Tmax 3200 exposed to Iso 400 :/ - how to develop?

fritzsiepen · 2009-05-04T17:05:50+00:00

Hallo Leute ! War in Berlin und hab Krawallbilder gemacht, deshalb sollte der Film auch was werden ... Habe leider aus Versehen den Tmax 3200 auf Iso 400 b...

fritzsiepen

Hi everyone! I was in Berlin and took some photos of the riots, so I really wanted the film to turn out well... Unfortunately, I accidentally exposed the Tmax 3200 at ISO 400, which means I underexposed it by 3 stops. The question now is, which developer will give the best results?! I’ve had the problem before with Ilford Delta 3200 that the film was quite thin. I definitely want to avoid that with the Tmax films! I hope someone can help me! Thanks, Fritz

Tandemfahren

Hi there! With an exposure of 400, even in Emofin, the Delta 3200 only manages 500 ISO – I’ve just tested it with a sensitometer. The Tmax won’t be far off; in any case, I couldn’t spot much of a difference with it in the past. That means 0.1 logD at Zone 1, whatever settings anyone uses for whatever subject contrast, with whatever developer and on whatever camera... Don’t let it get you down – if you want to do a proper job, shoot another test roll with the same settings, ideally three or four identical sets, cut the whole thing up and do some test develops. 2x5 mins Emofin works almost without fail; it gives a nearly linear curve with 1.1 logD in Zone 8, which is so smooth that almost everything that hasn’t been cropped out of the frame in time becomes reproducible! Shadow detail galore (though this refers to Delta 3200; as I said, with T-Max I’d start at 2x4 mins). Wishing you every success with your ‘wild shots’ Frank

fritzsiepen

Hi Frank! What does ‘2x5 mins’ mean? Is that a two-bath developer or something? I’ve been thinking about the test film too, and I’ll give it a go. Unfortunately, I don’t have any Emofin, but the negatives don’t have to look exactly like Ansel’s, do they? :huh: Thanks! Fritz

Hi there! With an exposure of 400, how much does the Delta 3200 manage at ISO? Even in Emofin, it’s only 500 ISO – I’ve just tested that with a sensitometer. The Tmax won’t be far off; in any case, I couldn’t spot any particular difference with it in the past. That means 0.1 logD at Zone 1, whatever settings anyone uses for whatever subject contrast, at whatever exposure, on whatever camera... Don’t let it get you down – if you want to do a proper job, shoot another test roll with the same settings, ideally three or four identical sets, cut the whole thing up and do some test develops. 2x5 mins Emofin works almost without fail; it gives a nearly linear curve with 1.1 logD in Zone 8, which is so soft that almost everything that hasn’t been cropped out of the frame in time becomes reproducible! Shadow detail galore (though this applies to Delta 3200; as I said, with Tmax I’d start at 2x4 mins). Wishing you every success with your ‘wild shots’ Frank

Tandemfahren

Hi again, Oh, sorry, I’ve been away for a while – I suppose my reply is a bit late, as the Latin saying goes... Yes, Emofin is a two-bath developer, but I only mentioned it as an example, because I’d just calibrated the Delta using it. What certainly works just as well, if not better (and in any case produces fine grain), with ‘presumably’ similar sensitivity utilisation, is the host’s bread-and-butter developer: ATM49. So if it doesn’t work with that one, it won’t work with the neighbour’s either! But that’s just another example, simply one I’m familiar with. Flat-crystal films don’t like every developer, you should know that, but ATM49 does. By the way, the following mishap happened to me whilst calibrating the Ilford 3200: I poured in Solution 2 first!!!, agitated for 10(!) minutes without a clue, and then noticed the mistake when pouring it back out! Instead of throwing the whole lot in the bin, I just pretended we hadn’t noticed and then added Solution 1, and Solution 2 again — lo and behold: a steep curve at 1000 ISO! It turned out like a push of about +2 (N+2). At some point I’ll try this with actual photos instead of test strips. The grain looked interesting, anyway – not fine, but not washed out either. Hey, have you seen any of A.A.’s wild shots yet? Have a nice weekend Frank

fritzsiepen

Oh, right, thanks! I think I’ll give it a go with Rodinal or (just ordered) Ilfosol 3 (maybe that’s better?) for now. Then I might end up with a better film, but at least not as much can go wrong as with a completely new ‘system’. Who is A.A.? Fixing first and then developing is supposed to be fun too :huh: but it’s never happened to me, for example. Thanks Fritz

Hi again, Oh, sorry, I’ve been away for a while; I suppose the answer will be ‘spu z’, as the Latin saying goes... ?, yes, Emofin is a two-bath developer, but I only meant that as an example, because I’d just calibrated the Delta with it. What definitely works just as well, if not better (and certainly with fine grain), with ‘presumably’ similar sensitivity utilisation, is the host’s bread-and-butter developer: ATM49. So if it doesn’t work with that one, it won’t work with the neighbour’s either! But that’s just another example, simply one I’m familiar with. Flat-crystal developers don’t like every developer, you should know that, but ATM49 does. By the way, the following mishap happened to me whilst calibrating the Ilford 3200: I poured in Solution 2 first!!!, agitated for 10(!) minutes without a clue, and then noticed the mistake when pouring it back out! Instead of throwing the whole lot in the bin, I just pretended we hadn’t noticed—and then added solution 1, and solution 2 again — lo and behold: a steep curve at 1000 ISO! It turned out like a push of about +2 (N+2). At some point I’ll try this with actual photos instead of test strips. The grain looked interesting, anyway—not fine, but not washed out either. Hey, have you seen any wild shots by A.A.? Have a nice weekend Frank

Tandemfahren

Hi there, So, A.A. = Ansel A. No one’s being told what to do here, but quite a few people reckon that Flachkristall and Rodinal don’t go well together, which is why I haven’t tried it myself yet. I don’t feel the need to try everything that nobody else likes. But if you do give it a go, I’d love to hear how it turns out! Back to my two-bath mishap: I think you’ve got it right – there are two developer components, not a fixer – that would obviously be disastrous and leave the film blank. Yes, I’ve had that happen too. I’m not familiar with Ilford developers: go on, give them a go! Still having plenty of fun? Frank