OK, I admit it. Im addicted to the sharpness and lack of grain I get with TMX and XTOL (1:1). At the same time it seems like the combination has little latitude and many shots have poor (if any) separation in the highlights.

I recently noticed that the fully exposed leader of the film didnt seem to have much of a Dmax. Measurement showed it at 1.70. This is low compared with 2.40 for Plus-X with normal XTOL development. Development time is reasonable (I think), as normal scenes print on normal paper.

For reference, #2 paper is said (by Kodak) to match a density range of 1.00 to 1.20. Subtracting base+fog and the worst of the shoulder and toe, TMX+XTOL appears to have a usable density range as low as 1.2!

Thus, two conclusions: First, a normal scene has little exposure latitude, as any over exposure will compress the highlights. Second, the combination simply wont record a high brightness range no matter how you adjust the development time. Reduce development and the Dmax falls below whats required to produce a full range print on normal paper, regardless of the brightness range of the original scene!

It seems that the best metering strategy for this combination might be to meter the highlights and let everything else fall where it may. So much for expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

Am I completely missing something in this admittedly casual analysis, or is it consistent with what others have found?

Thanks, and Happy New Year to Mason & everybody!

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), December 30, 1999

Answers

I'd have to admit, I like TMAX's sharpness, but it is very easy to ruin a picture with overdevelopment. I have expermented with various developers, i.e. HC-110 (dil b), Ilfosol (1:14), TMAX developers (which I might add were terrible!).

I treat TMAX 100, like it was ISO 25 film. The film responds well to XTOL 1:1. Also tried XTOL 1:3, too grainy. Make sure you allow for the increase in exposure by cutting back the development time. Kodak's web site gives time for exposures at ISO 100, 50, and 25, use these.

-- John Clark (john.e.clark@mindspring.com), December 31, 1999.

Hi John,

The gist of your post is quite opposite of what I've found, but I'm going to try a roll at E.I. 25 to see what happens. I've been using the times off the Kodak web site, as they seem fairly accurate. BTW, when I tried the TMAX developer, I thought it was grainy and brutalized highlights. Then I noticed that the bold recomendation was at 75 degrees (I think- been a while), and I was using the times for 68. It works much better at the recommended temperature, though it still wouldn't be my first choice in developers. Kodak's literature specifically recommends it as a pushing developer, not something I do very often. Thanks for the info- I'll try it and see if steers me in a new direction, or confirms my initial notions concerning Dmax.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), January 01, 2000.

Yesterday I tried a roll, actually half a roll, at E.I. 25 and processed for 8 min at 68 (1:1). The results were suprisingly good, though with a little fine tuning they'd be even better. Maybe E.I. 50 and the same or a tad more development. Of course, that's getting close to the original recommendations! The Dmax on the leader was 1.57, pretty much as expected. Some extremely wide range scenes of snow directly into the sunlight, combined with a shadowed wood pile, came out better than I expected, but for normal scenes the contrast was a tad low. Still, this seems to be a combination best suited to very controlled lighting conditions and precise metering. If only they still made Panatomic-X...

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), January 02, 2000.