Neil, are you using the T-Max (not RS) developer on TMX sheets? If so, what processing methods do you use, i.e. tray, tank, Jobo, etc., and have you ever suffered the dreaded dichroic fog? Thanks for any experiences you can share. I also very much like TMX in T-Max, but have only used it with 120 so far, and it will be a while before the opportunity presents itself to try sheets in that developer.
Hmmm, interesting discussion. I think that Dan Smith hit the nail on the head. Use any given film/developer combo for a year and learn to produce fine prints with it.
My film/developer combo of choice today in 4x5 is T-max 100 and pyro. Yes, I get sufficient stain with T-max and I find consistent results and not the finiky results with other developers. For 120 I use Delta 100 and pyro. My enlargements glow and have a wonderful tonal range.
I use T-Max 100 because I don't have to load film holders. Lazy?, yes but with pyro I have made this excellent film work for me.
ecently I have played around with Ilford's new Ifotec DD. With T-Max the results are outstanding and processing is a breeze compared to the on again off again results of XTOL.
Mike
Plus-X in Microdol @ EI80.
Try TMAX in Photographer's Formulary BW2. It does take a lot of the problems out of development of TMAX, especially its nasty habit of blocking-up in the highlights. I also have had great images in both 4X5 and 120 with APX 100 in Rodinal 1:50.
All being said though, ready loads are reallllly nice!
ken
I use both of these films on a consistant basis, mostly in 4x5. Either could be determined better mostly deppending on the DEVELOPER that is used to develop the negs. The big difference being that you CANNOT USE REGULAR T-MAX DEVELOPER for 4x5 t-max film. You have to use the replenishing developer. My lab uses t-max replenishing devo. so when I know that I am going to have them develop the film I use t-max...but they double thier price if I push or pull. If I push or pull my film I will develop the film myself and use Delta 100, which works better with the cheaper edwal FG7.
Responding to Sal's question above . . . (Sorry not to have responded earlier, but I've been on vacation.)
Let me offer what I know on this, since I took some time to look into it. To answer the question, I've never experienced the dichroic fog, and I use 2 1/4 film developed in a standard stainless steel tank with a 120 (not a 220) reel.
As to what I found out from Kodak (after finding the right person), TMax 4x5 film has the exact same emulsion as TMax 2 1/4 roll film. Their recommendation against the TMax original, non-replenishable developer has more to do with physics than chemistry. Since 4x5 film is larger, and since Kodak recommends less agitation for sheet film, there's a greater propensity for the dichroic fog causing contaminate to collect in concentrations that can cause the fogging. I spoke to the person who drove development of the RS developer w/in Kodak. It's chemical composition limits the how much of the contaminate that can be formed. But, the RS developer also does not have as nice a film development curve as the original developer.
I did all my original testing with the original developer (a large investment of time and expense), so I plan to continue its use. While I haven't used it yet, I purchased a nikon tank for 4x5 sheet development that agitates and works much the same as the reel that I use for 120. I'm hoping that this will prevent the dichroic fogging from occurring on sheet film.
See a "future" post for John Sexton's approach to removing this fogging. The Kodak person to whom I spoke said one can also "finger" squeegee the film with water, and that this will remove the fog. However, once the film has dried, the fog becomes permanent and can't be removed.
I finally got around to testing 4x5 TMX on a CPE-2+ (2509n reel in 2523 tank) using T-Max developer. Both the film and developer were very fresh; emulsion expiration was late 2002, and the chemistry manufacture date code indicated early 2000 (March, if I recall correctly).
Results: no trace of dichroic fog. Negative characteristics were the same as I've become accustomed to with this combination in 120, except for base fog. Using the developer diluted 1:7 for 6 1/2 minutes at 75 degrees, rolls exhibit 0.10 fb-f, while for sheets it was 0.04.
On to even tones. I filled all six slots of the Jobo, placing two sheets that had been uniformly exposed to Zone VI in one each of the innermost and outermost positions. Along both short (4 inch) edges of both sheets, there were areas of reduced density approximately 3/8 inch wide. These strips are about 0.04 - 0.05 lighter than the rest of the negative. Remainder of the sheets were very even, save for a rather small area in the center which was around a 0.01 more dense than average. There were no other defects, such as surge marks or mottle. I've not yet made prints, but expect that the short edges would appear visibly darker. Perhaps one might trade off using a smaller area of the negative (masking the camera's focusing screen and not printing the edges) in return for all other rotary processing advantages. This would preclude needing to pay - - or have room - - for a larger CPP/CPA-2 processor.
Out of personal preference I'd go for one of Ilfords' older emulsions in Ilfospeed at 1-100 for a bit. Otherwise try Delta in FX-39.
And to answet James' question I'm Scottish.
Yaakov, you still there? One other thing to consider, at least it's a factor here in Michigan, USA, is that reciprocity corrections are much milder for T-Max films. I find this important when doing multi-minute exposures as is often the case in my work. Also, there isn't the nasty build-up of contrast one usually gets when making this compensation with other emulsions. I've used both and still prefer T-Max. I, too have run into flaws with Delta, however, I've never had a bad piece of Ilford paper and I have experienced problems with EKC paper a number of times! They're very good about replacing it, I might add.
Sacrificing the mother-in-law. That's good Dan. I like it. As can be discerned from this discussion, all films are about the same given their proper care and use. Different films were developed for different purposes and need to be used accordingly. People from the Continent seem to prefer Ilford's products as well as point and shooters here in the US. LF enthusiasts seem to like the TX or TMX emulsions. I've talked to 100's of LF photographers and many, many more roll film shooters and asked them their film and developer preferences. I've tried them all, believe me, and they all behave up to the promises of the manufacturers and their followers. It is never a question of one being better than the other (unless you are paranoid and need assurance that your choice is valid) but in the use of the material. TP does increadible things but not for fast action or contrasty situations. TMX is wonderful for landscapes in the 5 stop range and for the ability to be pushed and pulled with predictable results, as are the Ilford mid speed materials. It depends solely on what you want and how you go about it. James
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks