Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,715   Posts: 1,514,763   Online: 813
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Düsseldorf, Germany
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,021
    Images
    1
    Many thanks once again Sandy. It looks to me that the times for TMY and Efke PL100 are almost spot on, especially using minimal agitation.

  2. #22
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    Francesco,

    TMAX 400 is a very good film for both expansion and contraction. Using the 1:1:100 dilution of Pyrocat-HD, assuming a negative DR 1.55 for AZO, I have been able to get very good contraction development. The following information is based on tube processing with gentle but constant agitation at 72 degrees F.

    N-3 7:00 minutes
    N-2 8:30 minutes
    N-1 11:30 minutes
    N 16:30 minutes

    For N or N + develoment I would recommend switching to to the 2:2:100 dilution for more reasobable develoment times.

    Sandy King
    Sandy, The N time for the 2:2:100 (printing on AZO) is stil 11:30, right?
    hi!

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by bmac
    Sandy, The N time for the 2:2:100 (printing on AZO) is stil 11:30, right?

    Yes, for N development of Tmax 400 I recommend about 11:30 minutes with the Pyrocat-HD 2:2:100 dilution, at 72F and with gentle agitation in trays.


    Sandy

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    960
    I just got a chance to contact print my first 8x10 Tmax 400 negs which were developed in Pyrocat at 2:2:100. Shot a high contrast scene (white truck in strong sunshine). Developed one neg at 8:30 and another at 10:00 @ 68F, in a Jobo. As Brian said, the negs looked really great.

    Printed on AZO grades 2 and 3 in Smith's Amidol formula and Ilford Warm Tone FB in Zone VI developer. For the AZO, I preferred the thinner negative on grade 3. The big news to me was the Ilford paper. In terms of the differentiation of the whites, it did a better job than the AZO; the blacks were very close, with the AZO being better and the local contrast was better with the Ilford. The AZO print was slightly sharper when viewed with a magnifier. It seems the Ilford paper is a perfect match for Tmax 400 developed in Pyrocat.

    In terms of the aesthetics of Tmax vs. Tri-X 320, I'm still not sure. The films produce very different prints. The Tmax seems to have a longer scale, but it seems more "clinical" less "romantic". I think I'll stick with Tri-x for medium format and 4x5.

    I think, though, that I have to try this Tmax negative on platinum. Having seen one of Jorge's prints from the travelling portfolio and his recent scans, I think the bug has bitten. I imagine Bostick and Sullivan sell a platinum starter kit for idiots...
    Take care,
    Tom

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Tom, before you buy the chemistry I would greatly recommend you buy at least the Sullivan/Weese or Arentz's book. As far as complexity there is nothing to it, but I can safely say your first few prints will not be what you expect.

    As to 400 TMX, if you want the same tonality as tri X, use a green of light blue filter, depending on how much sky you have, of course with skies showing use the green filter, with no skies, use the blue. I like Tmx so much because of its versatility and reciprocity, but like you, I like the tonality of Tri X a lot more, this is why I try to use the filters I mention, to bring back a little of that Tri X feeling.

  6. #26
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,673
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    Tom, before you buy the chemistry I would greatly recommend you buy at least the Sullivan/Weese or Arentz's book. As far as complexity there is nothing to it, but I can safely say your first few prints will not be what you expect.

    As to 400 TMX, if you want the same tonality as tri X, use a green of light blue filter, depending on how much sky you have, of course with skies showing use the green filter, with no skies, use the blue. I like Tmx so much because of its versatility and reciprocity, but like you, I like the tonality of Tri X a lot more, this is why I try to use the filters I mention, to bring back a little of that Tri X feeling.
    Jorge, specifically which filters do you use and what filter factor do you apply?

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by L Gebhardt
    Jorge, specifically which filters do you use and what filter factor do you apply?
    I use a b+w green, and a light blue for color correction, works for Tmx.
    The green one has the FF of 3x but I have found b+w optimistic on their factors I use 5x

    The blue one has a FF of 2x but I use 4x.
    Hope this helps.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Düsseldorf, Germany
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,021
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    I have found b+w optimistic on their factors

    Jorge, thanks for the tip. That is something I would not have bothered checking out.
    Francesco

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    188
    Ok. You have finally got me excited enough to try TMY 400. I'll be buying some to try with azo, maybe Ziatypes too.

    Can some one explain more on the difference of tonality between TMY400 and TriX. Jorge you say you use filters to get the look ot Tri X when you use TMY. Is it a matter of how the two films render the blues or does it have to do with the with the way the films build density?

    Thanks

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Christian, it is a matter of the way TMX renders reds, they come out too light, nothing like Tri X where they are dark and rich. It renders blue darker than Tri X, I believe it was designed this way to render skies better than traditional films. If you look at the picture I posted in the critique gallery, you will see the sky is very dark, this picture was taken without any filters, it is the normal response of 400 Tmx to skies, specially those that are deep blue.

    Personally I dont like the way it renders reds, so when ever I can I use a green filter, with some lenses, I dont have the correct size filters so I use them without any filters, like it was the case with the picture I told you, this was taken with an angulon 165, it is so small that I dont have any filters for them.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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