Testing the Exposure Limits of Kodak TMAX 400

[@BryanBirks]

TMax 100 is no different. Was messing around on my last shot and overexposed 7 stops for fun. Turned out fine. Incredible amount of latitude and even lower grain. Chef’s kiss.

[@KyleMcDougall]

It’s definitely impressive. Really enjoying this film so far. Gotta grab some 100 and try it out!

[@noirceur_]

Tmax 100 is my favorite film stock. Those deep blacks, and creamy smooth whites and highlights pulled me in. And then the film stock +/- 3 stops it doesn't matter, handles it all so well. Not to mention I personally think the tonal range rendering is better than Tri-X, even though I know people don't agree with that. (aka Platon haha)

[@anamorphicalan]

Hi I am still to over exposed film. I shot my friends portraits with tmax 100 and Extar 100 today. I normally push films for my abstract. How about portraits? How much can I push 100 film none and colour? Tri max push to 800 and extar push to 400 is ok?

[@sterioma]

It would be interesting to see the negatives or a contact sheet. It's hard to understand what a scanner is doing behind the scenes. Three stop under is a pretty severe underexposure, the shadows should sit pretty close to the film toe, however small it may be, they should be quite compressed.

[@bebox7]

Exactly - these tests are great but it’s impossible to tell how they actually look without being able to download the files. Plus seeing the negs on a light table beside each other would help to show relative to each other what is going on.

[@Rainn_F]

love these videos testing the exposure limits of films. hopefully, Begger pancro 400 is on the list next.

[@TXLorenzo]

Great to know the limits of flexibility of B&W and how easy it is to still recover a normal picture from these extreme ranges. Also, it is nice to know you can kick up the shutter speed in a pinch and still rely on getting a good image.

[@stefan_becker]

TMAX 400 is probably the technically best 400 film. I especially like the look of TMAX 400 in XTOL 1+1.

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

Yep, and super convenient workflow too. Pull dev out to two stops requires no adjustments. Push out to three stops increases dev time by a couple of minutes as I recall. TMY2 and Xtol are made for each other.

[@danielerdos3046]

Tbh I like 3 stops under with the edits the most. It was the most contrasty and punchy and it suits this photo amazingly :)

[@WesleyVerhoevePhotography]

my favorite too! especially in 120

[@spotMATic]

I know TMax 400 isn't the most popular, but personally I appreciate it's latitude.

[@cameraprepper7938]

I used the Kodak TMAX400 120 film for many years, I shot it at 200 ASA/ISO and developed it in a thin solution for a long time with very few and very gently agitations, in that way the film had more grey tones and had still very good contrast, in modern words, larger dynamic range. I guess you can do the same with a Ilford Delta 400 film. Of paper I used Ilford Multigrade. Made great images from my 6x6 Hasselblad !

[@JeffSmudde]

Have you given a shot at Tri-X 400? It's my go-to for black & white, looks very similar to Tmax, but to me is very much a middle-ground between Tmax and HP5

[@KyleMcDougall]

Just shot a few rolls of it and definitely enjoyed it. Not sure if I like it more than TMAX yet. Need to work with both a bit more.

[@Raychristofer]

Great job on this review kyle, in my review of this film I was also perplexed as to why so many people dislike T-Maxx because I never had exposure or scanning issues. I actually think this film is mandatory for 35 mm if you want to get the most detail. For medium format it looked almost exactly like digital for me though so it's important to factor that in for your needs

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks! Yeah, everyone will have their own preferences when it comes to these bw stocks. I’m loving TMAX so far and feel like it had just the right amount of character for me.

[@ldstirling]

What developer did the lab use to develop your Tmax 400 film? I hazard to say that, unlike C-41 color negative, black and white films will respond differently to over and underexposure if a different developer is used. While I've heard that Tmax developer really makes the Tmax films sing, I've had spectacular results at home developing with HC-110. Using Rodinal to develop Tmax film resulted in a super sharp image, but with more grain. I'd think you'd want to know how the lab processes your B&W since results can vary greatly with different developer.

[@mrottomaddox]

He literally says in the video which lab was used.

[@ldstirling]

@@mrottomaddox the lab used to develop film is not the same as which chemical developer was used to develop the film.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Developer was mentioned in the video as well. It was XTOL.

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

Try Xtol with this film. You should see better results than HC-110. TMY2 and Xtol were made for each other. I understand that HC-110 is inexpensive and convenient. However, there’s really no free lunch. The trick with a Xtol workflow is get the large mylar one gallon coffee bladder from your local Starbucks. That’ll let you mix in bulk, draw out just the right amount when needed. Push down on the bladder to evacuate air as you draw down to keep the remainder from oxidizing.

[@ldstirling]

@@RobertLeeAtYT Thanks for the info. However, I use both Rodinal and HC-110 specifically because they fit my workflow. I don't shoot or develop enough black and white film to justify mixing up larger volumes of developers. I like using HC-110 and Rodinal as one-shot developers because the concentrate is shelf stable for years.

[@rodrigoverissimo4169]

Great tests! Also great latitude for scanning. Do keep in mind that all tmax stocks are not forgiving in the darkroom if they’re not exposed properly. It’s also tricky to have great results. That is why I feel that it’s just better to scan and print digitally to get great results easily from tmax.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Good to know. Thanks, Rodrigo!

[@rodrigoverissimo4169]

@@KyleMcDougall You're welcome Kyle! Keep up with your videos and work, they're pretty good. Take care

[@wilwilson8146]

Bro. I very much appreciate your film latitude tests. I can not right now afford many films to test like this. This info is super handy for choosing film on a limited budget. Cheers

[@titofly00]

I love this series, a test for ilford delta 400 would be cool to see against the hp5

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers. Glad you’re enjoying it. I’ll keep delta 400 in mind for the future.

[@bvanderveen]

I’m a little confused why the underexposed images have their histograms moved to the right and their darkest values are actually lighter than the less underexposed ones? What is the scanner doing there? Seems like it’s assigning the brightest areas it finds (darkest on the negative) to pure white in the output file? Naively I would assume black (transparent on the negative) would have zero brightness in the resulting file. Doesn’t seem to be what the process ends up with. Any thoughts?

[@filipecostapt6427]

Would be really cool to see a test like this done to a cheaper stock like Fomapan 200

[@themike97_58]

wow im amazed how forgiving this film is. i shot a roll with plans to push 1 stop, but i forgot to label the canister, so now i have two rolls, one shot at box speed, and one shot at 800. I was worried that developing both normally would result in low contrast, washed out garbage, but im no longer worried. if i didnt see them back to back, i wouldnt be able to tell anything was wrong.

[@peterfarr9591]

You'll probably find with your own development you can get away with a lot more "off" exposures were B&W if you do compensating development. Ansel Adams was a big fan of setting his shadow one stop higher than normal for shadow placement and then using compensating development w/ HC110. The extreme side of the being stand development. I recently did stand dev testing with rodinal and was shocked how much shadow detail there was. Almost like a super natural looking HDR shot

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

Yep. I used to push and pull develop as a matter of course with TMY2 (and Xtol 1:1). The goal was to fit scene dynamic range to the desired density excursion of the developed negative. That really gave lots of tonal resolution to play with in post. Never got around to do full stand development though. That was a bit esoteric even for me.

[@samskordi6079]

Keep up the work, loving the vids from the uk.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers Sam!

[@ricedumplings3767]

Nice video sir! I have a question! When I over my whole roll for 1 stop. Should I use less time when developing it or just use normal time and use lightroom(or anything) to minus 1 stop exposure？

[@KyleMcDougall]

Just develop as normal. At one stop over, the compensation will be made by your scanning software.

[@ricedumplings3767]

@@KyleMcDougall Thank you!

[@BarcelonJ]

Amazing! I’m almost done with my first roll.

[@8andre3]

This exposure limit series is very helpful to guide me through choosing film stocks! Please make a video where you shoot 35mm, I'm rather curious

[@MD-en3zm]

Interesting - makes me think that when I can’t shoot at the shutter speed I want to (due to shake), I can just underexpose by 1 or even 2 stops and get a better result than trying to hold it steady and getting shake. These are very helpful videos. I’m actually quite surprised at how little subtle changes in exposure make with all the negative films you are testing, b/w and color.

[@mrN3w7]

One of my favourite films actually :).

[@johnburrow4124]

Thanks for this video and the entire series on black and white film stock. Quick question: are you over and under exposing by simply pushing or pulling the stock? Or, are you adjusting other things? I also wonder how you meter. Do you have a video on your method to meter light?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey John, the under and over exposure is by simply adjusting the shutter speed. No pushing or pulling. Metering all depends on the scene. For a simple scene like this, the internal center weighted meter on the Pentax was used, and I also checked with a Sekonic L-558R.

[@johnburrow4124]

@@KyleMcDougall thanks for the reply!

[@kevincarver4759]

Can you test delta 400? I shot it a few times and I really like the grain style of it but I shot some tmax 400 recently and liked it a lot too.

[@KyleMcDougall]

For sure. I'll keep it in mind for the future.

[@MoniSeinSohn]

I'd love to see you doing this with Delta 400 in 35mm :) I'm currently buying HP5 in bulk but would be interested in using a more modern film.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I’ll definitely keep Delta in mind for a future vid.

[@MoniSeinSohn]

@@KyleMcDougall Great 👍🏻 But I guess not in 35mm, right? Btw I was quite with your findings regarding TMax 400. I always thought it wasn’t that flexible.

[@Thorpal]

It is really an underated film that still suffers for the reputation it earned when Kodak realesed it in the 80's for not being as easy to handle compare to Tri-X. From what I've heard it was said to be not that flexible both during the shoot, development time/temperature and with an enlarger. Nowadays Ilford Delta 400 might bring a sharper feel to the picture but, as you showed, Tmax400 can handle underexposure in ways Delta 400 would never consider. Tmax400 is my go-to choice when I need to push a film up to 3200 iso and want a clean result, exposed properly you'll get slightly less grain than a Tri-X and nice shadow areas !

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yeah, so far I’m enjoying TMAX more than Tri-X. Both great films but I prefer the first one.

[@mpk33]

T-Max 100/400 for sharp & punchy, but give Ilford FP4 a try for that classic creamy b&w look.

[@SinaFarhat]

Thanks for the great information!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers.

[@RH-adventure]

This is great. I wonder how Tmax 400 compares to Delta400, same style of film but a lot cheaper. Delta 400 is my favourite black and white but this looks really good as well.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I’d be curious as well. Have only shot one roll of Delta!

[@adamevans1989]

I do not get the hate that exists for this film, it leaves room to mess up, has nice subtle grain, doesn't require too much faffing around in edit. I guess its cardinal sin is that it isn't HP5 or Tri-X

[@dislocational]

so did the lab push / pull while developing or they developed it as 400?

[@KyleMcDougall]

developed as 400

[@lvikng57]

Kodak acts like you get a free push with tmax400 (shoot at 800 and it's the exact same) I've never personally attempted that on purpose, but looks like this confirms it.

[@nickfanzo]

If you darkroom print EI 800 looks identical on fiber paper, compared to Ei 400. It’s also cheaper than Tri x

[@miguela.migallon5055]

Lets a try to adox cms 20 ii...

[@GJones-zx5nr]

Thanks

[@JV_Automotive]

overexposed Tmax 400 +6 over *in jeremy clarksons voice* “OH NO, ANYWAY” 😂

[@KyleMcDougall]

😂

[@AlexLuyckxPhoto]

Man, I never knew that TMax 400 could take such abuse. I'm assuming that no adjustments were made in development?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey Alex, nope, no adjustments during development. I was impressed as well.

[@nobodytoomusic]

I actually find that Tmax 400 gets a bad rap. I love the punch and contrast, great blacks. I use it for street shots all the time!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yeah, I'm really enjoying. As mentioned, my current favourite.

[@nobodytoomusic]

@@KyleMcDougall Same here brother!

[@andywalczak7659]

Where abouts did you shoot looks like Kent uk

[@KyleMcDougall]

This was near Reading.

[@andywalczak7659]

@@KyleMcDougall oh bloody hell looks like Kent 🤣🤣🤣 stunning photography kyle

[@stephencaserta2969]

Would love to see TMAX 3200

[@Michele_Berardi]

What about TX400? I shoot an entire roll of it at 200 ISO, shall I develop it at 400 or 200? Have anyone ever tried?

[@sharonleibel]

Who gives Kyle a thumbs down? 🤨

[@KBRC81]

People who like to push their BW film .

[@sharonleibel]

@@KBRC81 🤦🏼‍♂️

[@KBRC81]

@@sharonleibel 😆

[@RyansCustomShopandGearOutlet]

Why digitally edit real film? Get an enlarger, and have some darkroom fun. Real negatives enlarged on real photo paper reveal details you will never see in scanned negatives. It's truly magic.

[@ChristopherVisser]

Is that an Evo 4 I spy?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Haha, seriously, good eye!

[@therazor9875]

Not sure I get this test. Are all the negs from the same roll? So it’s not that you rated the roll different than it’s nominal ISO speed, but you actually took pictures overexposing and underexposing? If that’s the case, and the lab developed the roll for an ISO speed of 400. Then the results could actually loo even better if one exposes the whole role for certain ISO and compensates in the development....

[@eatfrog]

Compensating in development adjusts contrast in the same way that was done here in lightroom. I doubt there would be that much difference.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yeah, you got it. The film was developed at box speed.

[@Walkercolt1]

I have NO interests in your scans. I make bayrta enlargements mostly on Ilford GRADED papers. This BS about "exposure latitude" is just that, BS! For any given subject, lighting and contrast situation, there is ONE CORRECT exposure, ONE CORRECT Development time, and ONE CORRECT Print contrast. This is called THE ZONE SYSTEM! It works. Real-life says if you miss the PERFECT exposure by about 1/3rd of a stop, it USUALLY will yield a PRINTABLE negative, IF the lighting contrast isn't too high. The "spray and pray" attitude that has over-taken 21st Century image makers is very disturbing to me, especially if they are using film. I learned in the 1950's with a 4x5 press camera and film emulsions with NO latitude, and I was expected to take out four sheets of film and come back with three (or more) saleable images-no excuses. The customer DIDN'T CARE "WHY"! Today I sell 99.5% 4x5 and 8x10 color transparencies with NO exposure or color correction possible of products. I'm "retired", nearly 70 and could gross 8 figures if I wanted to work 90 hours a week, after 4 strokes where I've had to teach myself to walk, feed myself, talk, etc. I process EVERYTHING I sell in-house.

[@KyleBartReidFilm]

You’re a wild one for sure.