Does anyone have any "tricks" to get shadow detail out of TMZ3200. I recently shot Tri-X and HP5+ (both at EI 200) and TMZ3200 (at EI 1600) under the same lighting conditions, and the TMZ clearly lacks shadow detail. I'm using HC-110B (1:31 from concentrate) for the TMZ 3200 with processing times Kodak recommends for EI3200. I also use HC-110 (1:47 from concentrate) for HP5+ and Tri-X and find that it works quite well.

I have two alternatives I guess. One is to rate TMZ3200 at EI 800 and pull back on development a little, though that's starting to defeat the reason for using it! The other is to switch developers to one which gives more shadow detail. I suppose the third possibility is to realize that you lose something when you shoot faster film...

I don't mind the grain of TMZ3200 I just would like to get more shadow detail while not giving up too much in the way of film speed. I'd be interested in suggestions, even if they are to try Neopan 1600 or Delta 3200!

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), September 06, 2000

Answers

Bob, I 've shot several rolls of Delta 3200 rated at EI 1600 with good shadow detail. I use Xtol 1:1 @ 75 degrees for 8 min. This worked for my system, but if you look at different posts on the subject...time and temp. can vary from person to person.

-- Don Sparks (Harleyman7@aol.com), September 06, 2000.

Switch developers. Go to a speed-increasing developer such as T-Max, Xtol 1:1, Microphen, Acufine etc.

Bear in mind that the "real" speed of TMZ is EI 800-1000, and that no matter what you do you're going going to significantly increase shadow density, but even if you gain only 1/3 stop in real speed by going to one of those developers that's 1/3 stop more real speed than you had before. If you expose TMZ at an EI higher than 1000 or so and develop accordingly, you're pushing, which is defined as developing to higher contrast to try to compensate for underexposure so the neg will print on a fairly "normal" grade.

Comparing TMZ @EI 1600 negs to TX etc negs exposed and developed normally _should_ show somewhat less shadow detail/density in the TMZ negs.

Try this: TMZ in Microphen 7'30"/75F EI 1600.

Before using TMZ or Delta 3200 at EI 800 I'd much rather used HP5+ in Microphen, which gives EI 640 for _normal_ contrast and speed, unpushed.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 06, 2000.

Thanks for the comments.

I did try Xtol one time on TMZ3200 but I wasn't all that pleased with the results. Maybe I gave up on it too quickly. I've never tried Microphen, perhaps it's time to give it a try.

Maybe my question should be "What's the fastest "real speed" B&W film/developer combination", i.e. one that retains as much shadow detail as possible. As you say John, if you're going to have to shoot TMZ at EI 800 to get good shadow detail, you might as well shoot HP5+. Kodak go so far as to say to shoot TMZ3200 at EI 400 for excellent shadow detail. No thanks - I think I can do better than that! Kodak say TMZ is really ISO 800/1000, but then they say Tri-X is ISO 400 too, so I'm not sure I trust their judgement.

Any comments on Neopan 1600? As far as I can tell it's "supposed" to be an ISO 1600 film, not a pushed ISO 800 film. If so it should yield better shadow detail.

I know I'm going to have to do my own testing, but suggestions are still welcome.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), September 06, 2000.

Bob, I don't know if you want to consider this, but I'm sure a weak secondary exposure would pick up the shadows a little; essentially just like giving the film's sensi curve a longer toe. For what it's worth, this effect should also be identical to what a small amount of lens flare would do (maybe your lenses are too good).

I've never done it (intentionally), but on a sensitometric basis it's pretty straightforward (although not obvious) what happens, so I don't have any doubt about effectiveness. When you hear the zone system people talking about a zone1, etc, pre- or post-exposure, this is exactly what they're doing. On the sensi curve, the amount of secondary exposure controls how far up the response curve the toe will go. Too much will also raise the base + fog level substantially (but not highlight, etc, densities) so you're very limited in how far you can go.

-- Bill C (bcarriel@cpicorp.com), September 06, 2000.

I just got done testing TMZ vs. Delta 3200 before I bought a year's supply. TMZ is a great film at EI 1000 (at the TMY@400 times per Agfa, +10%)in Rodinal 1:50 or T-Max developer (Kodak's recommended times).

Delta 3200 is a better choice at EI 1600 for me. It has a longer scale than TMZ, with lower acutance. Development times take a while to work out though because Ilford's recommendations are so far off. Delta 3200 is also your best bet at EI 3200 -- I've actually made a print I like from it there.

HC-110 seems like the wonder drug for HP5+ but doesn't seem to do it for the films I use regularly. Hopefully I'll find a use for the rest of my bottle...

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), September 06, 2000.

Bob,if it's shadow detail that you are after,don't bother with Neopan 1600.It has a very distinct look and if you like it,great,but it is very contrasty (i tried xtol and acufine) and doesn't hold shadow detail.Here's my very crude formula,i use TX exclusively for speeds between 320-1600,anything faster TMZ.Everything gets developed in XTOL (usually 1:1).I'm sure there are some magical optimum film'developer combinations out there that people use,but i like to keep the technical side as simple as possible.For TMZ,try XTOL 1:1 (or even 1:2).I know some complain about inconsistencies ,but i think it's the best developer to squiz more shadow detail out of TMZ.I must confess i didn't try Delta 3200 yet,being very slow to try new products.

-- Cem Topdemir (tacuma@earthlink.net), September 06, 2000.

The highest "real" speed I've gotten with either TMZ or Delta 3200 is EI 1250, both in Microphen (straight). That's "real" based on the usual .10 DU above fb&f for a zone I exposure, meter calibrated to "sunny f16" and exposed using a Wallace Expo-Disc and developed to a "normal" contrast as I would also develop HP5+, Delta 100 etc. If you subscribe to the probably-valid assertion that it should be 12%-13% rather than 18% reflectance (or transmission), that would put both films at about EI 1000.

At any rate, no matter what elevated EI and lengthened development you give them, that's all the shadow density there is.

With extended development the toe area does _not_ rise in density any significant amount.

The biggest difference between TMZ and Delta 3200 is in curve shape; TMZ has a rather straight-line response similar to HP5+ while Delta 3200 has a very significant shoulder. The curve shapes don't change with different developers.

Depending on the subject contrast, printing methods etc, TMZ could be considered to have dense, virtually unprintable highlights _or_ good highlight contrast, while Delta 3200 may have easily-printable highlights _or_ muddy low highlight contrast.

For me the "sweet spot" is Delta 3200 at EI 1600-2000 developed in Microphen 7'/75F or DD-X 1:4 11'/75F.

If you don't want to mix powder, DD-X is a liquid concentrate that behaves like Microphen although development times are normally somewhat longer.

Also, if you experiment with Delta 3200, some of Ilford's exposure and development recommendations appear to have no connection to reality.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 07, 2000.

Bob, I use Neopan 1600 almost exclusively. You can see some of the work at: http://ChristianHarkness.tripod.com. I love the stuff, but I think its real speed is no higher than around 800. I shoot it mostly @ 1000 and develop @ 1000, in Sprint 1:9. It works for me, but a lot of folks seem down on it. Anyhow, I do agree that if you are after real speed, TMZ @1600 in T- Max developer is probably your best bet.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), September 07, 2000.

I doubt that at anything over 1000 ISO will give much if any detail. But your best bet will be to shoot a grey card at zone II and then find a developer like Pyro which will give you a stain which will enhance whatever shadows you get on film. The super fast films aren't made for capturing shadows. You might try FX15 but Extol 1:1 is probably your best bet outside of Pyro. You might try contrast masking if the image is worth it. That will allow you to exploit whatever shadows you have on the film and still keep the highlights under control. But first try some pre-exposure at zone II and the the Extol at 1:1 WITH SUBDUED AGITATION. wATERBATHS WON'T WORK WITH THESE FILMS AS THERE ISN'T ENOUGH EMULSION TO SOAK UP SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF DEVELOPER. jAMES

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), September 09, 2000.

Thanks James, but I'm not familiar with FX15 or extol. Maybe you mean Xtol or maybe I just haven't heard of extol? I know FX1 and FX2, but FX15 is new to me.

Has anyone tried Microphen with TMZ3200. From what I've read it's good with Delta 3200 and HP5+, but it doesn't do much with Tri-X. Of course there are all sorts of reports and opinions out there and it's tough to sort them all out!

I also came across three "speed increasing developers" in an older (19080) Petersen's book which are supposed to give a true increase (i.e. in the 0.1 over b+f levels). They were "Perfection Super-Speed Enhancer", "Speedibrews Celer-Stellar" and "optimum Foto Products Optimate", none of which I've ever heard of anywhere else. "Celer-stellar" is available from the UK. Anyone have any experience using it? The other two turned up no web hits.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), September 09, 2000.

Sorry Bob. That was supposed to read Xtol. If you really want to scoop on developers and how they work with different films get a copy of Anchell and Troop's Film Developing Cookbook. It's chock full of information on different developers. FX15 or it's commercial name Acutol S is a speed enhancing developer which helps with shadow detail. The book is much better than all the opinions around here. Not that the opinions aren't valid but that the book's information has been tested by very rigorous methods. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), September 10, 2000.

> Has anyone tried Microphen with TMZ3200.

TMZ in Microphen (straight):

7'25"/75F EI 1600

8'15"/75F EI 3200

15'/75F EI 6400

15'77F (note 77F) EI 10000

Of course anything above EI 3200 is downright nasty.

> but it doesn't do much with Tri-X.

I interpret that to mean that probably unrealistic expectations weren't achieved. It'll give about 1/3 stop more real speed for normal contrast.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 11, 2000.

> rigorous methods

Sensitometry that could be repeated and/or tested by anyone is fairly rigorous

I second the endorsement of Anchell & Troop; much of it is (or should be) photographically common knowledge, some of it isn't supported when tested, but overall both their books are _extremely_ worthwhile.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 11, 2000.

I have had great success with Xtol 1:2, but the developing time is a bit long. Kodak recomends 20min at 68F.

-- Brian C. Miller (brian.c.miller@gte.net), September 13, 2000.