[Jamey777]

I tried T-Max for the first time, shot it @100 (box) with an MZ-S and FA 77. Just did whatever the meter told me to do. For developing I did XTOL following the exact recommendations as printed on the label.

The images as scanned (Pakon 135) look very boring. I am used to pushing Tri-X and love more contrasty pictures. While I find that I don't like the initial scan, once I did an auto-levels in post it is exactly what I want.

So left is straight out of scanner, right has auto-levels.

I really have two questions....

1) Is this just how T-Max is, or should I push a stop from what Kodak recommends
2) Super easy to fix in post, but I want to learn how to print eventually. Will a less contrasty image give me more latitude? I suspect the answer is yes.

---

Last edited by Jamey777; 10-09-2016 at 06:31 PM.

[bibz]

I tried T-Max for the first time, shot it @100 (box) with an MZ-S and FA 77. Just did whatever the meter told me to do. For developing I did XTOL following the exact recommendations as printed on the label.

The images as scanned (Pakon 135) look very boring. I am used to pushing Tri-X and love more contrasty pictures. While I find that I don't like the initial scan, once I did an auto-levels in post it is exactly what I want.

So left is straight out of scanner, right has auto-levels.

I really have two questions....

1) Is this just how T-Max is, or should I push a stop from what Kodak recommends
2) Super easy to fix in post, but I want to learn how to print eventually. Will a less contrasty image give me more latitude? I suspect the answer is yes.

What you are seeing after the scan is the digital representation, how are the actual negatives comparing? With darkroom printing you have a number of methods, easiest being contrast filters, to get the results on the right. Auto levels just pushes the lowest pixels to 0 and the highest to 255, the darkroom has an unlimited variety of light and chemical interaction. I'm not experienced enough in the films to tell you how to change exposure for printing, but coming up with that yourself can be a defining characteristic of your 'look'

[LFLee]

I tried T-Max for the first time, shot it @100 (box) with an MZ-S and FA 77. Just did whatever the meter told me to do. For developing I did XTOL following the exact recommendations as printed on the label.

The images as scanned (Pakon 135) look very boring. I am used to pushing Tri-X and love more contrasty pictures. While I find that I don't like the initial scan, once I did an auto-levels in post it is exactly what I want.

So left is straight out of scanner, right has auto-levels.

I really have two questions....

1) Is this just how T-Max is, or should I push a stop from what Kodak recommends
2) Super easy to fix in post, but I want to learn how to print eventually. Will a less contrasty image give me more latitude? I suspect the answer is yes.

I guess depends on how you want your photo to "look"... film development, scanning create different "look", not to mention post-processing.
I see other prefer the look on the left (myself included), so I started to learn that it is personal preference....

[tuco]

You want more contrast? Find a higher contrast scene. It looks like most the earth tones in that scene reproduce to or near a middle gray. And scanning you have to adjust the contrast curve either in the scanning software or afterwards in an image editor. So don't judge a film by "auto levels" in a scanning software.

But there is no one answer for more contrast. And, scene dependent, colored filters can help and using a developer like Rodinal can really bring out the grain and contrast. A red filter would certainly darken the green foliage and moss, for example.

When you push your film, you decrease your tonal scale as well. How much is film/developer/time dependent.

When you make wet prints and want more contrast, you can use filters on the enlarger to change the grade of multi-grade paper or use a higher grade paper for fixed grade paper. Again, you will be cutting down your tonal scale by crushing the blacks and whites.

T-max films are tabular grain films as apposed to cubic grain in old-school films such as 400TX and 320TXP. They yield slightly different results.

---

Last edited by tuco; 07-22-2014 at 09:21 AM. Reason: More info

[MD Optofonik]

The right image looks a bit like Tri-X. Perhaps shooting a roll of Tri-X underexposed by a stop and processed accordingly would be closer to what you're looking for.

[Jamey777]

@MD I normally shoot tri-x, just trying to get my bearings on t-max :-)

[tuco]

@MD I normally shoot tri-x, just trying to get my bearings on t-max :-)

How many stops of light do you think were in that stone wall scene?

Not many. It's what we call a "flat scene". Inherently a low contrast scene if there is no black or white color in it. MD Optofonik advise was to "expand" the tonal scale for a flat scene by under exposing and over developing ( the opposite of what you'd do in a high contrast scene). This is what what "zone system" is all about.

[ChrisPlatt]

If you're looking for a slower film that looks more like Tri-X you have various options.
IMO you probably won't get results you like from any of the medium speed T-grain films, nor FP4+ or Kentmere 100.

Though discontinued there's still some Plus-X out there. I love Neopan SS but it's also out of production.

AGFA APX100 was once my favorite ISO100 film but I'm not sure about the current version.
There are medium speed films from other European makers, though I haven't tried them.

You can "pull" Tri-X one stop by overexposing and underdeveloping. I have never tried it.
Eastman 5222 cinema film is rated at ISO200 and has a growing cult following.

Chris

[Jamey777]

thanks @tuco & @chris :-) good advice... my film cameras have shutter speeds of 6000 (mz-s) and 2000 (lx) so tri-x outside really isn't a big deal.