Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,826   Posts: 1,582,055   Online: 772
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    61

    Test: Tmax400 @ 800,1600 and 3200 in Rodinal Std.

    Hi all,

    Here goes an example of what you can get from Tmax400 when shot at EI800, 1600 and 3200.

    The shots were metered off the center car.

    Developed in Rodinal 1+100 for 60 minutes with agitation at 20 and 40 minutes.

    In the top row, only levels were adjusted to obtain same black and white points are approximately the same mid-tone.

    On bottom row, processed to taste.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/9044873...n/photostream/

    400, 800 are very close. 3200 shot returns very poor shadows. EI1600 is probably the maximum to get from TMax400 using Rodinal and Std development.

    I also have over exposed shots (50-200) will post when I can.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Tmax400_overexposure_latitude_web.jpg  

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,149
    I was pleasantly surprised by TMax 400 at 800. Yes it was a dull overcast day so shadows weren't really a problem but frankly I couldn't see any loss at 800 and it is interesting that Kodak suggests the same dev time. It is almost as if TMax 400 is really a 800 film

    While there is some loss of shadow detail at 3200 I'd say that in the right nightime shot where you'd expect shadows to be almost detail-less, 3200 is perfectly possible.

    TMax 400 is a jewel in the crown of Kodak's range and if Alaris has any sense it will ensure that it continues to be made.

    pentaxuser

  3. #3
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,382
    The outdoor part of the image looks fine but the indoor part is under exposed. I don't think that is a very good test. You can rate your film however you want, but your negative exposure is determined by how you meter.

    The logic of your test is like this example from another forum: "When I shoot a building in the sun I rate Tri-X at 25,600! I point my spot meter in the window of the building. I find an object in there and I set that on Zone V. For example I might get an exposure of 1/500th at f16 and pictures always come out fine, so I have been using Tri-X at 25,600 all the time now."

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,222
    Images
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    I was pleasantly surprised by TMax 400 at 800. Yes it was a dull overcast day so shadows weren't really a problem but frankly I couldn't see any loss at 800 and it is interesting that Kodak suggests the same dev time. It is almost as if TMax 400 is really a 800 film

    While there is some loss of shadow detail at 3200 I'd say that in the right nightime shot where you'd expect shadows to be almost detail-less, 3200 is perfectly possible.

    TMax 400 is a jewel in the crown of Kodak's range and if Alaris has any sense it will ensure that it continues to be made.

    pentaxuser
    Strange, but from what I read here (at APUG), Tri-X 400 seems to be held in higher esteem than TMax. I never understood that because I thought TMax was supposed to be the higher performing film.

  5. #5
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    Strange, but from what I read here (at APUG), Tri-X 400 seems to be held in higher esteem than TMax. I never understood that because I thought TMax was supposed to be the higher performing film.
    One must ask "for what task?" before performance can be judged.

    If I'm hungry for asparagus, broccoli isn't going to be my first choice, and vice-versa.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,523
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    Strange, but from what I read here (at APUG), Tri-X 400 seems to be held in higher esteem than TMax. I never understood that because I thought TMax was supposed to be the higher performing film.
    Best to down load the datasheet from the Kodak site for both films and read them.
    Films are like paint brushes, pig bristle or long camel hair, both have their uses, some people will swear by one or other, colt 45's at 50 paces in fast draw holsters, or a pair of Samurai swords each...

    E.g. you need to understand that the (mono) ISO standard is a formal shadow detail above fog and base density, but there is then a factor of 1.25 of a stop for safety added, assuming a simple light meter and exposure calculator, it used to be 2.5 of a stop when people used exposure tables and calculators.

    So if you meter really carefully and use the calculator properly you can shot either film at 800 ISO and still print easily on grade 2, you make a mistake the shadow detail is not there, chose your own safety factor for static shots, or bracket for security, to avoid burning and dodging to salvage a print etc.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    61
    Comparing the 400 and 800 exposures, my conclusion is that by using the compensating development, shadows end having approximately the same density and highlights are slightly better tamed on the EI800 frame. On a high dynamic range scene it is preferable to underexpose by one stop (or there abouts) and then use a compensating developer to bring back the shadows.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    61
    I now post the other part of the test roll, from EI50 to EI400.

    Again, recall exposure was metered the center car.

    EI50 is pretty much useless for my scanner, despite the negative looking much better.

    There is even quite a difference between EI200 and EI400 shots. Compensating development does not work when overexposing.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Tmax400_underexposure_latitude_web.jpg  

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,149
    Quote Originally Posted by jsimoespedro View Post
    . On a high dynamic range scene it is preferable to underexpose by one stop (or there abouts) and then use a compensating developer to bring back the shadows.
    Interesting and the opposite of what I understand the logic of expose for shadows and develop for highlights suggests which is in contrasty light situations ( I may have misunderstood what high dynamic range means but I assume HDR is contrasty light situations) means that you overexpose for shadows to give detail there and under-develop to tame what would otherwise be blown highlights.

    Of course I may have misunderstood what you meant in your above quote

    pentaxuser

  10. #10
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,552
    Images
    300
    Did you develop all frames for the same amount of time?

    If 'yes' you should consider changing the developing time for the frames that received a lot of exposure.



    Quote Originally Posted by jsimoespedro View Post
    I now post the other part of the test roll, from EI50 to EI400.

    Again, recall exposure was metered the center car.

    EI50 is pretty much useless for my scanner, despite the negative looking much better.

    There is even quite a difference between EI200 and EI400 shots. Compensating development does not work when overexposing.
    "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

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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