Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,920   Posts: 1,584,813   Online: 1092
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: TMY at 1600?

  1. #11
    kaiyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    bay area, california
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    331
    Images
    4
    Wait - is XTOL better than anything else, or are you saying that anything else is better than D76?

    I really gotta try some XTOL.

    Also - Stephanie - I don't see how taking some TXT out will help you figure out whether you have the right time for TMY.

    allan

  2. #12
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell
    XTOL 1+1 is better than D-76 for a push, OR MICROPHEN OR ANYTHING ELSE.
    Hang on - XTOL is plain better than D-76 AS ARE microphen or anything else... or is XTOL (in your opinion) better than anything else period? Sorry, I just got lost - I am kind of taking notes here as I read along.

    AND,

    I think this has to be said: Hats off to Stephanie - I love her attitude towards all this: I am going to try, and if it fails I will try something else, and if that fails - well, you get the point: she actually goes out there and DOES IT... which is more than I can say for myself most of the time...

    Peter.

    EDIT: Kaiyen - sorry, i missed your post altogether - I see you already asked... I am having a dense moment here...

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    I believe that a developer that contains Catchecol such as Pyrocat Hd is very much to be preferred when one has bright lights in the scene. Stephanie There is a fairly long thread on Latensification that is about a year old. If you like to work at night and want to get the best quality under these conditions you will find it helpful. If you have any questions I would be happy to hear from you, after all you are only a state away.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  4. #14
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by kaiyen
    Wait - is XTOL better than anything else, or are you saying that anything else is better than D76?

    I really gotta try some XTOL.

    Also - Stephanie - I don't see how taking some TXT out will help you figure out whether you have the right time for TMY.

    allan
    Let's see if it's easier with the wine.

    1.) Rodinal, compared to D-76 straight, is about 1/2 stop slower in the lowest shadows. From the middle shadows and higher, the curves match, and Rodinal extends a straightline beyond the D76 shoulder.

    2.) D-76, diluted 1:1, for clever photochemistry reasons, INCREASES the shadow speed by another half stop over straight D-76. It also is a bit sharper than D-76 straight. These are the reasons it has been the Photojournalists Soup of Preference for decades.

    3. ) So far, either version of D76 pushes film better than Rodinal. With D76 1+1 you're a stop ahead already ! Developers like Acufine and Microphen are '50s era phenidone developers that, while similar to D76, because of phenidone's neat qualities, adds a third to half a stop over plain, and diluted, is a little faster than D76 1+1. But it lacks some of D-76's elegance ( in 35mm ) and has not been as widely loved. Loved well by some, but not by everybody.

    4.) XTOL is a phenidone/ascorbate developer ( callinng mr gainer ! ) that finally beats D 76 in all respects ( OK, some folks don't like it with old tech films, but I do ! ) It is even more efficient than Microphen, and elegant like D-76. SO, 1+1, it gives more shadow speed than D-76, Microphen, or anything else. And it IS at its best with TMY.

    5.) EI 1600 is ducksoup for XTOL 1+1 and TMY. Compared to Tri X (which I have loved well for years ) TMY has less granularity ( an objective quality ), higher resolution ( also objective ) and a higher MTF ( also objective ). The kicker, for me, is that pushed Tri X has a shoulder which tends to block high values. TMY does not. This simplifies both printing and scanning immensely. Check the Kodak publications to verify I'm not inventing this.

    6. Kodak has published every conceivable time and speed for XTOL and every film.

    Good, clear, objective qualities for XTOL when it comes to pushing film. Second best, D-76 1+1. And not bad at all.

    My own darkroom has a vat of Rodinal, a tub of XTOL, and a vile cauldron of something JDEF cooked up. It really does amazing things developing TMY, but it's been raining frogs ever since I've started to use it.

    d
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell
    ...and a vile cauldron of something JDEF cooked up. It really does amazing things developing TMY, but it's been raining frogs ever since I've started to use it.

    d
    df, You must be talking about Jay's 510-Pyro. It does do amazing things with TMY - and now that you mention it, it's still raining here!
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  6. #16
    Stephanie Brim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,607
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    21
    Thanks...I'm going to process all the information and possibly use it the next time I get a new developer. I had been meaning to try XTOL and HC-110 next. Maybe I should mix up some Pyrocat as well eventually.

    I DO like the result in Rodinal...the problem was the fact that I didn't develop long enough. Almost, but not quite. Had I developed it longer, the reason I shot THAT shot as I did would become clear...I was trying to show how dense the fog was. The sign was barely readable from where I was. To give you an idea, I was 15 or 20 feet from it.

    Kaiyen: About the TXT and TMY thing I said. I know the times for Tri-X semi stand in Rodinal...so I know how to both shoot and develop that film better than TMY. It will give me an idea of whether or not my TMY negs are getting developed long enough if they look somewhat like my TXT negs. I know that both films will give me different results, but the shot should look similar. I'm also going to shoot both at 1600 and develop in Rodinal 1:50...the MDC doesn't post times for Rodinal 1:100.

  7. #17
    pmu
    pmu is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    home
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    109
    What about trying that rodinal + xtol combination? Should that give better detail to the shadow areas when compared to just rodinal? I tested this and have used this combination since... mainly Adox chm 400 (= hp5+) and tmy shot at ISO800 and I really like the results. Here is one ISO800 frame shot at pretty high contrast situation and developed with this combination... (a scan from print).
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails t.jpg  

  8. #18
    kaiyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    bay area, california
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    331
    Images
    4
    df,
    Thanks for the clarification. That's what I thought you meant, but wasn't sure. I have a big stock of Microphen right now that I need to get through, but I do mean to get to XTOL eventually. Quick digression - is FX-50 also ascorbate-based? I had read somewhere that it was...

    Stephanie - I'm still not sure what you're going to gain from increasing time on the TMY. Maybe if you did it without any agitation at all...otherwise it seems to me that you will merely get more and more density in the highlights. The chances of increasing shadow detail are very, very slim.

    allan

  9. #19
    janvanhove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Brussels, Belgium
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    110
    ok, i'll bite: why not use simply kodak t-max developper? I know it's not on your list of chemicals you use, but it's the best I've used for push processing of both kodak t-max films (T-max 3200 at 12800 anyone??) and even ilford HP5 (up to 3200)...

    Cheers,

    PJ
    Patrick Jan Van Hove
    "The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera"
    Mamut Photo, The Ultra-Large-Format photography homepage

  10. #20
    Stephanie Brim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,607
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by kaiyen
    df,
    Thanks for the clarification. That's what I thought you meant, but wasn't sure. I have a big stock of Microphen right now that I need to get through, but I do mean to get to XTOL eventually. Quick digression - is FX-50 also ascorbate-based? I had read somewhere that it was...

    Stephanie - I'm still not sure what you're going to gain from increasing time on the TMY. Maybe if you did it without any agitation at all...otherwise it seems to me that you will merely get more and more density in the highlights. The chances of increasing shadow detail are very, very slim.

    allan
    I'm not really wanting to increase the shadow detail. I think that I will try without agitation and see what I get then. I'm still really in the experimenting phase with Rodinal and the films I use...so I'm going to have to try a few things before I get things right.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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