35mm developing: My negatives are showing up way contrasty

[KJ Smith]

Wes,

I was looking through Ken Lee's site and he recommends using it @ 200.

Interesting. Huh?

[Big Dog]

To the OP: Are your prints contrasty? Or do you just perceive the negs to be contrasty? Or, are the scans contrasty? Lots of variables here ...

I would suggest taking some of that new bought Tri-X and developing in your D76 strickly according to the instructions!! Then make some contact sheets and see what you have.

As to the debate about why the development times for 35mm and 120 are sometimes different. It usually has to do with the film base. It can be different even though the emulsion is the same. Also, it could be a ratio of the amount of developer to the total surface area of the film. That can sometimes make a difference.

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

Why not use TMax 400 rated at 800 and be done. No push needed.

Just exactly how does this film (or any film) have two speeds with no change in processing?

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

I always thought Accufine was for pushing.

Acufine (one "c") essentially overdevelops your underexposed negatives. It will be contrasty and grainy and give the illusion of a speed increase, but the shadow detail just ain't there. I used to use gallons of this stuff and cases of 100' rolls of Tri-X at 1000 back when bank cameras had film in them.

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by Big Dog

Just exactly how does this film (or any film) have two speeds with no change in processing?

I am not a film engineer. You should ask Kodak.

There is little doubt that it only has one "true speed".

However, my understanding is Tmax has a full stop of latitude "built" into it.

You can shoot TMX @ 100 or 200. Developing time is the same.

You can shoot TMY @ 400 or 800. Developing time is the same.

This is using TMax developer.

You can check this yourself by grabbing a bottle of TMax developer and looking at the development charts.


It has been that way since it was introduced. There are many things that are different about TMax.

You should read up on your own.

For a guy with 40yrs in the darkroom you sure like to ask pointed questions about products you are unfamiliar with.

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by Big Dog

To the OP:Acufine (one "c") essentially overdevelops your underexposed negatives. It will be contrasty and grainy and give the illusion of a speed increase, but the shadow detail just ain't there. I used to use gallons of this stuff and cases of 100' rolls of Tri-X at 1000 back when bank cameras had film in them.

Did ya read the second post ?

[Big Dog]

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

There is little doubt that it only has one "true speed".

You can check this yourself by grabbing a bottle of TMax developer and looking at the development charts.

You should read up on your own.

For a guy with 40yrs in the darkroom you sure like to ask pointed questions about products you are unfamiliar with.

Thanks for the advice. I am quite familiar with the Tmax films and the developers.

I was just trying to facilitate discussion. I completely agree with you that "it only has one 'true speed' ". Hence, the question. I do not know why Kodak gives the same development time for a 1 stop under exposure. In the same tech publication (F-4043) they say:

Push processing allows film to be exposed at higher
speeds, however, push processing will not produce
optimum quality. There will be some loss in shadow detail,
an increase in graininess, and an increase in contrast. ...

Note: No increase in development time is required for a
1-stop push.

I can only guess that increasing the development for a one stop push would cause an increase in grain and contrast that Kodak considers to be more detrimental than the loss of shadow detail at 800. But, I don't know. Everyone has to test for their own methods.

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

Did ya read the second post ?

Yes, I did. Once again, I was agreeing with you.

[wclavey]

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

What island nation are they from ?????....

Cognosentia? ...right off-shore from Hotdogistan...

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

Wes,

I was looking through Ken Lee's site and he recommends using it @ 200.

Interesting. Huh?

I was actually being a bit obfuscative... I shoot some at 200, some at 400, and some at 800... but when I shoot it at 800, I develop it just like the directions say in Tmax developer - - the same time as 400 - - and I threw the part in there about Diafine because the directions are always the same for Diafine... I actually find, though, that at 200, when developed in Diafine, the negatives become too dense - - and I like dense negatives! So I have pretty much dropped shooting it at 200.

I usually just rate it at 400 and develop in Diafine. BTW, I did a batch of 4x5 TMY-2 2 weeks ago in Tmax developer and got some really weird blotchiness on the negatives. Same process as always, same roller base, etc. Maybe it is the dichroic fogging (or whatever it is called) that they warn about with Tmax & 4x5 film...

[venchka]

More than you wanted to know about original and New Tmax 400 and Xtol.

TMY, XTOL, and a Scanner... - Large Format Photography Forum

Back on topic: The contrast range of a negative is easily manipulated with exposure and development. It is easiest to do with sheet film.

[venchka]

More information from a great source of film lore.

Originally Posted by Mablo

I don't usually do Tri-X with Rodinal but this photo is Neopan 400@1600 in Rodinal stand dev. 1:100 for 90min. Slow initial agitation for 30sec and 15sec very slow agitations at 60min and 30min marks.

[heespharm]

ok gentleman... I finally figured out my problems... it was my scanner urrggggg... it doesn't handle 35mm that well and always makes the initial levels so out of whack that it looks contrasty... but after setting all my defaults to make no exposure compensations the negative turned out great!! thanks tho... lots of great info here...

[heespharm]

oh and I've bought into kodak with tmax400(15 rolls of 120) trix 400(100' of 35mm) and xtol and hc110... look what ya'll have started

[venchka]

Trade the HC110 for more Xtol or Rodinal. Xtol mixed with Rodinal is interesting. Google knows. Search for the Unblinking Eye and Rodinal. It's all there.

Glad you discovered that scanning requires your input or you get crap.