# First shot with Nikkormat FTN



## gsgary

I picked up the FTN at our club auction for £10 and loaded it with a roll of 20 years out of date Tmax400 (pushed to iso1600) that i also bought at the auction then scanned it with a Plustek 7500i that i bought for £12 at the auction


----------



## Gary A.

Looks pretty grainy ... could be the old film, could be your developer, or both ... the camera works. Gotta love those old Nikons.


----------



## tirediron

Nice!


----------



## gsgary

Gary A. said:


> Looks pretty grainy ... could be the old film, could be your developer, or both ... the camera works. Gotta love those old Nikons.


Probably the rodinal and pushing it 2 stops, FTN with never take the place of my M4's


----------



## gsgary

tirediron said:


> Nice!


Cheers


----------



## Fred Berg

Nice, Gary, but I suspect you scratched the film by pulling back through instead of removing it from the cartridge (mark just above the cuff). I tried one this way (after you mentioned doing this in another thread) and one or two of the frames had similar scratches, so although it was much easier to load on to the reel, I won't do it again!


----------



## Derrel

Decades-expired B&W and Rodinal sound to me like a bad combination. Overall it looks a bit fogged. Good to know the camera's still working alright. I regret almost every single roll I developed in Rodinal...that golfball grain and all...


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> Decades-expired B&W and Rodinal sound to me like a bad combination. Overall it looks a bit fogged. Good to know the camera's still working alright. I regret almost every single roll I developed in Rodinal...that golfball grain and all...



And stand developed because i was guessing exposure


----------



## gsgary

Fred Berg said:


> Nice, Gary, but I suspect you scratched the film by pulling back through instead of removing it from the cartridge (mark just above the cuff). I tried one this way (after you mentioned doing this in another thread) and one or two of the frames had similar scratches, so although it was much easier to load on to the reel, I won't do it again!



They have never scratched before but i usually roll my own


----------



## gsgary

What scratch


----------



## Gary A.

I always use HC110 for pushed film.


----------



## Derrel

I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!

I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "*Weak,detail-free shadows*" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.

I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.


----------



## gsgary

I have only got Rodinal at the moment because it works great with my usual films, Foma,Agfa apx, Orwo un54, Double X, i also picked up from the auction 8 rolls of original Agfa apx100 exp1997 should still be good because it was still cold when i bought it, got 18 rolls of b+w for £2


----------



## pixmedic

im guessing this is just to test the camera. other than for test purposes, this pic is a tosser. 
Plus, it needed fill flash.


----------



## Fred Berg

gsgary said:


> What scratch



Er, why isn't there a Stan Laurel smiley? he asks scratching head!


----------



## timor

Derrel said:


> I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "*Weak,detail-free shadows*" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.
> 
> I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.


Uff... And what will be the developer designed for T-max ?
Consider this, Gary exposed this 20 years past date Tmax 400 2two stops below nominal and developed in Rodinal in STAND process. HOW one is calculating push in stand ? Can you ? If so, don't keep it secret, come on, tell us.   You can't. Neither me or Gary can't do that. There is not much measurable difference in achieved density between 1 hour and two hours stand. Even infectious development has own limits in very weak ( concentration wise ) developers. I think Gary, maybe by accident, did quite well here achieving rather smooth than contrasty negative and high contrast is something you can expect from over developed Tmax. Considering this, this Regan era TMY did very well in Rodinal stand. Grain and fog are rather due to it's age. 
I agree, T grain films in general are not good for pushing as they contain much less silver, than cubical grain films, so there is not much to be "pushed".  Incidentally Rodinal  is not bad developer for Tmax films, however not for stand. It has good pH and very little silver solvants which work well for sharpness and local micro contrast. Unfortunately in prolonged process like stand it starts to replate the little silver it dissolves back on the emulsion building fog, hurting the contrast and sharpness. Tmax film as a rule should be processed quickly. Tmax films outperform any other film, but at the cost of photographer's effort. That's why many old timers has a such low opinion about Tmax, it didn't fit old methods and they didn't want to change them.


----------



## Derrel

The developer for T-Max was made by Kodak...and formulated to offer the best grain AND to develop full emulsion speed...which is something that other, traditional developers suck at.  T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

Bottom line is the image he presented was made using a film that is utter rubbish for push processing in Rodinal. Twenty years out of date T-Max 400, and then he pushes that two stops AND makes a bad developer choice? Come on...as was said above by pixmedic, the result of the entire outdated film/pushed to 1600/guessed development time/wrong development method is.... a binner. Don't shoot the messenger, okay, timor?

Stand developing in 1) a developer designed for traditional silver-type emulsions when was it? Before World War II? Stand developing on 2-stop pushed AND twenty years out of date T-Max 400? All bad choices, but what the heck.

As you mentioned, T-Max is a good film...buuuut....the choice of the wrong developer, and the wrong type of development (stand), and the 20 years' outdated film lead to...a muddy mess witn zero shadow detail, flat tonality, blown out highlights in the upper areas, and overall, golfball-sized grain (Rodinal's speciality!!!), and flat, ugly mid-tones with almost zero microcontrast...

The proof of my opinion lies in the results...yeah, an image was made...and technically, it's very poor. But I know what he was after...just pop a roll of film in, push it two stops, and then take a wild guess at developoing it with whatever developer he happened to have. Obviously, poor choices, Timor. You ought to know that. And again to re-answer *the first dumb, aggressive, insolent question you asked*, "What will be the film developer designed for t-max?" is the one Kodak spent millions of dollars formulating... T-Max Developer B H Photo Video


----------



## bribrius

i would just be ecstatic it came out at all in this case. Shows  my standards......


----------



## Gary A.

Derrel said:


> The developer for T-Max was made by Kodak...and formulated to offer the best grain AND to develop full emulsion speed...which is something that other, traditional developers suck at.  T-Max Developer B H Photo Video
> 
> Bottom line is the image he presented was made using a film that is utter rubbish for push processing in Rodinal. Twenty years out of date T-Max 400, and then he pushes that two stops AND makes a bad developer choice? Come on...as was said above by pixmedic, the result of the entire outdated film/pushed to 1600/guessed development time/wrong development method is.... a binner. Don't shoot the messenger, okay, timor?
> 
> Stand developing in 1) a developer designed for traditional silver-type emulsions when was it? Before World War II? Stand developing on 2-stop pushed AND twenty years out of date T-Max 400? All bad choices, but what the heck.
> 
> As you mentioned, T-Max is a good film...buuuut....the choice of the wrong developer, and the wrong type of development (stand), and the 20 years' outdated film lead to...a muddy mess witn zero shadow detail, flat tonality, blown out highlights in the upper areas, and overall, golfball-sized grain (Rodinal's speciality!!!), and flat, ugly mid-tones with almost zero microcontrast...
> 
> The proof of my opinion lies in the results...yeah, an image was made...and technically, it's very poor. But I know what he was after...just pop a roll of film in, push it two stops, and then take a wild guess at developoing it with whatever developer he happened to have. Obviously, poor choices, Timor. You ought to know that. And again to re-answer *the first dumb, aggressive, insolent question you asked*, "What will be the film developer designed for t-max?" is the one Kodak spent millions of dollars formulating... T-Max Developer B H Photo Video


Welcome back Derrel, lol.


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!
> 
> I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "*Weak,detail-free shadows*" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.
> 
> I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.



But when you can get 18 rolls of b+w for £2 you can't complain


----------



## Benjo255

While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!
> 
> I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "*Weak,detail-free shadows*" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.
> 
> I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when you can get 18 rolls of b+w for £2 you can't complain
Click to expand...

Depends...
If you get 18 rolls of pics like that,  you paid too much.


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!
> 
> I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "*Weak,detail-free shadows*" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.
> 
> I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when you can get 18 rolls of b+w for £2 you can't complain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends...
> If you get 18 rolls of pics like that,  you paid too much.
Click to expand...

Thats just down to shooting it 2 stops under and stand developing, I like grain 8 of the rolls is a wonderful film  original Agfa apx100


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!
> 
> I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "*Weak,detail-free shadows*" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.
> 
> I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when you can get 18 rolls of b+w for £2 you can't complain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends...
> If you get 18 rolls of pics like that,  you paid too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats just down to shooting it 2 stops under and stand developing, I like grain 8 of the rolls is a wonderful film  original Agfa apx100
Click to expand...

I don't know much about stand developing, but if that was an issue, have you tried developing it sitting down?


----------



## gsgary

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!
> 
> I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "*Weak,detail-free shadows*" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.
> 
> I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when you can get 18 rolls of b+w for £2 you can't complain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends...
> If you get 18 rolls of pics like that,  you paid too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats just down to shooting it 2 stops under and stand developing, I like grain 8 of the rolls is a wonderful film  original Agfa apx100
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know much about stand developing, but if that was an issue, have you tried developing it sitting down?
Click to expand...

Im just about to wet print it you won't see as much grain


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!
> 
> I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "*Weak,detail-free shadows*" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.
> 
> I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when you can get 18 rolls of b+w for £2 you can't complain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends...
> If you get 18 rolls of pics like that,  you paid too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats just down to shooting it 2 stops under and stand developing, I like grain 8 of the rolls is a wonderful film  original Agfa apx100
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know much about stand developing, but if that was an issue, have you tried developing it sitting down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im just about to wet print it you won't see as much grain
Click to expand...

*generic "better when it's wet" joke*


----------



## bribrius

Benjo255 said:


> While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.


can't even tell. i have a couple old lenses that look oof when they are in the most in focus they go. wonder what the lens is? some are just plain soft. Others, the manual focus is a little to be desired at times.


----------



## timor

Derrel said:


> The developer for T-Max was made by Kodak...and formulated to offer the best grain AND to develop full emulsion speed...which is something that other, traditional developers suck at.  T-Max Developer B H Photo Video
> 
> Bottom line is the image he presented was made using a film that is utter rubbish for push processing in Rodinal. Twenty years out of date T-Max 400, and then he pushes that two stops AND makes a bad developer choice? Come on...as was said above by pixmedic, the result of the entire outdated film/pushed to 1600/guessed development time/wrong development method is.... a binner. Don't shoot the messenger, okay, timor?
> 
> Stand developing in 1) a developer designed for traditional silver-type emulsions when was it? Before World War II? Stand developing on 2-stop pushed AND twenty years out of date T-Max 400? All bad choices, but what the heck.
> 
> As you mentioned, T-Max is a good film...buuuut....the choice of the wrong developer, and the wrong type of development (stand), and the 20 years' outdated film lead to...a muddy mess witn zero shadow detail, flat tonality, blown out highlights in the upper areas, and overall, golfball-sized grain (Rodinal's speciality!!!), and flat, ugly mid-tones with almost zero microcontrast...
> 
> The proof of my opinion lies in the results...yeah, an image was made...and technically, it's very poor. But I know what he was after...just pop a roll of film in, push it two stops, and then take a wild guess at developoing it with whatever developer he happened to have. Obviously, poor choices, Timor. You ought to know that. And again to re-answer *the first dumb, aggressive, insolent question you asked*, "What will be the film developer designed for t-max?" is the one Kodak spent millions of dollars formulating... T-Max Developer B H Photo Video


Uff... When you say something, you say something. I think the furthest you ever went with you b&w film development was factory recommendations. And maybe even not that far. Kodak specifically says: Tmax dev is a general purpose formula, NOT MADE specifically for Tmax films. Name has nothing to do with that, Kodak recommends this formula to every film Kodak makes. It is just automatic assumption and wrong logic. Tmax dev was destined to replace d76 as more practical and just better formula for modern films. Formulas made especially for Tmax films you can buy at Photographers formulary, stuff designed by former Kodak chemists. If you ever gonna get around to develop tmax 100 use Xray developer. But than it comes from guy asking dumb questions, why would you consider...


----------



## bribrius

timor said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The developer for T-Max was made by Kodak...and formulated to offer the best grain AND to develop full emulsion speed...which is something that other, traditional developers suck at.  T-Max Developer B H Photo Video
> 
> Bottom line is the image he presented was made using a film that is utter rubbish for push processing in Rodinal. Twenty years out of date T-Max 400, and then he pushes that two stops AND makes a bad developer choice? Come on...as was said above by pixmedic, the result of the entire outdated film/pushed to 1600/guessed development time/wrong development method is.... a binner. Don't shoot the messenger, okay, timor?
> 
> Stand developing in 1) a developer designed for traditional silver-type emulsions when was it? Before World War II? Stand developing on 2-stop pushed AND twenty years out of date T-Max 400? All bad choices, but what the heck.
> 
> As you mentioned, T-Max is a good film...buuuut....the choice of the wrong developer, and the wrong type of development (stand), and the 20 years' outdated film lead to...a muddy mess witn zero shadow detail, flat tonality, blown out highlights in the upper areas, and overall, golfball-sized grain (Rodinal's speciality!!!), and flat, ugly mid-tones with almost zero microcontrast...
> 
> The proof of my opinion lies in the results...yeah, an image was made...and technically, it's very poor. But I know what he was after...just pop a roll of film in, push it two stops, and then take a wild guess at developoing it with whatever developer he happened to have. Obviously, poor choices, Timor. You ought to know that. And again to re-answer *the first dumb, aggressive, insolent question you asked*, "What will be the film developer designed for t-max?" is the one Kodak spent millions of dollars formulating... T-Max Developer B H Photo Video
> 
> 
> 
> Uff... When you say something, you say something. I think the furthest you ever went with you b&w film development was factory recommendations. And maybe even not that far. Kodak specifically says: Tmax dev is a general purpose formula, NOT MADE specifically for Tmax films. Name has nothing to do with that, Kodak recommends this formula to every film Kodak makes. It is just automatic assumption and wrong logic. Tmax dev was destined to replace d76 as more practical and just better formula for modern films. Formulas made especially for Tmax films you can buy at Photographers formulary, stuff designed by former Kodak chemists. If you ever gonna get around to develop tmax 100 use Xray developer. But than it comes from guy asking dumb questions, why would you consider...
Click to expand...

how do you even know all this?????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## gsgary

Benjo255 said:


> While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.


It's sharp enough shot at 1/30 F2


----------



## gsgary

bribrius said:


> Benjo255 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> can't even tell. i have a couple old lenses that look oof when they are in the most in focus they go. wonder what the lens is? some are just plain soft. Others, the manual focus is a little to be desired at times.
Click to expand...

Nikkor hc auto F2 50mm


----------



## gsgary

gsgary said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benjo255 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> can't even tell. i have a couple old lenses that look oof when they are in the most in focus they go. wonder what the lens is? some are just plain soft. Others, the manual focus is a little to be desired at times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nikkor hc auto F2 50mm
Click to expand...

£12 not bad for camera and lens


----------



## bribrius

gsgary said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benjo255 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> can't even tell. i have a couple old lenses that look oof when they are in the most in focus they go. wonder what the lens is? some are just plain soft. Others, the manual focus is a little to be desired at times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nikkor hc auto F2 50mm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> £12 not bad for camera and lens
Click to expand...

agreed.
i have low standards. if i shoot something on my ten dollar film camera with my three dollar film i am pretty happy it came out at all.  i think i mentioned that above.  Especially with 20 year old film.  Now if i had a 4k camera and a 2k lens, that is something else... take it for what it is worth, if anything.


----------



## gsgary

bribrius said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benjo255 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> can't even tell. i have a couple old lenses that look oof when they are in the most in focus they go. wonder what the lens is? some are just plain soft. Others, the manual focus is a little to be desired at times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nikkor hc auto F2 50mm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> £12 not bad for camera and lens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agreed.
> i have low standards. if i shoot something on my ten dollar film camera with my three dollar film i am pretty happy it came out at all.  i think i mentioned that above.  Especially with 20 year old film.  Now if i had a 4k camera and a 2k lens, that is something else... take it for what it is worth, if anything.
Click to expand...

Wait till you see the next shots


----------



## timor

bribrius said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The developer for T-Max was made by Kodak...and formulated to offer the best grain AND to develop full emulsion speed...which is something that other, traditional developers suck at.  T-Max Developer B H Photo Video
> 
> Bottom line is the image he presented was made using a film that is utter rubbish for push processing in Rodinal. Twenty years out of date T-Max 400, and then he pushes that two stops AND makes a bad developer choice? Come on...as was said above by pixmedic, the result of the entire outdated film/pushed to 1600/guessed development time/wrong development method is.... a binner. Don't shoot the messenger, okay, timor?
> 
> Stand developing in 1) a developer designed for traditional silver-type emulsions when was it? Before World War II? Stand developing on 2-stop pushed AND twenty years out of date T-Max 400? All bad choices, but what the heck.
> 
> As you mentioned, T-Max is a good film...buuuut....the choice of the wrong developer, and the wrong type of development (stand), and the 20 years' outdated film lead to...a muddy mess witn zero shadow detail, flat tonality, blown out highlights in the upper areas, and overall, golfball-sized grain (Rodinal's speciality!!!), and flat, ugly mid-tones with almost zero microcontrast...
> 
> The proof of my opinion lies in the results...yeah, an image was made...and technically, it's very poor. But I know what he was after...just pop a roll of film in, push it two stops, and then take a wild guess at developoing it with whatever developer he happened to have. Obviously, poor choices, Timor. You ought to know that. And again to re-answer *the first dumb, aggressive, insolent question you asked*, "What will be the film developer designed for t-max?" is the one Kodak spent millions of dollars formulating... T-Max Developer B H Photo Video
> 
> 
> 
> Uff... When you say something, you say something. I think the furthest you ever went with you b&w film development was factory recommendations. And maybe even not that far. Kodak specifically says: Tmax dev is a general purpose formula, NOT MADE specifically for Tmax films. Name has nothing to do with that, Kodak recommends this formula to every film Kodak makes. It is just automatic assumption and wrong logic. Tmax dev was destined to replace d76 as more practical and just better formula for modern films. Formulas made especially for Tmax films you can buy at Photographers formulary, stuff designed by former Kodak chemists. If you ever gonna get around to develop tmax 100 use Xray developer. But than it comes from guy asking dumb questions, why would you consider...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you even know all this?????????????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...

 Know what ?


----------



## bribrius

timor said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The developer for T-Max was made by Kodak...and formulated to offer the best grain AND to develop full emulsion speed...which is something that other, traditional developers suck at.  T-Max Developer B H Photo Video
> 
> Bottom line is the image he presented was made using a film that is utter rubbish for push processing in Rodinal. Twenty years out of date T-Max 400, and then he pushes that two stops AND makes a bad developer choice? Come on...as was said above by pixmedic, the result of the entire outdated film/pushed to 1600/guessed development time/wrong development method is.... a binner. Don't shoot the messenger, okay, timor?
> 
> Stand developing in 1) a developer designed for traditional silver-type emulsions when was it? Before World War II? Stand developing on 2-stop pushed AND twenty years out of date T-Max 400? All bad choices, but what the heck.
> 
> As you mentioned, T-Max is a good film...buuuut....the choice of the wrong developer, and the wrong type of development (stand), and the 20 years' outdated film lead to...a muddy mess witn zero shadow detail, flat tonality, blown out highlights in the upper areas, and overall, golfball-sized grain (Rodinal's speciality!!!), and flat, ugly mid-tones with almost zero microcontrast...
> 
> The proof of my opinion lies in the results...yeah, an image was made...and technically, it's very poor. But I know what he was after...just pop a roll of film in, push it two stops, and then take a wild guess at developoing it with whatever developer he happened to have. Obviously, poor choices, Timor. You ought to know that. And again to re-answer *the first dumb, aggressive, insolent question you asked*, "What will be the film developer designed for t-max?" is the one Kodak spent millions of dollars formulating... T-Max Developer B H Photo Video
> 
> 
> 
> Uff... When you say something, you say something. I think the furthest you ever went with you b&w film development was factory recommendations. And maybe even not that far. Kodak specifically says: Tmax dev is a general purpose formula, NOT MADE specifically for Tmax films. Name has nothing to do with that, Kodak recommends this formula to every film Kodak makes. It is just automatic assumption and wrong logic. Tmax dev was destined to replace d76 as more practical and just better formula for modern films. Formulas made especially for Tmax films you can buy at Photographers formulary, stuff designed by former Kodak chemists. If you ever gonna get around to develop tmax 100 use Xray developer. But than it comes from guy asking dumb questions, why would you consider...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you even know all this?????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Know what ?
Click to expand...

"stuff designed by former Kodak chemists. If you ever gonna get around to develop tmax 100 use Xray developer"


----------



## timor

Maybe just I am deeper in film than average.
X-ray developer ? It fits profile of what's needed for Tmax 100. To get from this film the best one has to taken care of micro contrast. D76 or HC110 B are not able to do that, this formulas take care only of general contrast. Same with Tmax dev 1+4 and many others. But try Polymax T 1+49 and you tmax film will be sharp, smooth and grainless. Develop it in d76 and see under microscope, what it does to grain.


----------



## bribrius

timor said:


> Maybe just I am deeper in film than average.
> X-ray developer ? It fits profile of what's needed for Tmax 100. To get from this film the best one has to taken care of micro contrast. D76 or HC110 B are not able to do that, this formulas take care only of general contrast. Same with Tmax dev 1+4 and many others. But try Polymax T 1+49 and you tmax film will be sharp, smooth and grainless. Develop it in d76 and see under microscope, what it does to grain.


think i said this before. i get into film more you gonna be my new buddy....


----------



## timor

bribrius said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just I am deeper in film than average.
> X-ray developer ? It fits profile of what's needed for Tmax 100. To get from this film the best one has to taken care of micro contrast. D76 or HC110 B are not able to do that, this formulas take care only of general contrast. Same with Tmax dev 1+4 and many others. But try Polymax T 1+49 and you tmax film will be sharp, smooth and grainless. Develop it in d76 and see under microscope, what it does to grain.
> 
> 
> 
> think i said this before. i get into film more you gonna be my new buddy....
Click to expand...

 Can't wait...


----------



## gsgary

Scan of wet print


----------



## tirediron

EVERYTHING else aside, given that this is holy s**t out of date 400 ASA pushed two stops, I think that's a pretty darn respectable print.


----------



## Gary A.

You clean up the hell out of it with that scan.

As a comparison, new Tri-X pushed to ASA 1600, developed in new HC110.


----------



## timor

Perfection.


----------



## limr

bribrius said:


> how do you even know all this?????????????????????????????????????????



Because timor is an effing darkroom rock star, man. 

And hey, since we're sharing, remember this one? New HP5+ pushed to 1600 in Caffenol C-L (semi-stand development for...hmm, I want to say 45 minutes?)



Street food by limrodrigues, on Flickr


----------



## gsgary

Gary A. said:


> You clean up the hell out of it with that scan.
> 
> As a comparison, new Tri-X pushed to ASA 1600, developed in new HC110.


Straight scan nothing done to it, print looks better than the scan


----------



## Gary A.

gsgary said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clean up the hell out of it with that scan.
> 
> As a comparison, new Tri-X pushed to ASA 1600, developed in new HC110.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight scan nothing done to it, print looks better than the scan
Click to expand...

Fascinating ...


----------



## gsgary

And Fomapan 400 @1600 devloped in rodinal






26 years out of date Tri x @1600 developed in rodinal


----------



## timor

I think Gary is a streight


Gary A. said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clean up the hell out of it with that scan.
> 
> As a comparison, new Tri-X pushed to ASA 1600, developed in new HC110.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight scan nothing done to it, print looks better than the scan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascinating ...
Click to expand...

I think Gary is a straight up shooter. No digital massaging of the pictures.


----------



## gsgary

timor said:


> I think Gary is a streight
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clean up the hell out of it with that scan.
> 
> As a comparison, new Tri-X pushed to ASA 1600, developed in new HC110.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight scan nothing done to it, print looks better than the scan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascinating ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Gary is a straight up shooter. No digital massaging of the pictures.
Click to expand...

Straight as they come well I hope so getting married on D day


----------



## Gary A.

timor said:


> I think Gary is a streight
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clean up the hell out of it with that scan.
> 
> As a comparison, new Tri-X pushed to ASA 1600, developed in new HC110.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight scan nothing done to it, print looks better than the scan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascinating ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Gary is a straight up shooter. No digital massaging of the pictures.
Click to expand...

LOL ... too lazy and incompetent to mess with all those sliders.


----------



## gsgary

Gary A. said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Gary is a streight
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clean up the hell out of it with that scan.
> 
> As a comparison, new Tri-X pushed to ASA 1600, developed in new HC110.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight scan nothing done to it, print looks better than the scan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascinating ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Gary is a straight up shooter. No digital massaging of the pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL ... too lazy and incompetent to mess with all those sliders.
Click to expand...

Whats the point they get adjusted in my darkroom


----------



## timor

Gary A. said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Gary is a streight
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clean up the hell out of it with that scan.
> 
> As a comparison, new Tri-X pushed to ASA 1600, developed in new HC110.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straight scan nothing done to it, print looks better than the scan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascinating ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Gary is a straight up shooter. No digital massaging of the pictures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL ... too lazy and incompetent to mess with all those sliders.
Click to expand...

Now this was not called for. Maybe just he smokes without filter, drinks wisky without water and f... without condom, just to feel alive without any handicaps and help from big brother.


----------



## gsgary

Don't smoke or drink whisky but **** like a rabbit


----------



## timor

gsgary said:


> Don't smoke or drink whisky


 wait, one day i will show up at your door and this will change.


----------



## gsgary

timor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't smoke or drink whisky
> 
> 
> 
> wait, one day i will show up at your door and this will change.
Click to expand...

Never smoked never will but I will take you to my favourite real ale bar


----------



## timor




----------



## Gary A.

Don't drink much whiskey. But when I do it's neat and usually single malt. Now, if you want to appreciate wines. Come on by. I have two small wine frig's full of 90+ stuff. (One frig is in the patio to shorten the walk.)





Here your ale.


----------



## pixmedic

gsgary said:


> Don't smoke or drink whisky but **** like a rabbit


You sh!t pellets?


----------



## tirediron

Gary A. said:


> Don't drink much whiskey. But when I do it's neat and usually single malt. Now, if you want to appreciate wines. Come on by. I have two small wine frig's full of 90+ stuff. (One frig is in the patio to shorten the walk.)


Mehh...  good wine comes in a cardboard box!


----------



## limr

tirediron said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't drink much whiskey. But when I do it's neat and usually single malt. Now, if you want to appreciate wines. Come on by. I have two small wine frig's full of 90+ stuff. (One frig is in the patio to shorten the walk.)
> 
> 
> 
> Mehh...  good wine comes in a cardboard box!
Click to expand...


That's right! A cardboard box that is divided into six slots, each one containing a bottle of good wine


----------



## tirediron

limr said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't drink much whiskey. But when I do it's neat and usually single malt. Now, if you want to appreciate wines. Come on by. I have two small wine frig's full of 90+ stuff. (One frig is in the patio to shorten the walk.)
> 
> 
> 
> Mehh...  good wine comes in a cardboard box!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right! A cardboard box that is divided into six slots, each one containing a bottle of good wine
Click to expand...

WAY too much work.  Push in perforated tab, pull out spout.  Fill water-glass (or simply place mouth under spout).


----------



## Gary A.

tirediron said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't drink much whiskey. But when I do it's neat and usually single malt. Now, if you want to appreciate wines. Come on by. I have two small wine frig's full of 90+ stuff. (One frig is in the patio to shorten the walk.)
> 
> 
> 
> Mehh...  good wine comes in a cardboard box!
Click to expand...

Not in California it doesn't.


----------



## Gary A.

tirediron said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't drink much whiskey. But when I do it's neat and usually single malt. Now, if you want to appreciate wines. Come on by. I have two small wine frig's full of 90+ stuff. (One frig is in the patio to shorten the walk.)
> 
> 
> 
> Mehh...  good wine comes in a cardboard box!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right! A cardboard box that is divided into six slots, each one containing a bottle of good wine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WAY too much work.  Push in perforated tab, pull out spout.  Fill water-glass (or simply place mouth under spout).
Click to expand...

Let's see ... cut foil with foil remover, insert 'lectric cork puller ... press button. Give to help for pouring. Toss cork into fountain. (The wine frig doesn't accommodate box.)


----------



## tirediron

Gary A. said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't drink much whiskey. But when I do it's neat and usually single malt. Now, if you want to appreciate wines. Come on by. I have two small wine frig's full of 90+ stuff. (One frig is in the patio to shorten the walk.)
> 
> 
> 
> Mehh...  good wine comes in a cardboard box!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right! A cardboard box that is divided into six slots, each one containing a bottle of good wine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WAY too much work.  Push in perforated tab, pull out spout.  Fill water-glass (or simply place mouth under spout).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see ... cut foil with foil remover, insert 'lectric cork puller ... press button. Give to help for pouring. Toss cork into fountain. (The wine frig doesn't accommodate box.)
Click to expand...

You're prolly too high-brow to even use a straw!


----------



## Gary A.

tirediron said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't drink much whiskey. But when I do it's neat and usually single malt. Now, if you want to appreciate wines. Come on by. I have two small wine frig's full of 90+ stuff. (One frig is in the patio to shorten the walk.)
> 
> 
> 
> Mehh...  good wine comes in a cardboard box!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right! A cardboard box that is divided into six slots, each one containing a bottle of good wine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WAY too much work.  Push in perforated tab, pull out spout.  Fill water-glass (or simply place mouth under spout).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see ... cut foil with foil remover, insert 'lectric cork puller ... press button. Give to help for pouring. Toss cork into fountain. (The wine frig doesn't accommodate box.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're prolly too high-brow to even use a straw!
Click to expand...

Not a matter of brow ... it is all a matter of ease and comfort. I tried a straw once, it sank to the bottom of the bottle and I couldn't fetch it.  On hot summer days I will toss ice into my wine (that's another story).


----------



## gsgary

Gary A. said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't drink much whiskey. But when I do it's neat and usually single malt. Now, if you want to appreciate wines. Come on by. I have two small wine frig's full of 90+ stuff. (One frig is in the patio to shorten the walk.)
> 
> 
> 
> Mehh...  good wine comes in a cardboard box!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right! A cardboard box that is divided into six slots, each one containing a bottle of good wine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WAY too much work.  Push in perforated tab, pull out spout.  Fill water-glass (or simply place mouth under spout).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's see ... cut foil with foil remover, insert 'lectric cork puller ... press button. Give to help for pouring. Toss cork into fountain. (The wine frig doesn't accommodate box.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're prolly too high-brow to even use a straw! [emoji14]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a matter of brow ... it is all a matter of ease and comfort. I tried a straw once, it sank to the bottom of the bottle and I couldn't fetch it.  On hot summer days I will toss ice into my wine (that's another story).
Click to expand...

Not into red wine I hope


----------



## Gary A.

Whites and wonderful, but reds are great. I even have Chardonnay, Zinfandel, Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinot Noir grapes in the backyard. I don't make wine, but if you can put up with the seeds, the fruit is much tastier than table grapes.


----------



## bribrius

Gary A. said:


> Whites and wonderful, but reds are great. I even have Chardonnay, Zinfandel, Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinot Noir grapes in the backyard. I don't make wine, but if you can put up with the seeds, the fruit is much tastier than table grapes.


i would like to see some more photos from this camera if you have any more??


----------



## Gary A.

bribrius said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites and wonderful, but reds are great. I even have Chardonnay, Zinfandel, Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinot Noir grapes in the backyard. I don't make wine, but if you can put up with the seeds, the fruit is much tastier than table grapes.
> 
> 
> 
> i would like to see some more photos from this camera if you have any more??
Click to expand...

Sure ... from my wine camera:












oops ... forgot this is B&W ...


----------



## gsgary

You can't beat a good French wine


----------



## timor

No matter what men discussion will eventually drift into sex or booze This time is my fault.


----------



## gsgary

timor said:


> No matter what men discussion will eventually drift into sex or booze This time is my fault.


Nothing wrong with sex and booze


----------



## Gary A.

gsgary said:


> You can't beat a good French wine


Au contraire ... go watch the movie "Bottle Shock". California beats French in blind tastings ... they have for decades.


----------



## gsgary

Gary A. said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't beat a good French wine
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire ... go watch the movie "Bottle Shock". California beats French in blind tastings ... they have for decades.
Click to expand...

And UK beats French with their Champagne, but it is only what the so called experts think


----------

