suggested exposure for TMAX 100

[jmr237]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently ordered 10 rolls of TMAX 100 and I'm excited to try it this weekend. Does anyone have suggestions for expected exposure? Does it work best shot at 100, or should I overexpose?

 

I send my film to a lab for developing and scanning.

 

Thanks in advance for the help.

[250swb]

I can only go by the Ilford equivalent, so don't over expose. The T grain style of film does not take kindly to over exposure, and does work best with the dedicated developers because of this (although traditional compensating developers would be my choice).

 

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[MSB]

I would expect the exposure to be around 1/125 and f/16 in bright sunlight ;–)

 

Seriously I would recommend you to simply use the manufacturs recommendation for the first roll, especially since you don't develope the film yourself and can fine-tune the process by choice of developer, time etc. Kodak recommends an exposure index of ISO 100/21° except when using Microdol-X 1:1 when they recommend ISO 50/18°. For more information see the data sheet for T-max films: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

[gbealnz]

I've not used T-Max much, but shot a few rolls on a recent Europe trip. They were quite nice. I simply exposed as the box said, ISO100. I processed them myself (and I realise you won't be, but.....). They were quite a bit "flatter" than the other rolls (Delta 100/FP4+). Not better or worse, just different.

As Markus suggested, shoot it as Kodak designed, and see what the results look like, then fine tune it from there.

Gary

[adan]

As the others have said - shoot it like the name says. Has worked for me.

 

I don't know about "flatter" - but Kodak says TMax negs will (and should) look thinner than traditional emulsions. I.E. they will look a bit underexposed, until you move on to the scanning or printing stage.

 

BTW - you do not need to use "TMax" developer for TMax films - despite the name. It was designed for push-processing TMax 3200 (R.I.P.) with maximum shadow detail, and thus is akin to Ilford DD-X (recommended as best for pushing Delta 3200). Although it works fine for general use, and most normal developers also work fine with TMax films. I've used HC-110, D-76, TMax and DD-X on TMax 100, and all produced good negs, so similar that I just went back to HC110 for the lower cost.

[NJH]

Refreshing advice. I found the same with Tmax 400, really liked the look of the negs and my scans from it when shot at EI 400 with the M6s in camera meter straight off a mid tone. Nice and simple, no different in approach to shooting any other film.

 

It seems to me that the internet is very much to blame for trying to make B&W photography much more complicated than it needs to be. 

[jmr237]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks everyone for the replies. I'll try it at EI 100 and see how it goes.

[A miller]

I agree with all advice stated herein.  I would just add that the Tmax series, particularly the 100, is really best suited for situations in which a good amount of care is taken to determine the exposure.  I have found that it is not really suited for situations in which the exposure is not intended to be spot on and where adjustments need to be made in the dark/lightroom (where Tri-x shines).  

I would also add that the film is quite slow and, unlike with slow color film (such as Ektar and the Fuji slide films), I personally don't really see that much difference in grain vs the Tmax 400 when I digitize the negatives.  I think the difference is more pronounced when the negs are printed in a darkroom.  Hence, IMO the Tmax 400 is a better all around fine grain film.

I also would suggest that you consider "expansion" and "contraction" development techniques for those situations in which the contrast is too low (the highlights are not brighter than zone 7) or high (highlights are brighter than zone 8).  I think that these are the only scenarios in which you'd need to alter the development times of the film.  But this really isn't that practical with 35mm.

Have fun!

Best,

Adam

[gnuyork]

I've always shot tmax at box speeds. I can't remember, but i think I read somewhere that was recommended... I'd start there anyway.

[pico]

Use box speed, ISO 100. In my experience the contrast index curve is steep - higher contrast than I like.

Let's see how your processor does the film.

[semi-ambivalent]

 

It seems to me that the internet is very much to blame for trying to make B&W photography much more complicated than it needs to be. 

This is key. But, while good and even great results may be had simply, it is also nice to have 150 years of experimentation on hand such that one may go down that rabbit hole if so desired. In spite of my early struggles I find learning that complexity to be very rewarding. Much more so than hitting ctrl-p. 

 

s-a

[Chuck Albertson]

BTW - you do not need to use "TMax" developer for TMax films - despite the name. It was designed for push-processing TMax 3200 (R.I.P.) with maximum shadow detail, and thus is akin to Ilford DD-X (recommended as best for pushing Delta 3200). Although it works fine for general use, and most normal developers also work fine with TMax films. I've used HC-110, D-76, TMax and DD-X on TMax 100, and all produced good negs, so similar that I just went back to HC110 for the lower cost.

Andy,

 

TMax developer is/was (I still have 10 rolls left, though probably fogged by now) perfect for pushing TMax 3200, but I recall the developer being developed for and introduced at the same time as TMax 100/400, with 3200 following a few years later. I still use it for TMax 400, but it's pricey for general use. I think I've used Rodinal and Xtol for TMax 100 as well, shooting at box speed.

[jmr237]

After some delays due to the Thanksgiving holiday, I got my scans back from the lab. Short answer is that TMAX 100 worked great at box speed. I did a few exposure brackets to test overexposure. It didn't react much differently until you're in the +1.5 to +2 range. At that point you start to see less contrast, less highlight detail, and a brighter image overall.

 

Keep in mind this is not a fully controlled and rigorous test--I believe the lab does some adjustment of the scans to account for density variations in the negatives.

 

I also did a few test shots with a yellow filter and without a filter. Generally I prefer the shots with the yellow filter. They had a bit more contrast and less flatness.