T-Max 3200

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by carbon based life form, Jul 3, 2007.

  1. Anyone have any experience with HC 110 to reduce grain size in P3200?
    Or any other developers (other than T-Max & D-76...which are not really
    fine enough for my tastes..).

    carbon based life form, Jul 3, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Surely you jest - HC-110 will increase grain size. Gives a mushy
    oatmeal-like grain to my mind when used with 35mm.

    You could try Microdol-X 1:1. After that it would be mix-your-own
    and experimenting with odd formulae - an activity that will take
    up much time and yield little result.
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Jul 3, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. carbon based life form

    pico Guest

    Really? This was done with HC-110B

    Pretty sharp grain. Looks much better in the actual print.

    Grain is my friend.
    pico, Jul 3, 2007
  4. Nicholas O. Lindan, Jul 3, 2007
  5. carbon based life form

    Lloyd Erlick Guest

    July 3, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

    I love TMZ, although I don't use it much. I
    actually like it's grain pattern, somehow. I
    think I'm influenced by my portraitist's love
    of shadow detail, and TMZ really has the
    ability to look into the shadows. I hate the
    look of pushed film (well, prints made from
    pushed film...), and I consider it quite a
    stretch to call TMZ an EI 3200 film, or even
    1600. I prefer to set my meter to 800 for
    this film. And even at that "low" rating, it
    is far faster than the 200 I set for Tri-X
    and TMY (Kodak T-Max 400).

    I develop TMZ in Xtol. This film will never
    be 'small grain', but it seems OK to me when
    exposed at its real speed (which I would say
    is 800 or even 640) and developed in Xtol.
    I've used the development parameters
    specified by Kodak for undiluted Xtol, but I
    think experimenting with the various
    dilutions of this developer would be useful,

    Just to repeat myself, I think the most
    important factor is the EI at which TMZ is
    exposed. Developer choice is second, and I do
    not think D-76 would be a bad choice, either.
    To me, the fact that you are not satisfied
    with results from D-76 indicates you are
    using the film at an inappropriate EI,
    probably too high.

    As an experiment, expose part of a roll at
    the EI you've been using. Expose part of the
    same roll at EI 800, develop as usual in the
    developer you like best so far, and compare.
    My guess is you will prefer prints made from
    the denser negs (i.e., the ones made at the
    lower EI).

    It's possible the negs will be quite dense,
    because in effect they are being over-exposed
    and developed as if they were under-exposed.
    However, I doubt they will be unprintable. In
    fact, I think the final prints from them will
    be better than the usual prints made from
    this film at higher EI. The dense negs will
    demand longer enlarger exposures, and maybe a
    bit of a shift in technique (reduction in
    contrast set on the enlarger, most likely),
    but I'm willing to bet they will be very good
    prints in the end. The knowledge gained from
    this experiment will tell you how to adjust
    development so it's more appropriate to the

    Sorry if I'm puncturing balloons; I just like
    TMZ at lower EI, and I think the high EI
    recommendations from the manufacturer are
    actually meant for specialized applications
    like surveillance work where considerations
    like shadow detail or grain are not relevant.

    Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
    website: www.heylloyd.com
    telephone: 416-686-0326
    Lloyd Erlick, Jul 3, 2007
  6. carbon based life form

    Lloyd Erlick Guest

    July 3, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

    Hey, take it easy, that's my life you're

    Lloyd Erlick, Jul 3, 2007
  7. carbon based life form

    Dana Myers Guest

    I wouldn't soup TMZ (T-Max P3200) in HC-110. In fact, I wouldn't
    soup any T-Max in HC-110.

    While I do not have extensive experience with TMZ and different
    developers, I have had good (to my eye) results with Xtol. I'd
    normally process in Xtol diluted 1+1, but you might try full-strength.

    Dana Myers, Jul 3, 2007
  8. carbon based life form

    David Kazdan Guest

    Somewhat like he says. Kodak lists TMZ as an EI 800 film, 3200 is a
    two-stop push. I like it in HC110 at 800, but the TMax developers are
    my favorite for pushing. My personal preference is for sharp grain, so
    I don't like the solvent developers such as Microdol-X.

    David Kazdan, Jul 3, 2007
  9. I would like to thank you all who have taken the time to reply.....from
    what I am gleaning I think that my "problem" with 3200 is that I am
    shooting at 3200. so be it. I shoot in the streets at night and
    somewhat hesitant about giving away the extra stop. After revisiting
    some of my negs I realise that in the blacks of the prints (clear on
    the neg) I am getting a "scolloping" effect which may not actually be
    grain per se. It seems to come and go between batches of film......more
    investigation required. anyway thanks again all. cheers!
    carbon based life form, Jul 4, 2007
  10. I don't know what the scalloped effect is. I've seen
    something like it on very old film that was probably subject
    to excessive moisture during storage. This is probably
    something else.
    Kodak does not recommend HC-110 for pushing and its
    probably not an optimum developer for TMX 3200. Push
    developers include Kodak T-Max and T-Max RS, Xtol, and
    Ilford Microphen. Of these Xtol will give the best
    combination of speed and fine grain. T-Max 3200 is probaby
    pretty fine grain for its speed but faster films will always
    be grainier than slower ones and pushing will always
    increase grain.
    Films like T-Max 3200 and Ilford's equivalent test at
    about EI-800 to 1000 when tested using the ISO method for
    B&W still films. The capability of less exposure than given
    by this is a property of the curve shape and low fog of
    these films. There really isn't such a thing as "true"
    speed, only the speed given by a particular test method. The
    ISO standard makes assumptions about the way film will be
    used and printed that may not be valid for film like these.
    "Pushing" any film is really developing for increased
    contrast. The low exposure part of the film curve, called
    the toe, always has a lower contrast than the "straight
    line" portion of the curve normally used. Pushing increases
    this part of the curve making low exposures have greater
    tone separation. However, it also increases overall contrast
    so pictures taken where there is a relatively large
    variation in lighting can become very contrasty in highlight
    areas that are exposed above the toe. There is no cure for
    this, its something that must be dealt with in printing.
    Richard Knoppow, Jul 5, 2007
  11. Thanks for the ideas Richard...having re-examined my film I notice that
    what I am objecting to is in fact the film base....the "noise", if you
    will, is evident in between the sproket holes; not that I print the
    sproket holes, but rather in the clear areas of my negs (the blacks in
    the print) the actual film itself is giving me a "grainy" look. This is
    the same stuff that I see along the edges of the film where there
    should be no silver left. Ah well.
    carbon based life form, Jul 5, 2007
  12. The sprocket hole effect is a well known one for 35mm
    film. Its there because there is increased turbulance around
    the holes which in turn causes increased development there.
    The effect used to plague the motion picture industry
    because it caused a 96hz hum in the sound tracks due to the
    proximity of the sprocket holes. One can still sometimes
    hear this in old movies.
    I don't know a good cure for it, it seems to happen with
    both twirling and inversion agitation but can be minimized
    by using inversion tanks which are well filled with
    developer and don't allow the film reel to move around much.
    Changing developer probably won't help much but longer
    development times may help even it out. Probably push
    processing exagerates the effect.
    Richard Knoppow, Jul 5, 2007
  13. thanks for your insights mate I do appreciate it...I may try a
    developer/dilution/temp combination based on a longer time.....oh and
    yes it's more noticable on rolls developed singularly in a dual reel
    tank, rather than when processing two at a time....cheers!
    carbon based life form, Jul 5, 2007
  14. carbon based life form

    Lloyd Erlick Guest

    July 5, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

    Well, don't feel too bad. You can't really
    give away what was never there. Nothing but
    advertising hype.

    Lloyd Erlick, Jul 5, 2007
  15. Do you put an empty reel in the double tank? If not the
    turbulance caused by the single reel sliding around can
    cause all sorts of problems. I suspect you are putting the
    empty reel in.
    I will add that obtaining uniform development has been a
    bug-a-boo in photography nearly from the beginning. All
    sorts of methods have been tried for scientific photography,
    emulsion research, speed testing, etc. Some are better than
    others but I don't know of a perfect method.
    Richard Knoppow, Jul 5, 2007
  16. carbon based life form

    UC Guest

    Try Paterson FX-39. T-Max 3200 is a grainy film. To get the best
    results, expose it at EI 800 and develop to print properly on grade 3
    UC, Jul 24, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.