TMX-100- developer choice

[Mark Sampson]

I was recently given several 100-sheet boxes of 4x5 T-Max 100, slightly expired. During my career at Kodak I shot a lot of this film, mostly in 120 roll form, so I'm well familiar with this emulsion. (I processed it in D-76 1:1 and, later, XTOL 1:1.) But that was mostly for purposes very different than the personal work I'd like to use this windfall for; so my experiences developing this film may not apply. The long-scale, natural-light subjects of my personal work are quite different from the technical and scientific photographs I made on the job. (For the last few years I have used Ilford FP4+, developing in Pyrocat-HD. I'm very happy with that method; before that (for 20 years) I used Tri-X Pan 4164 and developed in PMK.)
So my query is only for people who currently shoot TMX-100.
What do you find to be an effective film developer? It was suggested (by Gordon Hutchings) that PMK did not suit the T-Max films... and today I saw that Photographer's Formulary has a developer for T-Max films, which started this whole idea. Of course since I stock Pyrocat-HD, I will begin testing with that developer. But, well aware that there is no magic bullet, I'm interested in hearing user's experiences.

[Alan Klein]

The pro developer I used worked with XTOL standard supposedly for the best tones and sharpness.

[Corran]

T-Max 100 is my favorite b&w film.

I have used a lot of developers with this film, and currently my favorite is ADOX FX-39. It gives excellent tonality and pretty much full speed. I have also used Acufine with it, rated at 100 or 160, which had lovely tones and was fast working. Finally, for years prior to using the above I used Rodinal (1:50). I shot it at 64 instead and that developer worked well for taming highlights in situations where there was a very large range of brightness.

Never got along with any of the Pyro developers personally.

Rodinal is cheap and easy to work with so I would say give that a go. The others are more expensive, if it matters to you. While I like FX-39 I have recently discovered it doesn't keep well, which is its only drawback. I am considering returning to Rodinal due to this as the negatives were still really good - FX-39 has slightly less grain which matters more for 35mm, which I also shoot a lot of.

I bought a huge lot of TMX 4x5 a couple of years ago and am working through it, but that will run out of course. So if you decide you'd rather spring for something different let me know.......

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've developed it in Pyrocat-HD, as it's my main developer... but in my opinion, TMAX 100 and Xtol 1+1 is a match made in heaven.

[Rich14]

Xtol undiluted.

[AuditorOne]

I develop with D-23 mixed fresh using Ken Lee's formula (7.5g metol to 100g sodium sulfite in 1 liter distilled water. Used stock with no dilution for 135. Dilute 1:1 for 120 and 4x5. All formats agitated continuously using Jobo tank.

[Pere Casals]

I was recently given several 100-sheet boxes of 4x5 T-Max 100, slightly expired. During my career at Kodak I shot a lot of this film, mostly in 120 roll form, so I'm well familiar with this emulsion. (I processed it in D-76 1:1 and, later, XTOL 1:1.) But that was mostly for purposes very different than the personal work I'd like to use this windfall for; so my experiences developing this film may not apply. The long-scale, natural-light subjects of my personal work are quite different from the technical and scientific photographs I made on the job. (For the last few years I have used Ilford FP4+, developing in Pyrocat-HD. I'm very happy with that method; before that (for 20 years) I used Tri-X Pan 4164 and developed in PMK.)
So my query is only for people who currently shoot TMX-100.
What do you find to be an effective film developer? It was suggested (by Gordon Hutchings) that PMK did not suit the T-Max films... and today I saw that Photographer's Formulary has a developer for T-Max films, which started this whole idea. Of course since I stock Pyrocat-HD, I will begin testing with that developer. But, well aware that there is no magic bullet, I'm interested in hearing user's experiences.

Mark, for personal usage, I've been investigating in depth what developer to use for TMX and LF.


This is my conclusion: it doesn't matter at all. What it is important is adjusting your process to get what you want. Time, concentration, agitation... A curve is a curve, just you need to know what curve you want.

Developer choice may modify curve slightly, but what can make a difference is how you use any developer. You may want a full (box) speed developer... not an speed increase or lose. (For that, use the right film)


I use XTOL 1+1 because very low toxicity, and because commonality because for smaller formats I'd prefer XTOL fine grain combined with a sharp look, this looks contradictory, but is what Kodak says:

167553

So no doubt it is the best all around (best acutance, and near best shadow detail, and fine grain), and also it is Low Tox


This said, I saw small details that can favour other options:


You like the slight D-76 midtone expansion instead the 1/3 stop shadow advantage of Xtol, and you don't want to expand mids in the Darkroom.

You want a more compensating developer and don't want do +/-N.

You use rotary, and want control contrast by concentration, so use HC-110.

You want to use your negative for alternative process: use Pyro stain, but TMX is very UV opaque (IIRC) , so not suitable for UV printing.

You want deep shadows, without darkroom complications: Add a toe cutter: Add some Benzotriazole to Xtol or 1.5cc concentrated Rodinal (like) to Xtol 1:2 (If you are to scan, better you put all in the linear part of the curve and play with PS curves, rather that risking in the toe). (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html) Xtol+Rod is the single developer mix I consider.


I found developer choice for 35mm and MF is important, because there grain nature can be important, and solvent action is critical.

For LF you are mostly concerned with tonality, and here the major factor is the particular color filter you use to get the final espectral response you like. This is the very important thing, IMHO.

If you find Xtol stock has some tendence (this has been said, I'm not sure at all) to blow lights, just use it diluted with lowe agitation.


After thinking a lot about it I concluded Xtol was very good, and I prefer to dump Vit-C. Use distilled like water if your water source is high iron and you plan to keep it a lot. I had no problem with a missplaced 18 moths stock bottle, I make drop tests. Open lights, I let fall a drop of developer on a film end (lights open) every minute, and then develop, then I compare (densitometer) with a film strip made when developer was fresh. I find Xtol more stable than D-76.


IMHO multigrade paper (long ago) changed a bit the rules, you have a great deal of control in the print, so film toe and shoulder usage is not critical.

IMHO TMX was designed with that in mind, with Multigrade paper it is a ver professional choice to put all you can in the linear part of the curve of the negative, and then cook the print like you want.

An amateur may prefer (or not) the particular response a film and a particular process delivers. A pro (if this still exists, beyond Sexton and Ross) may be prone to want a linear capture in the neg to have aboslute fredom to cook the print, and a bit this eliminates (IMHO) developer as a critical factor.



All that is IMHO

[Bruce Watson]

XTOL 1:1, 1:3 if you need longer development times.

[Mark Sampson]

Thanks everyone, some useful answers. I will begin testing with Pyrocat-HD, as I have some on hand. I guess I'll try XTOL, too, when I find the 500ml glass bottles that I stored it in (from the days when I shot 35mm Tri-X). If I get any interesting results, I'll post in a new thread. But that may take a while, so don't hold your collective breath.

[chassis]

D-76 1+2 for 14 minutes at 68F in a BTZS tube with 2 inversions every 3 minutes.

http://www.wilmarcoimaging.com/img/s1/v21/p2412427012-4.jpg (http://www.wilmarcoimaging.com/p46190493/e8fcab704)

[sanking]

Thanks everyone, some useful answers. I will begin testing with Pyrocat-HD, as I have some on hand. I guess I'll try XTOL, too, when I find the 500ml glass bottles that I stored it in (from the days when I shot 35mm Tri-X). If I get any interesting results, I'll post in a new thread. But that may take a while, so don't hold your collective breath.


Mark,

Good luck with your testing, interested to read about your results.

I did an extensive comparison testing oif Xtol versus PyrocatHD some years ago. What I found was that,

1) Xtol has slightly greater film speed with normal dilutions and time.

2) PyrocatHD has slightly greater resolution. Sharpness (resolution + accutance) will vary depending on dilution and type of agitation.
BTW, other pyro tanning and staining developers like PMK and WD2D also give higher resolution. It is inherent in the fact that these developers tan and harden the gelatin, thus prevent migration of the image area. It might take a lot of magnification to appreciate the greater resolution of pyro staining and tanning developers, but it is always there at some magnification, other things equal. With LF and contact printing the greater resolution of Pyro developers should not matter much in contact printing, or in slight enlargement.

On the whole, TMax 100 is a great film. I never used it much with LF because of the UV blocking layer, which adds about 3 stops to printing times with UV sensitive processes. But for small and medium format film, it is a superb film.

Sandy

[Pere Casals]

2) PyrocatHD has slightly greater resolution. Sharpness (resolution + accutance) will vary depending on dilution and type of agitation.


Hello Sandy,

This can be measured by making contact copies with a USAF 1951 glass slide, to see how processing relates to film resolving power. I made several personal tests in that way to see Xtol stock to 1:1 difference.

The negative can be preflashed to see the effect at high (1:1000 like) contrast vs 1:1.6 contrast.

Of course testing with real images is also important, because a pure resolving power test does not tell all about how sharpness is perceived by humans, but IMHO having a numeric estimate may help to know the relative importance and interaction of several factors like dilution and agitation.

[sanking]

I have several of the very high resolution chrome on glass resolution targets, including positive and negatives. And about a decade ago I actually made comparison testing by contact printing the targets with a few of the ASA 100-125 films (Fuji Acros, Ilford Delta 100 and TMax 100) and then developing in traditional non-staining/tanning developers and several of the modern pyro staining and tanning developers. The testing was part of a larger project on comparing films and developers that I planned to publish, but I became somewhat bored with the work and never finished the article. What I recall from the experiments is this.

1. All of the pyro staining and tanning developers (Pyrocat, PMK, 510 Pyro) gave about 20% higher resolution than Xtol, when the tests were developed to the same contrast.

2. In terms of the films, in the pyro staining developers TMax 100 gave the highest resolution, about 180 lpm, Acros was second at about 160 lpm, with Delta 100 slightly behind.

The actual testing with contact printing has to be done carefully, with a point source light about 6-10 feet from the film, and the films must be tested at the same CI. It is also best to test positive and negative and average the samples, as was explained to me at the time by a former film engineer at Eastman Kodak.

For practical purposes all of the films and developers did so well in this testing that the differences between them would not be relevant in actual print making with LF negatives, whether done optically or with scanning. 35mm and medium format film would be another story.

Sandy







Hello Sandy,

This can be measured by making contact copies with a USAF 1951 glass slide, to see how processing relates to film resolving power. I made several personal tests in that way to see Xtol stock to 1:1 difference.

The negative can be preflashed to see the effect at high (1:1000 like) contrast vs 1:1.6 contrast.

Of course testing with real images is also important, because a pure resolving power test does not tell all about how sharpness is perceived by humans, but IMHO having a numeric estimate may help to know the relative importance and interaction of several factors like dilution and agitation.

[Pere Casals]

I have several of the very high resolution chrome on glass resolution targets, including positive and negatives. And about a decade ago I actually made comparison testing by contact printing the targets with a few of the ASA 100-125 films (Fuji Acros, Ilford Delta 100 and TMax 100) and then developing in traditional non-staining/tanning developers and several of the modern pyro staining and tanning developers. The testing was part of a larger project on comparing films and developers that I planned to publish, but I became somewhat bored with the work and never finished the article. What I recall from the experiments is this.

1. All of the pyro staining and tanning developers (Pyrocat, PMK, 510 Pyro) gave about 20% higher resolution than Xtol, when the tests were developed to the same contrast.

2. In terms of the films, in the pyro staining developers TMax 100 gave the highest resolution, about 180 lpm, Acros was second at about 160 lpm, with Delta 100 slightly behind.

The actual testing with contact printing has to be done carefully, with a point source light about 6-10 feet from the film, and the films must be tested at the same CI. It is also best to test positive and negative and average the samples, as was explained to me at the time by a former film engineer at Eastman Kodak.

For practical purposes all of the films and developers did so well in this testing that the differences between them would not be relevant in actual print making with LF negatives, whether done optically or with scanning. 35mm and medium format film would be another story.

Sandy



Sandy, thanks for that information, nice to know that. Of those, I've some boring tests pending, still. My guess is that +100 lp/mm is due the resolving power of the cubic grain slow emulsion layer, while the outer T-Grain layer may have way less. TMAX is rated by Kodak at 1:1000 and at 1:1.6, I was reading the ISO 6328 (file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/P.PC6/Mis%20documentos/Downloads/standard6175.pdf) , the one (more or less) used by Kodak.

This is because I'm to try to make dry plates with 2 emulsion layers, the inner one it would also be very fine grained, while the outer one it would be the fastet I can do it. The intention is to get a high silver plate with extra wide latitude and with high DMax. The idea is to reverse process it to get powerful slides... not sure it will work like this :)

[Greg]

Personal choice is:
Rodinal with a 9% Sodium Sulfite solution for negatives that I will be enlarging. (replaced Edwal FG-7 with a 9% Sodium Sulfite solution)
Diafine for negatives that I will be scanning and making digital negatives of doer alternative printing

[Chauncey Walden]

Rodinal 1:50 for 9 to 10 minutes for film exposed at 80. Beautiful smooth tones.