Topic: This here is the TMax thread

[Indofunk]

As I have waxed on about elsewhere on this forum, I've wanted to try TMax as a possible replacement for Tri-X, and the first roll I souped in HC110 turned out very promising, but underdeveloped. So here's the results from my second roll, HC110 dilution H for 12 minutes. The problem is that I still had to crank up the exposure in Lightroom about 1-2 stops depending on the photo. But I still like the results. Do I have to develop even longer? I may even try Rodinal since TMax isn't as grainy as Tri-X...

Anyways, results! I do love the smoother tones, less grain, and more contrast as compared to Tri-X. I may have found my new go-to B&W film


Country Bridge by Indofunk Satish, on Flickr


Dead-end Alley by Indofunk Satish, on Flickr

[SLVR]

If I may, here's some examples of Tmax from me. Mostly Tmax100. Images are tagged appropriately in flickr sometimes even includes dev times. I always scan using Silverfast using whatever the film profiles are for said film. Hopefully it gives you an idea of what you might like for developer decisions.

Untitled by nownownownow, on Flickr

Untitled by nownownownow, on Flickr

Untitled by nownownownow, on Flickr

Untitled by nownownownow, on Flickr

[Fluminian]

I love TMax 400 very much, but it's too expensive for me to shoot it often.

Fuji GA 645 Pro, TMax developer 1+4.

[FrankE]

As I have waxed on about elsewhere on this forum, I've wanted to try TMax as a possible replacement for Tri-X, and the first roll I souped in HC110 turned out very promising, but underdeveloped. So here's the results from my second roll, HC110 dilution H for 12 minutes. The problem is that I still had to crank up the exposure in Lightroom about 1-2 stops depending on the photo. But I still like the results. Do I have to develop even longer? I may even try Rodinal since TMax isn't as grainy as Tri-X...

thanks for posting
looks good
have no advice for you with regards to "best practices", learning those myself….

what was your agitation scheme?

[Indofunk]

As I have waxed on about elsewhere on this forum, I've wanted to try TMax as a possible replacement for Tri-X, and the first roll I souped in HC110 turned out very promising, but underdeveloped. So here's the results from my second roll, HC110 dilution H for 12 minutes. The problem is that I still had to crank up the exposure in Lightroom about 1-2 stops depending on the photo. But I still like the results. Do I have to develop even longer? I may even try Rodinal since TMax isn't as grainy as Tri-X...

thanks for posting
looks good
have no advice for you with regards to "best practices", learning those myself….

what was your agitation scheme?

Good question. I agitated constantly for the first 30 seconds, then 15 seconds every minute for all 12 minutes. I don't think there's anything wrong with my agitation scheme because that usually affects contrast, right?

Oh, and for the record I'm using TMax400.

[Indofunk]

If I may, here's some examples of Tmax from me. Mostly Tmax100. Images are tagged appropriately in flickr sometimes even includes dev times. I always scan using Silverfast using whatever the film profiles are for said film. Hopefully it gives you an idea of what you might like for developer decisions.

Thanks for the examples! Looks like you're getting consistently good results from a few different developers. Is there anything you've noticed compared to Tri-X? For example, always develop twice as long, etc? And speaking of how long, what is your dev time for Rodinal 1:50?

[SLVR]

All of my times I'm following are from the Massive dev chart.

Tmax100 in Rodinal @ 1:50 is 12min. It seems close to what I did. I cant remember exactly what I did but it was more than 10min for sure. I did find Tmax100 pretty good in rodinal, grain wasn't too bothersome but in most other developers Tmax100 has no visible grain.

Comparing Tmax to Tri-X I find dev times are about the same, if not shorter. I'm not a huge fan of Rodinal though, I do prefer Xtol over Rodinal just because of the way it handles grain and the shadow detail and speed from Xtol is unmatched by most common developers in my area. Also being new to Rodinal I can't tell you whether the times are "normal" compared to other films.

I think that the consistency in tones and contrast come from how silverfast handles the scans. It applies corrections to give a relatively consistent look regardless of developer.

Personally, I like the classic look of Tri-X over Tmax. I know ive said it before. I think that Tri-X has a lot more versatility than the Tmax films, though I havent played much with them. Tri-X however can be pulled to 100,200, developed at box speed, pushed to 800,1600, 3200, and ive seen it pushed to 12500. I dont know if Tgrain films provide that level of flexibility.

[Indofunk]

All of these are excellent thoughts. Just realized that you're using TMax100 ... I think 400ASA films generally look grainer in Rodinal than I like, so I'll hold off on trying TMax400 in Rodinal for now.

I haven't done any pushing or pulling, so that aspect of Tri-X isn't really relevant to me (yet).

I've just checked out Silverfast, and for $50 it might be worth it. I'll download the trial version and see how I like it.

[SLVR]

I would definitely go for the try before you buy route. It has a very steep learning curve and the software has a lot of really stupid bugs that just will never be fixed. But once you know the software the results are good and I find I can scan through a roll of film faster than someone who scans their film flat and then adjusts the curves afterwards.

I do want to make some tutorials on my film processing/scanning methods. Being 100% self taught I'm curious as to how my process varies from others.

It wouldn't be very hard to scan through a roll while screencapping just to get the software part of it shown.

[Indofunk]

I would definitely watch that.

Also, I'd like to encourage others to post your TMax pictures here too!

[FrankE]

I love TMax 400 very much, but it's too expensive for me to shoot it often.

Fuji GA 645 Pro, TMax developer 1+4.

Fluminian, I do like the quality of your scans
how are you doing them (i.e. what hardware and scanning software)

my scans were done using and Epson 4990 and Epson Scan
but like everything else related to film, I am still learning

[02Pilot]

I haven't shot a lot of TMax, but I've found the results generally pleasant. It's not a general-purpose option for me, as I prefer the look of traditional grain films, but it has its uses. I shot this on a roll of TMax 400 left from testing and developed in Caffenol-C-L:



Where I use it more - specifically TMax 100 - is in my half-frame cameras, where the grain of traditional emulsions can be obtrusive. I use Caffenol-C-M (RS) for the 100. I left this one a little larger so you can get a better sense of the grain, remembering that this is from a half-frame 18x24 negative:



It's a good film with nice tonality. I particularly like the fact that it acts almost as if you have a pale yellow filter on in terms of the way it renders skies. It seems to work well in Caffenol, which is pretty much a requirement for me.

[Fluminian]

All of my times I'm following are from the Massive dev chart.

Tmax100 in Rodinal @ 1:50 is 12min. It seems close to what I did. I cant remember exactly what I did but it was more than 10min for sure. I did find Tmax100 pretty good in rodinal, grain wasn't too bothersome but in most other developers Tmax100 has no visible grain.

Comparing Tmax to Tri-X I find dev times are about the same, if not shorter. I'm not a huge fan of Rodinal though, I do prefer Xtol over Rodinal just because of the way it handles grain and the shadow detail and speed from Xtol is unmatched by most common developers in my area. Also being new to Rodinal I can't tell you whether the times are "normal" compared to other films.

I think that the consistency in tones and contrast come from how silverfast handles the scans. It applies corrections to give a relatively consistent look regardless of developer.

Personally, I like the classic look of Tri-X over Tmax. I know ive said it before. I think that Tri-X has a lot more versatility than the Tmax films, though I havent played much with them. Tri-X however can be pulled to 100,200, developed at box speed, pushed to 800,1600, 3200, and ive seen it pushed to 12500. I dont know if Tgrain films provide that level of flexibility.

Personaly, I hate Tri-X.  Whatever developer I use the grain is the size of a tennis ball.

[Fluminian]

I love TMax 400 very much, but it's too expensive for me to shoot it often.

Fuji GA 645 Pro, TMax developer 1+4.

Fluminian, I do like the quality of your scans
how are you doing them (i.e. what hardware and scanning software)

my scans were done using and Epson 4990 and Epson Scan
but like everything else related to film, I am still learning

I use the Canon Canoscan 9000f and the Canon's own software. Nothing fancy, but it works ok up to 2400dpi.
I don't think it's much better than your scanner. Correct exposure, TMax 400 + TMax developer 1+4 and you'll get
similar results.
 

[02Pilot]

Should have mentioned that mine are scanned on a CanoScan 8800F with the rather old packaged software (ArcSoft Photo Studio 5.5). As Fluminian said, it's good to around 2400dpi. I've figured out most of the adjustments in the scanning software and created film profiles for most of the stuff I use regularly. Final adjustments are made in GIMP as necessary, as the editing capabilities of Photo Studio are limited at best and the interface is archaic.

[Indofunk]

I generally scan completely raw (on an Epson V500) and make all adjustments in Lightroom, because I figure that's the most powerful software/algorithm in the chain. But I suppose since it's all going into the d*****l realm anyways speed is more of a concern, so I await TinTin's tutorial 

[02Pilot]

For whatever reason, I find it easier to at least baseline the photos in the scanning software, then clean things up in GIMP. I'm sure I could achieve similar results with just a straight scan, but there are a few things that seem simpler to effect at the time of scanning (Photo Studio's scanning setup includes scaled Backlight and Fade correction options that I'm not sure how to duplicate easily in GIMP, especially for color, and since I've already set up the film profiles there I haven't bothered to do so in GIMP).

All that said, unless you're printing very large from your scans, I doubt you'll see much difference no matter where you make the adjustments.

[SLVR]

If I get around to scanning some BW tonight I'll make a tut. I actually have some Portra 400 to scan when I get home so I may as well use that. That way I can show how I deal with color as well. Because sometimes silverfast can be a pain in the ass for color.

I use a V700 @ 3200 dpi. I'm told the lens goes up to 6400 dpi but I dont think so. After I'm done scanning I downsample to 1600dpi then rescale to 1750 by XXXX and save for web.

Im giving away my tricks here but thats how I get nice and crispy scans

[imagesfrugales]

Also, I'd like to encourage others to post your TMax pictures here too!

Probably my best shot on TMax400 @ 3200. I wanted to stop down and a very fast shutter speed to get the best sharpness handheld. Minolta 700si (up to 1/8000) with the fantastic Sigma 2.8-3.5/75-200. Developed in "Cardinal", a mix of Caffenol-C, Parodinal and sulfite.

almost tamed by imagesfrugales, on Flickr

[ManuelL]

Hi,
here are two of mine. First 35mm TMax400 at ISO1600 developed in XTOL; 2nd 6x7 TMax100 at ISO 100 stand developed in 1:100 Rodinal for 1 hour.

[gsgary]

As soon as I get home from work I'll post some 15 years out of date tmax100 shot at 400 by mistake and 1 hour developed in rodinal that came out very nice

[Chalky]

Tmax 400 is my favourite black and white film. I only process about a roll a month and am not a perfectionist or consistent with the process, and I'm far from a scanning expert...  I use Ilfosol 3 and ilford stop and fix, it's a one shot developer which suits me due to the low volume I do. But even still I get results I am happy with. Tmax 400 and Bronica S2.



I mainly scan using the epson software, adjust the histogram and that's about it. Sometimes the scans come out a bit flat but I that could be the dev or the scanning, but I don't do enough to work out where improvements could be made...

[gsgary]

Have you tried DDX I find it better than ilfosol3 with faster films

[Fluminian]

I'm very happy with the results I get from the TMax film and Tmax dev combo.

     

[Indofunk]

As soon as I get home from work I'll post some 15 years out of date tmax100 shot at 400 by mistake and 1 hour developed in rodinal that came out very nice

Rodinal 1:100 for an hour will pretty much develop anything

[gsgary]

If I cock up 1:100 is my fail safe

[Late Developer]

Tmax 400 is my favourite black and white film. I only process about a roll a month and am not a perfectionist or consistent with the process, and I'm far from a scanning expert...  I use Ilfosol 3 and ilford stop and fix, it's a one shot developer which suits me due to the low volume I do. But even still I get results I am happy with. Tmax 400 and Bronica S2.



I mainly scan using the epson software, adjust the histogram and that's about it. Sometimes the scans come out a bit flat but I that could be the dev or the scanning, but I don't do enough to work out where improvements could be made...

Love the photo, Chalky.  I'm not an expert scanner myself but the "flatter" the scan the better, in my experience.  If you start your processing with a punchy scan, it seems to make altering it to suit your requirements more difficult than having a "flat" scan as the starting point. 

Once I have a nice, dull, relatively toneless scan, I can either (a) run it through Lightroom 4 and apply a "Preset" to get the general look I'm after and then tweak / fine-tune the various sliders or (b) I go to Photoshop and add layers for "Levels" and "Contrast / Brightness", etc. until the image is pimped up to my taste.

Sharpening, if I do any, is almost always relatively low-key and applied to the re-sized photo immediately before posting.

As I say, I'm no expert but the above works for me. I use VueScan software as I like the interface  but I got good results using the Epson software that came with the scanner.

[SLVR]

ta da.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXQPR0svi9M

[Indofunk]

Thanks! I'm watching it without sound for now, and I already like it! Will watch with sound tonight 

[SLVR]

I ramble. And I could be wrong about 99% of the facts I say about the program. But it all makes sense in my head.

[gsgary]

Thanks! I'm watching it without sound for now, and I already like it! Will watch with sound tonight 

It's better without sound he has a American accent 

[Indofunk]

Thanks! I'm watching it without sound for now, and I already like it! Will watch with sound tonight 

It's better without sound he has a American accent 

You! Out of this thread, now!

[gsgary]

Here's some of my 15 years out of date Tmax 100 shot at 400 by mistake so i stand developed it in Rodinal and think i might have added 12g of sodium sulphite

[Indofunk]

Those came out great! Rodinal 1:100 really is the great equalizer

[gsgary]

Those came out great! Rodinal 1:100 really is the great equalizer

Cheers

[original_ann]

I shoot TMax 100 / 400 almost exclusively.  Mainly TMX100 and I use the HC-110 B - but I use less syrup then 1:31.  Not able to get to my info right now, but will have to update.  I'm very pleased most of the time with my results. 

[gsgary]

A few more of the 15 years out of date i was given in a bulk loader

[KevinAllan]

Tmax 100 is definitely my favourite B&W film; I haven't yet used enough TMax 400 to express an opinion.


Hoist by
Kevin J Allan, on Flickr

I usually develop in Fotospeed FD10, using the times given in the Massive Dev Chart, reduced by 15% for rotary processing in a Jobo CPE2.


Cauldron Snout by Kevin J Allan, on Flickr

The two images above were taken with my usual Mamiya RZ67. The one below was with a borrowed Bronica S2 - this subject always comes in handy for testing any camera / lens / film combo:


The Bishop Lloyd Tomb by Kevin J Allan, on Flickr

As suggested by other filmwasters, I stand develop in Rodinal 1:100 for one hour if there has been any doubt about the right exposure being given, including high-contrast subjects:


Glen Shiel by Kevin J Allan, on Flickr

[KevinAllan]

Mention above of the costs of TMax prompted me to repeat an exercise I do once or twice a year, to compare the costs of different film, once postage costs are factored in. The table below compares the cost of buying 10 rolls of 120 film, from UK online retailers, with postage costs to the UK.

On previous occasions this has shown TMax being the cheapest film in my survey, which some may find surprising. This time round Fomapan is the cost winner, especially if purchased from Silverpint.  TMax and FP4+ have very similar prices and then the most expensive banding includes Acros and two Rollei films. The films that we sometimes consider "cheap" can turn out to be quite expensive.

Of course, the results in your country may differ.

[Francois]

I've been slaving trying to figure out some Arista Ultra 400/Fomapan 400. Lets just say that it doesn't work anything like TMY, HP5 or Neopan!
The film seems to have a weak anti-halation layer so that blooming effects are not rare. The film is also somewhat hard to scan at first. I have to adapt my process to make it work. It's also got HUGE grain when compared to TMY.

From what I'm figuring out, it's a film that is more akin to what Ansel Adams might have been using when he wrote his zone system trilogy.

Even if it's cheap, I wouldn't recommend it to beginners. Yes it works fine, but it's nowhere as tolerant as TMY.

[gsgary]

I bought 10 rolls of Foma 400 last year and loved the look of it when my hp5 has run out im getting 100 feet

[jharr]

Just thought I would do a quick comparison for US prices. I just looked at B&H and Amazon. T-Max is coming in sort of average for b/w neg films.

[KevinAllan]

I'm amazed at how cheap Tmax is in the US compared to the UK. Maybe I should move there.

[Indofunk]

I'm amazed at how cheap Tmax is in the US compared to the UK. Maybe I should move there.

Also Ilford films. That fact is truly mind-blowing.

[Bryan]

Just thought I would do a quick comparison for US prices. I just looked at B&H and Amazon. T-Max is coming in sort of average for b/w neg films.

Living in Washington state I have to pay sales tax on any orders from Amazon since they are based there.  I did a quick comparison of T-Max 100 in 120 and despite getting free shipping from Amazon it's still cheaper to get it from B&H and pay the shipping.  10 Packs from Amazon is $44.90 with $4.26 in tax for a total of $49.16.  Since I'm out of state when I order from B&H I don't pay state sales tax and it comes to $44.90 plus $3.25 shipping for a total of $48.15.  It is 2 day shipping from Amazon though so if I want it quick I'll pay the extra $1.01.

Whats not figured into the cost for Amazon is what I pay for an Amazon Prime account that gets me the free shipping. 

[gsgary]

Arbor Low from the same out of date roll

[gsgary]

Not sure way photos are not showing 

[Indofunk]

Arbor Low from the same out of date roll

Prefixed with "www.filmwasters.com" for some reason.

[Indofunk]

I like those, especially the final "selfie"

[gsgary]

Thats strange smugmug have just change the layout