Film Developing Cookbook - Does one really need to overexpose T-grain film by 1-2 stops and pull process to get satisfactory results?

[ame01999]

Throughout the latest Film Developing Cookbook, and especially in the front chapters when the authors recommend film for portraiture/landscape/street photography/etc., modern t-grain films are criticized again and again. Despite the fact that the authors rank definition and minimal granularity over smooth gradation as the prime goals when shooting 35mm (which t-grain films would seem to excel at), they essentially make t-grain films out to be entirely unsatisfactory except when overexposed by 1 to 2 stops (that's an EI of 25 for TMAX 100!) and pull processed.

This seems to be a separate issue than their warnings about the possibility of overly sharp highlights (a consequence of the films' high micro contrast) and sensitivity to changes in development times (which was more a thing with the 1st generation, apparently).

If you get fine results from TMAX or Delta without massive overexposure and underdevelopment, do you understand what the Cookbook's logic might be? The implication seems to be t-grain films are incapable of capturing shadow detail at the box speeds. When I took a Zone System class years back, and we all had access to a densitometer, we found the opposite to be true: conventional, fast films like HP5 were better exposed at 250 than 400 if you wanted Zone II to look any denser than Zone 1; whereas TMAX 100 got shadow detail just fine at EI 100 in ordinary D-76.

Crawley, who developed the FX 37 developer for t-grain films (and of course many more), incidentally recommended that the rule for minimum granularity and maximum sharpness with conventional films—expose and develop for a thin a negative as you can get away with, even if shadows are tricky to print—no longer holds with t-grains, which he think benefit from increased exposure. However, it's never explained quite how much increased exposure Crawley was recommending.

 

[MattKing]

Thread Title updated.
Perhaps @Steve Anchell will chime in.

 

[chuckroast]

Throughout the latest Film Developing Cookbook, and especially in the front chapters when the authors recommend film for portraiture/landscape/street photography/etc., modern t-grain films are criticized again and again. Despite the fact that the authors rank definition and minimal granularity over smooth gradation as the prime goals when shooting 35mm (which t-grain films would seem to excel at), they essentially make t-grain films out to be entirely unsatisfactory except when overexposed by 1 to 2 stops (that's an EI of 25 for TMAX 100!) and pull processed.

This seems to be a separate issue than their warnings about the possibility of overly sharp highlights (a consequence of the films' high micro contrast) and sensitivity to changes in development times (which was more a thing with the 1st generation, apparently).

If you get fine results from TMAX or Delta without massive overexposure and underdevelopment, do you understand what the Cookbook's logic might be? The implication seems to be t-grain films are incapable of capturing shadow detail at the box speeds. When I took a Zone System class years back, and we all had access to a densitometer, we found the opposite to be true: conventional, fast films like HP5 were better exposed at 250 than 400 if you wanted Zone II to look any denser than Zone 1; whereas TMAX 100 got shadow detail just fine at EI 100 in ordinary D-76.

Crawley, who developed the FX 37 developer for t-grain films (and of course many more), incidentally recommended that the rule for minimum granularity and maximum sharpness with conventional films—expose and develop for a thin a negative as you can get away with, even if shadows are tricky to print—no longer holds with t-grains, which he think benefit from increased exposure. However, it's never explained quite how much increased exposure Crawley was recommending.

I've done ZS densitometery and found pretty much everything I shot was 1/2 box speed.

I've done semistand/EMA long development and found pretty much everything was at- or near full box speed.

Personally, I never much liked the look of TMax 100 because it has a decrease in contrast right in the mid-tones starting somewhere around Zone IV. But that's exactly where I want more local contrast because for many of my images, it's the midtones that make the picture sing. That's why semistand/EMA appeal to me when they can be made to work, because they increase local contrast exactly in these middle tones.

While I cannot comment specifically about TMAX or Delta, having spent so little time with either, the aforementioned taught me a very important lesson: The EI you think is "right" fundamentally depends on how you see shadows and/or what kind of shadow luminance you want. And that's not a cut-and-dried thing.

Most of the ZS ethos was built around films like Tri-X that has a very specific film curve that has a distinct S shape - you need a good pop of exposure to get the film to start responding. But the tabular grain films are claimed to have a much longer straight line, so - all things being equal - it shouldn't require a lot of incremental exposure to get decent shadows. That's probably why your denistometery showed what it did.

You're only going to find out one way: Shoot for the shadows you want and try different EIs and development schemes until you get what you want. As always YMMV.

 

[Pioneer]

One of my favorite films.

I'll have to go into my archives and pull up some TMX100 negatives but I have never found shadow detail to be a problem at box speed. I develop in D-23.

I have several rolls sitting on ice right now so I can do some of my own testing if I find the time, or the need.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Throughout the latest Film Developing Cookbook, and especially in the front chapters when the authors recommend film for portraiture/landscape/street photography/etc., modern t-grain films are criticized again and again. Despite the fact that the authors rank definition and minimal granularity over smooth gradation as the prime goals when shooting 35mm (which t-grain films would seem to excel at), they essentially make t-grain films out to be entirely unsatisfactory except when overexposed by 1 to 2 stops (that's an EI of 25 for TMAX 100!) and pull processed.

This seems to be a separate issue than their warnings about the possibility of overly sharp highlights (a consequence of the films' high micro contrast) and sensitivity to changes in development times (which was more a thing with the 1st generation, apparently).

If you get fine results from TMAX or Delta without massive overexposure and underdevelopment, do you understand what the Cookbook's logic might be? The implication seems to be t-grain films are incapable of capturing shadow detail at the box speeds. When I took a Zone System class years back, and we all had access to a densitometer, we found the opposite to be true: conventional, fast films like HP5 were better exposed at 250 than 400 if you wanted Zone II to look any denser than Zone 1; whereas TMAX 100 got shadow detail just fine at EI 100 in ordinary D-76.

Crawley, who developed the FX 37 developer for t-grain films (and of course many more), incidentally recommended that the rule for minimum granularity and maximum sharpness with conventional films—expose and develop for a thin a negative as you can get away with, even if shadows are tricky to print—no longer holds with t-grains, which he think benefit from increased exposure. However, it's never explained quite how much increased exposure Crawley was recommending.

No, an increase of 2/3 of a stop is almost exactly perfect.

 

[Milpool]

A lot of bad/oversimplified/misleading information and some ancient mythology for good measure. Dispense with the cookbooks.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

A lot of bad/oversimplified/misleading information and some ancient mythology for good measure. Dispense with the cookbooks.

I agree. My testing shows that all B&W films benefit from a little more exposure than ISO standards call for, but not more than 2/3 stop, for the most part. It depends on how you take your meter readings. I own several cameras, and they are all calibrated by a good repairman.

 

[ic-racer]

Speed rating cannot be separated from metering technique. One can't know how much exposure the film received without knowing both.

"I get good results when I place my highlights on Zone VI and rate the film at Box speed divided by 3 ...." etc, etc, ...

"I use a 1932 Moskova Simplex [with it's untested slow shutter] and rate my film at Box Speed times 2 ..." etc..

"With my Famous Brand Super Precision Meter [which unknowingly only works with mercury cells] I rate all my film at Box Speed minus one stop..." etc.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For T-grain films, 2/3rds of a stop more exposure works well for me. In fact, all of the conventional grain films that I use, with the exception of P30 (EI 32), and CatLABS 80 II (EI 32), also respond very well to an increase of 2/3rds stop... Bergger 400 is a full stop.

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot Tmax 400 at 400 with good highlights and shadows when developed in Tmax Developer or DDX, also good in DK50 and Acufine. In D76 or Clayton F76+ or MCM 100 320 seems to work. I think John Saxon speaks well of both Tmax 100 and 400, not sure what his E.I is.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

When I use an incident meter, I set it to the ISO/ASA number on the film box, but I open the lens aperture by half an F/stop more than the meter indicates.
If the subject is dark (low key) I give a whole stop more exposure.
I have used this method for negative films for years. I was taught this by a professional portrait and wedding photographer.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Throughout the latest Film Developing Cookbook, and especially in the front chapters when the authors recommend film for portraiture/landscape/street photography/etc., modern t-grain films are criticized again and again. Despite the fact that the authors rank definition and minimal granularity over smooth gradation as the prime goals when shooting 35mm (which t-grain films would seem to excel at), they essentially make t-grain films out to be entirely unsatisfactory except when overexposed by 1 to 2 stops (that's an EI of 25 for TMAX 100!) and pull processed.

This seems to be a separate issue than their warnings about the possibility of overly sharp highlights (a consequence of the films' high micro contrast) and sensitivity to changes in development times (which was more a thing with the 1st generation, apparently).

If you get fine results from TMAX or Delta without massive overexposure and underdevelopment, do you understand what the Cookbook's logic might be? The implication seems to be t-grain films are incapable of capturing shadow detail at the box speeds. When I took a Zone System class years back, and we all had access to a densitometer, we found the opposite to be true: conventional, fast films like HP5 were better exposed at 250 than 400 if you wanted Zone II to look any denser than Zone 1; whereas TMAX 100 got shadow detail just fine at EI 100 in ordinary D-76.

Crawley, who developed the FX 37 developer for t-grain films (and of course many more), incidentally recommended that the rule for minimum granularity and maximum sharpness with conventional films—expose and develop for a thin a negative as you can get away with, even if shadows are tricky to print—no longer holds with t-grains, which he think benefit from increased exposure. However, it's never explained quite how much increased exposure Crawley was recommending.

Can you quote the pages of the cookbook where this information was found or have you misrepresented it?
Where is "Throughout the ...book", and where is " 2 stops and pull processed "?
AFAIK this book has been in print since 1998 and presumably sold thousands of copies and the latest version was reviewed by some of the top names in the field before publication.

 

[runswithsizzers]

@Alan Johnson, I think my copy of the Film Developing Cookbook is the first edition (c1998). On page 15, there is a sidebar which states,
---
"It is our opinion that tabular grain films are inferior to conventional grain films. [...] Should you use these films , we suggest you try overexposing by up to two stops and developing for 20-30% less time."
---

 

[chuckroast]

Speed rating cannot be separated from metering technique. One can't know how much exposure the film received without knowing both.

"I get good results when I place my highlights on Zone VI and rate the film at Box speed divided by 3 ...." etc, etc, ...

"I use a 1932 Moskova Simplex [with it's untested slow shutter] and rate my film at Box Speed times 2 ..." etc..

"With my Famous Brand Super Precision Meter [which unknowingly only works with mercury cells] I rate all my film at Box Speed minus one stop..." etc.

This is exactly on point. The whole point of Zone System Personal EI is to take into account your way of metering, exposing, agitating, your meter's calibration, your thermometer, your shutter, your... entire workflow.

I've done densiometric testing on dozens of films using my workflow and equipment and found that - with conventional development (i.e., not semistand or EMA) - I get about 1/2 box speed pretty consistently. But that is based on the Zone system definition that Zone I should show up as 0.1 DU above FB+F.

And there's the rub. Just because you hit this magical exposure doesn't speak to the overall film curve, how you visualize shadows, or what kind of midtone separation and microcontrast you want. All of these things will affect your development discipline and in one degree or another affect the effective EI.

So, these days, I just start with 1/2 box speed and 20% less than recommended development and then just "tune by eye" when working with a new film. In truth, I more and more find myself using Extreme Minimum Agitation (EMA) methods because I like the effect this has on edge transitions and mid tone contrast. This has the happy effect of delivery an EI that is near- or at box speed pretty consistently.

 

[Milpool]

This is exactly on point. The whole point of Zone System Personal EI is to take into account your way of metering, exposing, agitating, your meter's calibration, your thermometer, your shutter, your... entire workflow.

I've done densiometric testing on dozens of films using my workflow and equipment and found that - with conventional development (i.e., not semistand or EMA) - I get about 1/2 box speed pretty consistently. But that is based on the Zone system definition that Zone I should show up as 0.1 DU above FB+F.

And there's the rub. Just because you hit this magical exposure doesn't speak to the overall film curve, how you visualize shadows, or what kind of midtone separation and microcontrast you want. All of these things will affect your development discipline and in one degree or another affect the effective EI.

So, these days, I just start with 1/2 box speed and 20% less than recommended development and then just "tune by eye" when working with a new film. In truth, I more and more find myself using Extreme Minimum Agitation (EMA) methods because I like the effect this has on edge transitions and mid tone contrast. This has the happy effect of delivery an EI that is near- or at box speed pretty consistently.

I think the impression many people have is that the standard Zone System personal EI test adjusts the ISO speed to account for all of those variables you listed, but it doesn’t really do that. The only thing that can do that is experience with consistently under or overexposed negatives.

Barring extreme processing or especially poorly formulated developers, the reason Zone System personal EIs come out 1/2 to 1 stop lower than the ISO speed is because the Zone System speed point (the exposure where you are targeting 0.1 above base+fog) is 2/3 stop below where it is in the ISO criteria. That’s really all there is to it. And that difference can roughly be equated with the 1 stop safety factor which was removed from the ISO speed standard in 1960.

 

[chuckroast]

I think the impression many people have is that the standard Zone System personal EI test adjusts the ISO speed to account for all of those variables you listed, but it doesn’t really do that. The only thing that can do that is experience with consistently under or overexposed negatives.

I'm not sure why you think this. If I do the requisite testing with my own tools and workflow, I will get results specific to my context. So yeah, if I have variability in my meter or thermometer, it's going to build that into my resulting effective EI.

Whether or not this EI is meaningful or not is another kettle of fish for the reasons noted previously. EI alone cannot speak to much beyond shadow detail and then only for some definition of "detail". Obviously, there is way more to making expressive images than just shadows and how I place them.

But let's remember the original context for Zone System. Adams (and White) were trying to bring repeatability and rigor to exposure management that previously had been kind of like voodoo. They were not trying to bring lab precision to the whole business. Part of that was accounting for equipment and measurement variability and expressing it as a corrected personal EI.

The later almost cult-like following that emerged was kind of beyond the original intent in many ways. How many images have we seen with a 14 stop SBR properly Zone Systemed onto a sheet of paper that is utterly boring and dull. As an example, one of my pet peeves is the sacrificing of midtone microcontrast that takes place when people blindly do N- processing to hold the dynamic range per ZS. I know this because I did it for years. I look at those images and wince.

Barring extreme processing or especially poorly formulated developers, the reason Zone System personal EIs come out 1/2 to 1 stop lower than the ISO speed is because the Zone System speed point (the exposure where you are targeting 0.1 above base+fog) is 2/3 stop below where it is in the ISO criteria. That’s really all there is to it. And that difference can roughly be equated with the 1 stop safety factor which was removed from the ISO speed standard in 1960.

Just a fine point. The one stop safety factor wasn't just "removed" if I recall correctly. What happened was that the gradient method of speed calculation was introduced which redefined what "minimum exposure to make an image" really meant. I have the paper somewhere around here that explains all this but I haven't looked at it in a while, but the effect was to declare films a stop faster than they had been historically.

 

[Milpool]

I'm not sure why you think this. If I do the requisite testing with my own tools and workflow, I will get results specific to my context. So yeah, if I have variability in my meter or thermometer, it's going to build that into my resulting effective EI.

Whether or not this EI is meaningful or not is another kettle of fish for the reasons noted previously. EI alone cannot speak to much beyond shadow detail and then only for some definition of "detail". Obviously, there is way more to making expressive images than just shadows and how I place them.

But let's remember the original context for Zone System. Adams (and White) were trying to bring repeatability and rigor to exposure management that previously had been kind of like voodoo. They were not trying to bring lab precision to the whole business. Part of that was accounting for equipment and measurement variability and expressing it as a corrected personal EI.

The later almost cult-like following that emerged was kind of beyond the original intent in many ways. How many images have we seen with a 14 stop SBR properly Zone Systemed onto a sheet of paper that is utterly boring and dull. As an example, one of my pet peeves is the sacrificing of midtone microcontrast that takes place when people blindly do N- processing to hold the dynamic range per ZS. I know this because I did it for years. I look at those images and wince.




Just a fine point. The one stop safety factor wasn't just "removed" if I recall correctly. What happened was that the gradient method of speed calculation was introduced which redefined what "minimum exposure to make an image" really meant. I have the paper somewhere around here that explains all this but I haven't looked at it in a while, but the effect was to declare films a stop faster than they had been historically.

No, the 1960 change was the safety factor. See Nelson - Safety Factors in Camera Exposures.

You might be thinking of the “first excellent print” speeds (print judgement speeds) which led to the fractional gradient which led to Delta-X, which is baked into the ISO standard. But the doubling of speeds in 1960 was the safety factor.

I do agree with you regarding the misinterpretations and/or bad extensions/extrapolations of the original Zone System. N-1 or maybe occasionally N-2 you can get away with but simply trying to squeeze 12 stops into a paper’s LER without thinking about tone reproduction and print quality causes a lot more problems than it solves.

 

[chuckroast]

No, the 1960 change was the safety factor. See Nelson - Safety Factors in Camera Exposures.

You might be thinking of the “first excellent print” speeds (print judgement speeds) which led to the fractional gradient which led to Delta-X, which is baked into the ISO standard. But the doubling of speeds in 1960 was the safety factor.

Ah, ok, that makes sense.

 

[Alan Johnson]

@Alan Johnson, I think my copy of the Film Developing Cookbook is the first edition (c1998). On page 15, there is a sidebar which states,
---
"It is our opinion that tabular grain films are inferior to conventional grain films. [...] Should you use these films , we suggest you try overexposing by up to two stops and developing for 20-30% less time."
---

Thanks, the second edition (2020) has a sidebar on p19:
"We are less hostile to tabular grain films than we were in FDC1. Tabular grain films have higher micro-contrast than conventional (cubic grain) films, so they appear to be sharper and more 'digital' and seem to have less subtlety in fine details. That can be an advantage depending on the subject. Tabular grain films can be made to behave more like conventional grain films if you overexpose them by up to two stops, and develop for 20-30% less time............................."
Appears that this attainment of more conventional grain properties is what is achieved by overexposure/underdevelopment discussed.

 

[titrisol]

Nor sure about the TMaxes
Ilford with DDX:
The old Delta400 needed overexposure, but the current one works fine at 320
Delta 100 is good at box speed
Delta 3200 is made for pushing, and yes overdevelopment helps (rule of thumb was to overdevelop 1 stop)

Fuji Acros (old one) at box speed was thing of beauty

 

[Milpool]

Ah, ok, that makes sense.

Anyhow, we got a little off topic there but my original point was that I don’t know of any sensitometry or rationale supporting the opinions about tabular films in the FDCs or DCs (other than Crawley fandom, perhaps) and I don’t think they hold much water. It’s really not that complicated and I have never seen any evidence supporting assertions about tabular grained films needed special treatment with respect to exposure or development.

Wasn’t it Ansel Adams who said the good old days are often the product of a failing memory?

If we want to be anecdotal about it, have a look at prints by Mark Citret, John Sexton or Brian Kosoff and tell me tabular grained films are inferior.

 

[MattKing]

I prefer the T-Max films.
But they have characteristics of their own, so if those characteristics don't match your preferences, you may have to do things like add two stops of exposure and pull development to achieve results that you do prefer.
Although it seems to me that all that will do is give you flat, grainer negatives.
Sort of like under-developed Tri-X or Plus-X.

 

[MTGseattle]

I was hesitant to jump in on this, but after reading quite a few threads that touch on the same thing (metering technique), I'm going to ask.

When we say something like "...Your personal metering technique." What are we asking? I understand that if you a meter a scene with an slr, and I meter a scene with a pentax digital spot meter, there may be some variance. An incident meter or spot meter only work properly in one way. If we both meter a scene (the same scene for arguments sake) with the same meter that is calibrated properly, what would the variables be?
Each person's opinion regarding the important parts of the scene (shadow placement and/or highlights) are the only things I can come up with. I see "metering technique" come up a lot and am simply curious.

I feel like what we all do with what the meter tells us is where either the magic or folly occurs.

as to t-grain films, I don't consider myself a fine enough printer to know whether Tmax or Delta films have prevented me from attaining the sublime. I'm pretty happy with negatives I have from both films and lately I just try and think more about what the EI will mean regarding my exposure times in the field.

 

[Paul Howell]

I agree that if used properly all types of meters are capable of producing well exposed negatives. With both SLRs and DSLRs I compared matrix with average modes and in good lighting conditions found results to be within a 1/2 stop. And incident meter and an reflective meter with gray card should in most cases match. Yes of course there are situations, strong backlighting or (only to describe) leafey shadows in the foreground with strong lighting in the background when one type of metering does a better job than others. Understanding that a incident meter can only meter 18% gray, while a reflective meter can under or over exposed a scene with a probondeance of dark or light tones. A spot meter, if not shooting zone then what is the 18% gray spot you are metering? Is it the place you want to bet your exposure on? Of course all the meters, on board TTL, on board non TTL, hand held must be properly calibrated. If using a mechanical shutter, how accurate is the the shutter?

Back to T grain films. each to his own, as I noted earlier, depending on the developer I have found box speed to work, or just a 1/4 to 1/2 stop over. But as former PJ I like the speed and straight curve of Tmax 400. When landscapes with Foma 400 and 100, based on my testing, again which developer I rate Foma 400 at 320 or 200 while Foma 100 at 64. Others may find that shooting Tmax 400 at 200 or 100 works best for them.

 

[chuckroast]

I was hesitant to jump in on this, but after reading quite a few threads that touch on the same thing (metering technique), I'm going to ask.

When we say something like "...Your personal metering technique." What are we asking? I understand that if you a meter a scene with an slr, and I meter a scene with a pentax digital spot meter, there may be some variance. An incident meter or spot meter only work properly in one way. If we both meter a scene (the same scene for arguments sake) with the same meter that is calibrated properly, what would the variables be?
Each person's opinion regarding the important parts of the scene (shadow placement and/or highlights) are the only things I can come up with. I see "metering technique" come up a lot and am simply curious.

I feel like what we all do with what the meter tells us is where either the magic or folly occurs.

as to t-grain films, I don't consider myself a fine enough printer to know whether Tmax or Delta films have prevented me from attaining the sublime. I'm pretty happy with negatives I have from both films and lately I just try and think more about what the EI will mean regarding my exposure times in the field.

It's all well and good to say that we want a personal EI that will make shadows show up on Zone III, but the biggest thing about metering variability is how we decide which shadow and how much we want to preserve. While a narrow spot meter may give you the data to do this, each of us decides what the important shadows are and just where exactly we want them to fall.