exposure and I only reduce exposure to my personal tested-by-printing limits. Simply put, I use up the safety factor/latitude at that end of the curve. The important stuff still lands on the straight line so the local contrast for those subjects remains constant, only their placement in relation to the black point changes.

    The big caveat here is that my metering methods and sensibilities are different than yours or the op's or ...

    Similarly my printing sensibilities and methods are surely different than anybody else's too.

    What I've found is that negatives developed for normal contrast almost always work really well for me. It makes my shooting easier (because I can mix EI and I'm willing to adjust the paper grade and burn or dodge a bit to adjust to get what I want but, it was surprising to me, to find how much could be done with just enlarger exposure changes and how little contrast adjustment or burn/dodge is needed.

    Adams tested the speed change at about 1/3 of the development change, but that number is only good for his method, other speed measuring methods show no effective change. The only way for anybody to really know what works for them is to try both and print both.

    Scanning throws a whole 'nuther set of variables into the the mix and I'm not going there.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  4. #84
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,867
    Well with two stops less than box speed exposure even zone V midtones are going to fall on zone III and not have good detail and anything darker is going to fall lower on the toe and be lost. Certainly you can expose for highlights and let shadows go black and often in contrasty light - indoor stage show for example - that can work. But giving two stops less than box speed, assuming the same metering and exposure placement, gives negatives that, for me, are much better and easier to print with some compensation in development. YMMV of course. Of course more development gives more overall contrast and the shadows will still be pretty empty but midtones print better, for me anyway. It will also raise highlights to perhaps blown out levels so does need care.

  5. #85
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,867
    At least *I* find zone III exposures to be hard to print as good detailed zone V print tones. YMMV as we've both said.

  6. #86
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Myself, there's no way I'm going to expose certain frames on an ISO400 film at EI400, others at EI1600, etc. and then develop the roll for EI400. I'm just going to develop it as if I pushed it from the start. I may choose some middle-ground (EI800 for instance), but I'd rather have the developer amplify what might actually be there than try to enlarge something later that isn't.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  7. #87
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,705
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Roger and Clayne,

    Like I said above guys, I stay within my print tested limits. I am sure that the way we each meter is different.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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