Tmax & Xtol

[Teus]

I've been an HC110 addict for quite some time: nice snappy highlights, full tonality (when well exposed), long lifetime and very cheap. Now I want to go try T-grain films & developers with an s-curve (compensating developers). I'm mostly using Kodak film/developers.

Please assist me in tackling these things:
according to this priceless Kodak chart (http://www.kodak.com/global/images/en/professional/products/chemistry/bwFilmProcessing/f002_0072hc.gif), XTOL is pretty close to TMAX developer but gives finer grain. How would they compare otherwise?
Note that the chart doesn't mention what tonality the developer gives (upswept, s-curve, straight).

TMAX films give strange tonality. in HC-110 and my Amaloco developers (straight curve I think), tonality looks pretty odd. I heard the curve of TMAX film would be hollow-shaped, and I think that's what my photos look like: deep darks, muddy midtones, hard highlights. a sample of mine. (http://flickr.com/photos/thijsd/2287119730/) TMAX film would supposedly only work in TMAX developer, and it does look a lot better in it indeed.. albeit a bit grainy. What do you think about this, and would XTOL give similar tonality as TMAX dev?

I'm now trying some delta 100 & 400 to see how they work, they would give more "normal" tonality like the classic grain films. A lot of "I heard" and "I think"... lets hope you know some more facts :-)

[JeffGreene]

Roger Hicks just reviewed the new TMAX film in the latest Shutterbug and he used Xtol as his developer. You might want to check the article out. He seemed very taken by the new film. I'm sure he may chime in here. He is probably one of the most knowledgeable people on the forum in this area.

[Teus]

Roger Hicks just reviewed the new TMAX film in the latest Shutterbug and he used Xtol as his developer. You might want to check the article out. He seemed very taken by the new film. I'm sure he may chime in here. He is probably one of the most knowledgeable people on the forum in this area.
got a link for me? can't find it on shutterbug

[charjohncarter]

Every time I try one of these projects, I'm disappointed. I can never see any difference. I have my time/temp/agitation down for Tmax100 in HC-110h and I think down for Tmax400 (new) (400TMY-2), so I thought I'll go to something different; Rodinal. I can't see any difference. I would like more shadow detail (or lighter shadow detail), but later someone told me I wouldn't see much difference with Rodinal, they were right. Here is on, it is too small, but I think you will get the idea, when you lighten the right image to equal the left no difference:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2311/2265556648_aff62c515f.jpg?v=0

[kaiyen]

Someone on apug a while back (prob. a year) did a test with 1 film for like...20 developers. He discovered that he could get identical results, in terms of contrast and tonality, with all developers once dialed in (time, dilution, etc). The only difference was speed and grain.

Having said that, XTOL is often used for this kind of stuff because it is the dominant commercially-available phenidone/ascorbic acid developer out there. It's the most modern design, plain and simple. Good speed, low grain.

There is still this fear about the famous "xtol death" problem that plagued many users when it first came out. For some reason it doesn't happen with FX-39 from Paterson or PC-TEA, so it must be something in XTOL, not just all phen/asc. devs in general. But use 1L bottles and you'll be fine.

[JeffGreene]

got a link for me? can't find it on shutterbug

It's in the current issue (May 2008), and thus not available online yet. You would need to get a copy. Sorry. :(

[Teus]

He discovered that he could get identical results, in terms of contrast and tonality, with all developers once dialed in (time, dilution, etc). The only difference was speed and grain.

really... sounds pretty odd, got a link to this?

I wonder why all the different developers exist then. I'll think about it, what grain & speed developers give, regardless of their tonality. some might have a higher efficiency: both medium-low grain and fairly good speed.

[kaiyen]

I'll give a search a try, but finding just 1 article on developers on apug is like trying to find ...a specific pair of chopsticks in all the stores in chinatown...

And to qualify a bit more - there was one more difference - toe and shoulder. So certain developers had a longer toe than others, which also affected speed, of course. But as far as the middle of the curve, he got them almost identical.

[Photon42]

Roger Hicks just reviewed the new TMAX film in the latest Shutterbug and he used Xtol as his developer. You might want to check the article out. He seemed very taken by the new film. I'm sure he may chime in here. He is probably one of the most knowledgeable people on the forum in this area.

This will be my next try with the TMAX.

[charjohncarter]

Kaiyen, thanks for that information. I love it when you post. Always something interesting.

[charjohncarter]

kaiyen, I've reread your 2 posts 4 times now, because in my limited experience with developers, (using HC-110 and Rodinal, and mostly viewing on the web) I can't tell one from another. But then I don't care about the speed of the film. All I want is good shadow detail, and unblown highlights. I actually don't care too much about grain. There is always 120. Do you think that PhotoShop has taken the developer out of the loop, if you limit your desires the the above two concerns? By the way, thanks again for the incite.

[Turtle]

The tonal charatersistics are largely set by the film and partially altered by the developer. If you do not like the results you get with TMAX films at all I would strongly advise you to try another film. Delta films are a lot more 'normal looking' IMO and Acros still somewhat better, although evry modern looking. I still prefer traditional films such as APX100, FP4+, TriX, Neopan 400 etc and feel no need to shoot modern films really. FP4+ has a very smooth tonality and attractive look in Xtol as does APX100 although both can almost look too smooth in this developer if you want a more hard edged look. I have tried Tmax 100 many times and for me it just looks awful under most circumstances. Yes, fine grin and resolution but a dull, lifeless look, irrespective of contrast. I have never come across such a hideous film, although I know some who shoot very successfully with it. for some reason many of those who love it seem to shoot a lot of fairly high key work. This has nothing to do with contrast, just the curve and lack of acutance in anything apart from acutance developers.

Plop APX100 or FP4+ in pretty well any developer and it looks just fine.

[Teus]

I have tried Tmax 100 many times and for me it just looks awful under most circumstances. Yes, fine grin and resolution but a dull, lifeless look, irrespective of contrast.
good to know I'm not the only one that feels like this. I do like TMAX film for pushing film though, P3200 is great.

I'll see how my Delta turns out then. In the meanwhile, I'll re-read the pages at rogerandfrances.com about density, toe, etc.

[chair_man]

My effort to remedy the hollow contrast curve of Tmax is that to use DS-12 developer as referred below. DS-12 is invented by Ryuji Suzuki, having the same character with Xtol but the difference is Metol instead Phenidon. The advantage of use DS-12 is to getting fresh developer for every time by home brewing. Metol/ascorbic type developer has tendency to have self-compensating effect. Especially gives it obviously by reduce the Metol concentration, not dilute the developer but the only Metol content. I have use in general 30% less content of Metol than Suzuki's presentation. I like the result with almost linear contrast character and marvelous fine grain.

http://silvergrain.org/w/Film_Developer_Recommendations#DS-12_Accutance_developer

[Ronald M]

T-Max does not look good in HC110. You think it does as it is not terrible. But then try D76 and the pictures come alive. D76 was the developer used to develope the T-Max films. T-Max developer is a push developer and not my favorite.

76 and Xtol work best to me.

[Teus]

XTOL seems to be the solution. I'll see how it compares to TMAX, likely I'll keep Tmax dev for pushing.. probably more shadow detail along with the increased grain


76 and Xtol work best to me.
when do you use D76, and when do you use XTOL?

The advantage of use DS-12 is to getting fresh developer for every time by home brewing. Metol/ascorbic type developer has tendency to have self-compensating effect.
contrast is a bit flat, since you were shooting in the shadows. got another sample?
the dev seems to be pretty rare, and silvergrain doesn't seem to sell it.

[Turtle]

Not wishing to let my dislike of Tmax100 show through too much, you might be better ditching this film and trying something else...Acros 100 will give you all the fineness of grain and a more pleasant look. Delta 100 IMO is more pleasant still. I confess I have not tried Tmax100 in D76. Pyrocat introduces some welcome acutance and helps tame highlights. I found that with careful processing excessive contrast has not been a problem, only the dull tonal range.

[kaiyen]

Ah. You know I'm getting serious when I start quoting :-)

kaiyen, I've reread your 2 posts 4 times now, because in my limited experience with developers, (using HC-110 and Rodinal, and mostly viewing on the web) I can't tell one from another.

This is actually an important thing to note. For me, I use specific developers for special situations. Pushing, pulling, etc. I'm significantly altering the look of the film through those situations anyway, so there is a difference. But everyday, properly exposed? Pretty similar from one to the other. There are differences, though.

But then I don't care about the speed of the film.

Actually, what you say later (not quoted), indicates that you do. But just in more practical terms. Film speed is defined by shadow detail. So a film that can get X shadow detail at f4 1/200 is slower than a film that can get X+1 shadow detail at the same exposure.

The highlights is about development, plain and simple. There is some film stock that is more sensitive about exposure and tends to blow out more often without correspondingly careful development. But 99% of highlight control is during development.

Do you think that PhotoShop has taken the developer out of the loop, if you limit your desires the the above two concerns? By the way, thanks again for the incite.

No, I don't think PS has done that. First, if you expose, say, FP4 at 180 (1/3 stop over box) and then use Rodinal, which is speed/shadow-detail-decreasing, you can't bring those shadows back in photoshop no matter what you do. It's just all black (and blank on the negative). And if you choose a very active developer and aren't careful with your timing, you will blow out the highlights and you can't recover that either - it's just too dense for the scanner to get through. This would be like shooting FP4 at 50 and developing with FX-1.

Having said that, I find that scanning gives me about a 1/3 stop speed increase from what I would get from a densitometer.

Onto the next quoted response!

[kaiyen]

good to know I'm not the only one that feels like this. I do like TMAX film for pushing film though, P3200 is great.

I'll see how my Delta turns out then. In the meanwhile, I'll re-read the pages at rogerandfrances.com about density, toe, etc.

I actually really like TMX (the designation for tmax 100 - sorry, I tend to do that) for landscapes. Delta 100, too. The t-grain and e-grain films excel at these because of their extremely short toe and shoulder. They have such straight curves (oxymoron alert!) in just about any developer.

Many like them for portraits, too, because they produce a very...crisp tonality from one tone to the next. I have not shot much with it, to be honest, for portraits.

Different strokes for different folks.

I would say that much of tonality is from the film. But I can cause some funky tonality issues with certain developers in certain methods. For instance, take just about any film, expose at your normal EI (or box speed, which is fine), and do stand development. You want to see some seriously compressed tonal range and contrast? There you go.

[charjohncarter]

Kaiyen, you are right about me caring about film speed. I just don't need to push or pull, I just want the right speed for my tastes. Thanks for the reponse.

[kaiyen]

I hear you, and you got it right. The right speed for your tastes. That's the whole point of any discussion about film/dev/timing combos. Which is basically any thread in which I participate...hmm...

[Teus]

Delta 100, too. The t-grain and e-grain films excel at these because of their extremely short toe and shoulder. They have such straight curves (oxymoron alert!) in just about any developer.

I can't interpret all the charts too well. If I understand you correctly, such films have short toe/shoulder. That makes them more contrasty and less forgiving?

When I read the TMAX dataseet, it says the film has good highlight" seperation and would cope well with overexposure. I already experienced how well TMAX films push (supposedly works well with long toes).

All I can tell is that I like pushed TMAX better than classic grain, but at EI 100/400 it looks so strange.

[Teus]

I just compared the log-density curves of plus-x, delta100 and TMX. delta 100 and TMX have a short toe and zero shoulder, plus-x has a longer toe and shoulder. comparing TMX and plus-x is easiest since they use the same charts. I'll post images later, and think about it for a while.

TMX is supposed to cope well with overexposure. in D76 it copes less well than plus-x, and in TMAX it seems to be totally unforgiving.

[charjohncarter]

Kaiyen, I'm sorry I'm getting old, so I have to read your information filled posts carefully. I do agree with you again about stand development: compressed tones and contrast.

[kaiyen]

Yes, the new emulsions (t-grain for kodak, e-grain for ilford) have almost no toe or shoulder. Think of the toe and shoulder as areas of non-linear response to exposure. Most film has a toe and shoulder in any developer. Theoretically, if you give film X exposure, it will have Y density. If you give it X+n exposure (where n is just some positive number), then you should have Y+n density. It should be linear. Increase one, increase the other.

But the toe is the area where it's not linear. X+n still gives you Y. The longer the toe, the less response you are getting even though you are increasing exposure. That's different film has different film speeds in different developers (remember that H&D curves, or response curves, are film & developer dependent, not just one or the other). If it's got a long toe, it will be slower since it takes more exposure to get to good shadow detail (out of the toe).

The new emulsions have almost ridiculously linear responses. This gives a wide, even, and arguably unnatural tonality. But technically it's just really, really even tonality.

And films with little to no shoulder are _not_ tolerant to overexposure in general. Think about it - if you overexpose, and the H&D curve is linear even to the top (ie - no shoulder), then it just keeps giving you more density as you expose. It's easy to get to maximum, solid silver as you go up.

[charjohncarter]

Kaiyen, again I've read it four times, I'm definitely not complaining. It is like when I first learned calculus. You are trying to find what is happening at any point on a curve or in this case a straight curve (as you say oxymoron). Thanks again, keep posting. I think I'll copy this last one, and read it when I'm totally clear of mind.

[david b]

Xtol was designed by Kodak to work with T-grain developers and is now the recommended developer for TMAX films.

I find that xtol works beautifully with most films. Acros and FP4 really shine in it.

[Teus]

good to hear that XTOL works nicely as well. I got to understand more about shadow detail and film speed.


Tried a roll of Delta 100 in Amaloco AM50 link, boosted background contrast (http://flickr.com/photos/thijsd/2396912842/). I like it very much, must make a great combination with XTOL. I can dilute to 1:1 or more to compress contrast a bit.
Tried Tri-x EI400, and agitated a bit more because I was afraid the contrast would be too flat. should have reduced development a bit, because I need to scan the negs at about -1.5 :/

otherwise XTOL looks very pretty. fine-grained and sharper than HC-110 B