Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/02/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 09:24 PM 2/4/98 -0500, you wrote: >400 and FG-7? Or, would I be better off with another developer? Is there a >comparable film I'm overlooking? I've heard negative reports on T-max. Any >input anyone has would be greatly appreciated. Bad results with TMax film is mostly due to sloppy, or less than careful, processing. Or a lack of control. If one uses the directions as on the box, TMax 400 tends to be overdeveloped. But it varies with each person's techniques. TMax films were designed with one character of very old films in mind. They allowed a lot of control on the photographer's part. Tri-X (the 35mm version, not some of the larger format special versions of Tri-X) is designed to be very forgiving and resist variation of development with time and temperature changes. TMax films on the other hand were purposely designed to respond to development controls (time, temperature, agitation) more easily. Thus more need for careful processing. One has to calibrate any film/developer combination for their own shooting before they can really judge a film. I really like TMax film with Press Maxx developer, and then TMax developer or D-76, in that order. I don't like it with HC-100 dil. B or FG-7 (with or without sodium sulfite) at all. FG-7 is very economical, but it's from a past generation, and no optimized for current films. That doesn't mean you can't get good results. Delta is great, but it doesn't push worth diddly. Delta 100 is awesome! TMax 100 is almost as good. These are my opinions based on my development techniques. At journalism school I knew the Zone system and applied it to processing TMax 400 (before it was on the market and called TMax 400, by the way, we were beta testers of the film). I was the only one who would shoot football games in bright sunlight with TMax 400. And I "pulled" the film to 200. Most people would gasp in horror, thinking it's so vulnerable to overexposure. It is, but not when processed properly. Anyway, every one else would shoot Tri-X at 400 with various developers. The sports editor would invariably hold up my prints and say "How come these are so much better than the rest?" My pictures would have full detail inside the helmets without extensive dodging in the darkroom. Whites were creamy smooth full of detail. The others' Tri-X pictures would show the halo effect of dodging with inadequate shadow detail, with blown-out highlights. And of course, I would tell the editor "Because I use Leica!" And that would lead to groans from the Nikon/Canon users. ========== Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance. -Robert R. Coveyou