tmax400 120 developing questions.
i have exposed a roll of 120 tmy-2 @iso 250.
different subjects with different sbr in different (natural) lightings - its sunny in the south of france .. hooray!
the one thing in common between these shots, enough exposure was there (in some shots open shadows placed on IV), so the only difficulty will be the highlights (again in some shots only - high sbr and information up till zone XII).
some shots were taken indoors, again generously exposed.
how would you develop this film?
first i thought about a compensation attempt (rod. semi stand) but in fact i dont want to loose contrast here, neither in highlights nor shadows. and tmy has "no shoulder" until XII or higher as i have read. so why compensate?
what would happen if i develop normally and simply adjust (filtration, split printing(?), dodge/burn) for the few shots that have high SBR?
simply increasing the print exposure might already do the trick for some, i guess (as my shadows are anyway high placed).
is my approach correct?
at the moment i have rodinal at home (and very much like the look of tmy in rodinal) but i am thinking to get an alternative..
as i am still learning about densitometry and the limits of exposure/print values, what happens with the information in zone XII (in case of tmax it means a density of about 2.0?) is this 2.0 related to the dmax (around 2) of print papers or am i mixing things up here?
hope my questions make sense..
tx anyway for all advice
I think I would have developed it slightly shorter than normal and hoped for the best. If the highlights are really, really dense I'd try to pre flash when printing and use a mask to burn down any stubborn highlight.
You could do something similar to a N-2 development but then do would loose a lot of contrast in the other images and in worst case some shadows as well. And then you'd also have to find a proper time for N-2 (which should really be established by testing).
I don't own a densitometer so I haven't tuned in my process that much, but I'd go with -15% development and burn the highlights until they behave.
Multigrade printing and rollfilm make a great combination.
I would develop normally or maybe as N+1 and compensate for the rest in printing on VCpaper as suggested aboveyes, you are mixing things up a bit in your sensitometry. a negative logdensity of 2.0simply means thatonly 1%(1/10^D)of the light can get through as it is sufficiently opaque to block the rest..make sure to remain an artist on your way to become a scientist
Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
thanks for the reply, although confusing, as i was certain that a N-1 development would be necessary to bring the zone XII highlights within reach.. (without messing up the good shadows).
i am still pretty sure i need to cut back instead of adding development.
for the density.. i was aware that the negative density 2.0 means that..
was simply wondering if this value (2.0) stands in any relation with the average dmax of print paper or it is just incidentally so.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
that sounds pretty good to me!
Originally Posted by Oscar Carlsson
as long as the shadows are good not too much of a problem anyway.. especially with this kind of film.
in the meantime..
found a book called "the art of photography" by bruce barnbaum.
his way of explaining the matter suits my level of understanding (ambitious amateur).
i recommend it!
"...Therefore, if you encounter a scene of excessive contrast and choose to expose the brightest areas well above Zone 9 (a perfectly good approach), be sure to use less-than-normal development times in order to avoid excessive densities. Good separations will still be maintained in your negative and in the print..."
Bruce Barnbaum is a bit controversial when it comes to his advice.
TMY-2 has a very good ability to record a very wide range of subject brightnesses - the straight line section of its curve is quite long. Mr. Barnbaum's advice may be more suited/necessary for other films.
I would recommend normal development, followed by print manipulations where necessary.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
In average this sounds like 2 DIN / 2/3 ASA overexposure in contrasty scenes. TMY-2 should easily deal with this, e.g. in Xtol stock and normal development (as per Kodak instructions), or 1+1 and a slightly reduced time.
IMHO, refrain from (semi-)stand development notably in Xtol, agitation is good for homogeneous areas (eg sky).
Good luck and keep us updated on your results.
I'd wait to hear from Ralph Lambrecht whether he meant N-1.
In the galleries, my shot "Dad and the twins, Laguna" is TMY-2 normally developed, shot taken at the beach in full sun, fit Grade 2 very nicely. Even the skies weren't blown out which I fully expected.
I just checked my charts and this particular family of curves shows N-1 (10 minutes curve), N (13 minutes curve) and N+1 (16 minutes curve).
You say you placed your shadows on Zone IV, this roughly corresponds to my chart's X-Axis value 2.25
If you really have important highlights Placed at Zone XII, that puts your highlights fully at the right-hand side of my graph 0.00 on the X-Axis.
So if you develop N+1 the shadow will have 0.80 density, highlights 2.70 density. (1.9 density range).
At N, shadow will have 0.63 density, highlights 2.30 density. (1.67 density range).
At N-1, shadow will have 0.40 density, highlights 1.84 density. (1.44 density range).
Since I consider a density range over 1.20 to be difficult to print on Grade 2 paper, I would say N-1 is pretty close to a contrasty negative already according to your evaluation of the scene. Maybe though, you overestimated the important highlights. If you overestimated the highlights, you will be fine on Grade 2.
Note the slight "upsweep" in my curves is a development anomaly, not a film response. I get slight edge "overdevelopment" in 4x5 sheet development as I shuffle sheets - the edges tend to get a little more fresh developer than the center of the sheets. I estimate that the film's true response is still a straight line even a little past what I graphed.