Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,592   Posts: 1,546,085   Online: 931
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,740
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by /dev/null View Post
    Yes, I will shoot some rolls and test with several ISO settings, just to make sure there is nothing 'special' about this film like 'has to be at ISO 50' or so.

    I don't print, but will scan the negatives. But like to have a bit of contrasty negative before...
    Adjusting the Exposure Index or EI (ISO is a labratory tested rating of the film in a specific developer) adjusts where the shadows fall on the film curve. Using a lower number EI generally indicates using less development to "fit" the larger scene contrast range onto whatever output media you happen to use, and vice versa.

    You ought to get a fair feel for this after about 10 or 20 rolls at each EI.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  2. #12
    deleonjayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    6
    Start and do it by the book. Learn the rules first, then you can eventually break them by experimenting on other developers. I started with D-76 and Kodafix (all kodak products) for neutral results.
    think, act, persist

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,367
    Blog Entries
    6
    Images
    55
    on a web forum you're going to get suggestions from conservative to off the walls as to what you should do
    shoot a roll in similar lighting conditions and develop.
    bracket your exposures by 1 fstop each way ( over - normal - under )
    after you process your film, look at your negatives, notice which of the exposures "worked " for you ...

    then use that information for your next roll ..

    good luck !
    john
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  4. #14
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,684
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    I hate to disagree with the others here, but I would start out shooting it at 50 and developing about 15% less than the manufacturer recommends. I usually find that this gives better shadows, and easily printable (and scanable) negatives. I would then adjust from there.

    If you can, I would try to workout the exposure and development for good wet printing, even if you are scanning. This way you have the option of either. I find my scanner can yield good results with a range of negatives. Wet printing is harder if important shadow details fall on the toe of the film curve (as will most likely happen at box speed). With a scan you can fix this somewhat with a curves adjustment, but why not get it right to start with.

  5. #15
    chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by L Gebhardt View Post
    I hate to disagree with the others here, but I would start out shooting it at 50 and developing about 15% less than the manufacturer recommends. I usually find that this gives better shadows, and easily printable (and scanable) negatives. I would then adjust from there.

    If you can, I would try to workout the exposure and development for good wet printing, even if you are scanning. This way you have the option of either. I find my scanner can yield good results with a range of negatives. Wet printing is harder if important shadow details fall on the toe of the film curve (as will most likely happen at box speed). With a scan you can fix this somewhat with a curves adjustment, but why not get it right to start with.
    The kind of overexposing and underdeveloping films shot under normal (not contrasty) light is common among large format photographers, but doesn't work well with 120 and 35mm films. Tmax 100 in D-76 1+1 for Kodak's recommended time at EI-100 is perfect for 120. Rodinal does lose a stop of speed with this film, so I shoot it at 50 for Rodinal developing.


    Tmax 100, 645 format, EI-100, D-76 1+1
    Chris Crawford
    Fine Art Photography of Indiana and other places no one else photographs.

    http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

    My Tested Developing Times with the films and developers I use

    Become a fan of my work on Facebook

    Fort Wayne, Indiana

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,607
    Unlike many other black and white films, TMX 100 generally works best at the rated speed of 100.
    Over or under exposure can cause problems. So try this speed first until you get the dev times right.
    You want to be most concerned about the placement of deep shadows and those max highlights in
    which you wish to be able to print some detail. I have no experience with Rodinal. My preferred dev
    is PMK, but I have done TMX in 76, Perceptol, TMRS, HC-110 too. Most developers work well.

  7. #17
    chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    984
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    Unlike many other black and white films, TMX 100 generally works best at the rated speed of 100.
    Over or under exposure can cause problems. So try this speed first until you get the dev times right.
    You want to be most concerned about the placement of deep shadows and those max highlights in
    which you wish to be able to print some detail. I have no experience with Rodinal. My preferred dev
    is PMK, but I have done TMX in 76, Perceptol, TMRS, HC-110 too. Most developers work well.
    Drew,

    What developing time are you using for PMK and Tmax 100? I love PMK for Tri-X but haven't had a chance to try to work out a developing time for Tmax 100.
    Chris Crawford
    Fine Art Photography of Indiana and other places no one else photographs.

    http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

    My Tested Developing Times with the films and developers I use

    Become a fan of my work on Facebook

    Fort Wayne, Indiana

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,976
    Interestingly and backing Drew Wiley's point is that Ilford do not even quote a time for TMax 100 or 400with Perceptol at less than box speed.

    pentaxuser

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,759
    Pentaxuser - in my opinion that is a faulty bit of documentation in Ilford's Perceptol instructions (indeed I find their recommendations for non-Ilford films somewhat simplified). I use a lot of TMX with Perceptol at various dilutions and if you want to maintain Perceptol's ultra-fine grain effects, TMX should be downrated (as should any film) if you want good shadow separations. With most general purpose developers box speed is quite usable for TMX (although I still prefer a little more shadow contrast so I rate it a little slower), but Perceptol is different. If you develop to box speed you lose Perceptol's characteristic qualities.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,976
    Let me preface the following remarks by stating I have never used Perceptol with TMax but we seem to be building a picture on APUG that Perceptol always needs a one stop reduction or even more for any film.

    This may be the case but it just seems significant that for D100 Ilford gives a time at EI 50 but not for TMax 100.

    So did Ilford make a mistake with TMax 100 and 400 or simply not bother to try it at lower than box speed?

    Seems poor marketing to curtail tests on other makers' films. For the sake of a short saving on testing time Ilford gives the impression that no reduction in box speed is necessary and yet if it clearly is, the user then decides that Ilford can't be trusted on other makers' films so users move away from Perceptol and Ilford loses users.

    It just doesn't sound like the kind of Ilford that the vast majority of APUG puts its trust in


    pentaxuser

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