kodak Tmax RS developer formula [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Pere Casals

12-Oct-2019, 12:32

It looks like kodak tmax rs developer was DISCONTINUED by Kodak. BH is no longer ship them to buyers, store pick up only.

It looks that the 50L version can be shiped: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/926498-REG/kodak_5054184_t_max_professional_rs_developer_replenisher.html

With sheets you may try regular "non RS" TMAx deveveloper. It is not recommended in the datasheet for sheets because it may provocate dichroic fog in the sheets. It looks that this only happens with some kinds of tap water, so if you get dichroic fog with in sheets with (non RS) TMax then you may use some mineral water or distilled water to make the working solution.

Paul Ron

12-Oct-2019, 12:57

Phil Hudson

15-Oct-2019, 11:59

I once switched to non-RS TMax developer for sheet film due to difficulties getting RS. Even with distilled water I somehow managed to get dichroic fogging.....YMMV

Pat Kearns

19-Oct-2019, 14:11

i found these guys when b&h stopped shiping alot of darkroom chemicals. give them a call?

https://www.uniquephoto.com/kodak-t-max-rs-developer-and-replenisher-for-black-and-white-film-makes-1-gall-8446163

UNIQUE PHOTO SUPERSTORE
123 US Hwy 46 (West)
Fairfield, NJ 07004
1-800-631-0300

I emailed Unique Photo Superstore to see if they would be restocking the Kodak Tmax RS developer to make the 1 gallon size and was told that it had been discontinued. Freestyle states it has been discontinued on their website. I've used Tmax RS for all the developing for my Tmax sheet film and that smaller bottle that makes the 1 gallon sure was convenient. The larger size bottles would probably expire before I could use it all.

Arne Croell

19-Oct-2019, 14:36

I emailed Unique Photo Superstore to see if they would be restocking the Kodak Tmax RS developer to make the 1 gallon size and was told that it had been discontinued. Freestyle states it has been discontinued on their website. I've used Tmax RS for all the developing for my Tmax sheet film and that smaller bottle that makes the 1 gallon sure was convenient. The larger size bottles would probably expire before I could use it all.
TMax RS keeps a long time in my experience if it is kept in full bottles. I had the big double bottle version some years ago when I could get a really good deal on it. I refilled it into smaller glass bottles filled to the brim, and used it over three years. Never had a problem even after the three years. And I just ordered another set of the large bottles to do the same again.

Pere Casals

20-Oct-2019, 03:52

I The larger size bottles would probably expire before I could use it all.

Adding to what Arne pointed.

Even in the case you cannot use it all, still the large ammount has a 25% discount, compared, so even in the case you can spend only the half you would have a not that large cost increase.

If you plan a long shelf storage then you should perform a "drop test" on film ends, by (lights open) allowing to fall a drop every minute on a film end and later fixing you have an strength reference. Then you repeat that test over time to see if strength changed, you may correct development time or chem concentration to keep consistence, and you won't ruin sheets.

By placing the compared strips with the drop test on a light table you will see what you have to do, but also you may scan the strips alongside (reference and last) to see the gray levels in the different "drops", to compare numerically if you want.

Pat Kearns

25-Oct-2019, 18:17

I've been in communication with Tim Ryugo, the Pro Film Marketing Manager at Kodak Alaris, about the inability to find the Kodak Tmax RS Developer & Stabilizer to make 1 US gallon. The long and short of it is that Kodak Alaris is currently out of stock in the smaller 1 gallon size but they have the larger 2x25L Tmax RS developer size in stock. Tim has asked that it be ordered from the manufacturer. Unfortunately, Tim couldn't give any date Kodak Alaris would receive and said it may take months for it to be filled.

jnantz

25-Oct-2019, 20:14

I once switched to non-RS TMax developer for sheet film due to difficulties getting RS. Even with distilled water I somehow managed to get dichroic fogging.....YMMV

Hi Phil
That's because the non rs formula is not made for sheet film. Back when tmax developer came out I was directed by someone at the Kodak pro help line to use the non rs developer by mistake
and it didn't give me dichroic fogging right away but only after about a box of film, and sadly when I was using it for a job. The good folks at Kodak told me to toss the film and denied ever telling me to use the developer
it was a real lovely situation... I'm local so I called Paul Krot at Sprint Systems and he had me mix farmer's reducer using his fixer and putting the film back in my hangers and soaking the sheets 1 at a time until the fog was eaten away.
if you still have fog on your sheets ( and didn't toss them as I was directed to do ) its worked OK. I think the formula I was told was 1 plastic 35mm can of ferri +1Lof water, and 2+8 of Sprint Speed Fix..
The funny thing is, it was kodak's own farmer's reducer packets I was told to buy, and kodak's finest didn't even know to use it. In the end i have never used their tmax or rs developer ever again, and I never missed it.
I still use Sprint Chemistry when I don't use Coffee Based stuff and Ansco 130. Their developer is formulated in a way that when you develop for extended amounts of time
it doesn't block up your highlights, and their fixer is fantastic. Paul and Marlaine at Sprint are the nicest people I have ever met.

Pat Kearns

9-Jul-2021, 18:11

In a recent exchange of emails it appears that Tmax RS developer is a thing of the past. Any users of it will have to start looking for another developer. Below is the email reply on the Tmax RS inquiry.

From: kodakpaperchem [mailto:kodakpaperchem@pro.sinopromise.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 11:19 PM
To: Pat Kearns
Subject: Tmax RS developer inquiry

Pat,
We received your email inquiry forwarded to us from Tim Ryugo.

After looking into this for you I've learned that now both products have been discontinued and unfortunately, we do not have an alternative product at this time. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

From: Pat Kearns
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 4:46 PM
To: Timothy K Ryugo <timothy.ryugo@KodakMomentscom>
Subject: RE: Tmax RS developer inquiry

[CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Kodak Alaris. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.]
________________________________________
Dear Tim,
In October 2019 , you told me that the Kodak Tmax RS developer & replenisher Cat Number 844 6163 had been discontinued but Kodak 2x25L T-Max RS developer Product #5054184 was available.

I have recently been told by B&H Photo and Freestyle that Kodak 2x25L T-Max RS developer Product #5054184 has been discontinued. Can you check to see if Kodak Alaris has completely discontinued T-Max RS liquid developer or is it being packaged and sold in a different quantity and product number? Thanks.

Best regards,
Pat Kearns

John Brady

10-Jul-2021, 05:39

Thanks for updating this thread, it may be time to start a new thread/new discussion about the demise of T-max RS as well as T-max 100 large format sheet film (8x10 in my case), maybe the rest to follow?
This combination has been my working combination for many years, as well as for many others. I am not as technical as most on this site, therefore testing new combinations is a bit more daunting. I'm a, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, type. Well, now it's broke.

My current thought is Ilford Delta 100 and Ilford DD-x developer, hopefully 1:9 at 75 deg (I live in Florida) What will or have the rest of you done?

In a recent exchange of emails it appears that Tmax RS developer is a thing of the past. Any users of it will have to start looking for another developer. Below is the email reply on the Tmax RS inquiry.

From: kodakpaperchem [mailto:kodakpaperchem@pro.sinopromise.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 11:19 PM
To: Pat Kearns
Subject: Tmax RS developer inquiry

Pat,
We received your email inquiry forwarded to us from Tim Ryugo.

After looking into this for you I've learned that now both products have been discontinued and unfortunately, we do not have an alternative product at this time. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

From: Pat Kearns
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 4:46 PM
To: Timothy K Ryugo <timothy.ryugo@KodakMomentscom>
Subject: RE: Tmax RS developer inquiry

[CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Kodak Alaris. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.]
________________________________________
Dear Tim,
In October 2019 , you told me that the Kodak Tmax RS developer & replenisher Cat Number 844 6163 had been discontinued but Kodak 2x25L T-Max RS developer Product #5054184 was available.

I have recently been told by B&H Photo and Freestyle that Kodak 2x25L T-Max RS developer Product #5054184 has been discontinued. Can you check to see if Kodak Alaris has completely discontinued T-Max RS liquid developer or is it being packaged and sold in a different quantity and product number? Thanks.

Best regards,
Pat Kearns

interneg

10-Jul-2021, 12:25

the demise of T-max RS as well as T-max 100 large format sheet film

Sorry, but whatever conflations you are making are incorrect. Tmax RS seems to have been discontinued in the handover of the Kodak branded chemistry from Alaris to Sino Promise. I suspect there was not enough demand for it to be worth reformulating in the way that Tmax and HC-110 have been. Tmax 100 is manufactured by Kodak for Kodak Alaris and has been special order only in 8x10 for some considerable time. It's made as a stock item in 4x5 and on reaching an MOQ (which some sellers are able to reach - and Keith Canham marshals orders on a routine basis for various special cuts) in 8x10 (and other sizes). 320TXP seems to have returned to the 2021 product catalogue as a stock item in 8x10.

John Brady

10-Jul-2021, 13:59

Sorry, but whatever conflations you are making are incorrect.

Conflation, great word. Yes, 35mm, medium format and 4x5 are still available. 8x10 and larger, which I should have been more specific about, is not. Ordering film once a year is not ideal.
Below, as an example from one manufacturer, I think it’s fair to say an item no longer manufactured is discontinued.

Kodak TMAX 100 iso 8x10/10 sheets TXP
Model: 8095440
Manufacturer: Kodak

This item is no longer manufactured.

interneg

10-Jul-2021, 14:20

Conflation, great word. Yes, 35mm, medium format and 4x5 are still available. 8x10 and larger, which I should have been more specific about, is not. Ordering film once a year is not ideal.
Below, as an example from one manufacturer, I think it’s fair to say an item no longer manufactured is discontinued.

Kodak TMAX 100 iso 8x10/10 sheets TXP
Model: 8095440
Manufacturer: Kodak

This item is no longer manufactured.

This is the current 2021 range - https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/film/2021_Pro_Film_Catalog_List.pdf

And these are common enough special orders to have acquired ID codes - https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/film/2021_Pro_Film_Special-Order.pdf

For what it's worth, Kodak's 4x5 conversion is done on a fairly highly automated machine by 1-2 operators, while the other sheet formats require several discrete machines and more operator steps.

Nothing wrong with Delta 100 at all - I like its colour rendering the best of the lot (and it's incredibly sharp) - but if you need Tmax 100, then you need to work with the current situation - and I think most people prefer speed over granularity with 8x10.

Drew Wiley

11-Jul-2021, 13:39

TMax sheet films respond well to all kinds of developers; they're highly versatile in that respect. TMax RS developer used full strength would yield the most consistent straight line (pricey in that manner, if it were still around). But dilute HC-110 is far more affordable and a decent second if you have a special application needing minimal bowing in the middle portion of the curve. For pictorial work, I prefer PMK pyro developer for TMY400. It's excellent for TMX100 too, though I have recently switched to Perceptol 1:3 for TMX100 in order to enhance its otherwise weak edge effect (lesser 1:1 or 1:2 dilutions won't do that).

I consider Delta 100 a so-so emergency substitute. It has more of a toe to it, so for many of my purposes, it must be shot an entire stop slower in order to boost deep shadows up onto the straight line. I strongly prefer the spectral sensitivity of TMax to that of Delta. And TMax 100 doubles as an excellent lab film for sake of things like masking and color separations in a manner which Delta simply does not, so I always have sheets of 4X5 and 8x10 on hand anyway.

But TMY400 is really the cat's meow when it comes to outdoor view camera shooting, especially on breezy days. I've never noticed any problem in availability except briefly. The secret is just to keep a few extra boxes of 8x10 in the freezer. Large quantities of 8x10 in both 100 and 400 speed TMax are periodically cut for certain dealers. Yes, they eventually run out; but then the build-up to the next volume order begins. Keith Canham is a good source.

tax888

11-Jul-2021, 15:34

It's excellent for TMX100 too, though I have recently switched to Perceptol 1:3 for TMX100 in order to enhance its otherwise weak edge effect (lesser 1:1 or 1:2 dilutions won't do that).

Is Perceptol 1:3 the same as D-23 1:3?

Thank you Drew!

Drew Wiley

11-Jul-2021, 16:15

interneg

11-Jul-2021, 16:52

Is Perceptol 1:3 the same as D-23 1:3?

Perceptol and Microdol-X are essentially the same. Both evolved from D-23 via the addition of Sodium Chloride as a further silver solvent, then some further anti-dichroic stain agents in tiny quantities - dichroic stain issues with tray processing etc seems to have been why the RS variant of Tmax was made - though most emulsions today incorporate ingredients designed to resist dichroic stain. The use of Metol exhaustion is not the only route to producing edge effects - the various Phenidones seem to do so through inhibition effects.

Michael R

11-Jul-2021, 17:04

No. D-23 is different, and has more of a silver-solvent effect (exactly what I wouldn't want with TMX100). Perceptol is a common Ilford powder product, but it is possible to formulate something similar entirely from scratch.

Opposite, Drew. Perceptol is essentially Microdol, which was essentially D-23 with (probably) a little less metol and the addition of sodium chloride for additional solvent effect. Microdol-type formulas were originally intended to be extra fine grain developers.

Of course at a 1+3 dilution both will have a little less solvent effect.

Drew Wiley

11-Jul-2021, 18:17

Microdol is rumored to have a similar effect; but I haven't tried it. It has a different formula than Perceptol. The solvent effect is basically REVERSED at higher dilution, and grain size and definition actually increases. Allegedly "exhaustion effect", but someone else can elaborate on that. It really helps the acutance of TMX100, which has tremendous detail capacity, but poor edge acutance otherwise.

Just for the heck of it, I tried this dilution of Perceptol with ACROS a week ago, which ordinarily has both extremely fine grain and excellent edge effect, but became dramatically grainier in dilute Perceptol - opposite of classic solvent effect like D23. If applied to Delta 100, the grain becomes more conspicuous than with TMY400 in pyro. I used 1:1 Perceptol long ago for FP4 sheet film, which has nice edge effect, but soon switched to Pyro to control highlight gradation better. But at 1:3, Perceptol is a very different animal than at 1:1. And I'm certainly not the first person to notice that.

In other words, the only film I now use Perceptol for is TMX100, and only at 1:3. It's a game changer for me when it comes to medium format, because I get distinctly better shadow gradation with TMX than any other very-fine grained film currently available - the longest straight line. That's a big deal out in mountains, desert, or deep woods, where contrast can be extreme. We've discussed this before. But with large format, TMY400 and pyro is an even better option, since grain size is basically a non-issue in LF.

So I don't know what else to say, Michael - you're trying to tell the developers what to do based on hypothetical stereotypes, while I've already tested the specific distinction under question on a whole suite of films (more than those mentioned here), and even checked the real-world impact on prints at similar magnifications. I'm after practical results. And what I'm getting is quite unlike D23 results. Maybe only salt is the difference; but that's also the only difference between breakfast eggs that taste great and those that taste awful.

Michael R

11-Jul-2021, 18:58

Lol I’m not stereotyping anything.

Anyhow, since the thread is about the loss of TMax RS, it should be noted that while attaching the name TMax to these two developers was clever marketing, TMax/TMax RS were not special formulas somehow “optimized” for the TMax films. Relative to D-76 it’s simply a developer tilted more toward emulsion speed in exchange for decreased sharpness and increased graininess.

Microdol is rumored to have a similar effect; but I haven't tried it. It has a different formula than Perceptol. The solvent effect is basically REVERSED at higher dilution, and grain size and definition actually increases. Allegedly "exhaustion effect", but someone else can elaborate on that. It really helps the acutance of TMX100, which has tremendous detail capacity, but poor edge acutance otherwise.

Just for the heck of it, I tried this dilution of Perceptol with ACROS a week ago, which ordinarily has both extremely fine grain and excellent edge effect, but became dramatically grainier in dilute Perceptol - opposite of classic solvent effect like D23. If applied to Delta 100, the grain becomes more conspicuous than with TMY400 in pyro. I used 1:1 Perceptol long ago for FP4 sheet film, which has nice edge effect, but soon switched to Pyro to control highlight gradation better. But at 1:3, Perceptol is a very different animal than at 1:1. And I'm certainly not the first person to notice that.

In other words, the only film I now use Perceptol for is TMX100, and only at 1:3. It's a game changer for me when it comes to medium format, because I get distinctly better shadow gradation with TMX than any other very-fine grained film currently available - the longest straight line. That's a big deal out in mountains, desert, or deep woods, where contrast can be extreme. We've discussed this before. But with large format, TMY400 and pyro is an even better option, since grain size is basically a non-issue in LF.

So I don't know what else to say, Michael - you're trying to tell the developers what to do based on hypothetical stereotypes, while I've already tested the specific distinction under question on a whole suite of films (more than those mentioned here), and even checked the real-world impact on prints at similar magnifications. I'm after practical results. And what I'm getting is quite unlike D23 results. Maybe only salt is the difference; but that's also the only difference between breakfast eggs that taste great and those that taste awful.

Drew Wiley

11-Jul-2021, 19:23

I differ with that assessment too, Michael, and it's based not only on hard densitometer plotting of families of TMaxRS curves, but on direct conversation with certain of the people involved in its original testing. There was at that time a reason to try to obtain as even a straight line as possible. Super-XX was functionally being replaced by TMX as an allegedly better color separation film. During the R&D gestational phase of this, dye transfer was still alive, at least in the minds of one branch of Kodak. The RS version ironed out the last kink in the curve pretty well at a certain strength and temperature. Of course, most everyone forgot that feature once there was no longer a significant reason for that specific quality once it was no longer important. And once scanners and software curve controls kicked in, it became even less an issue. Only all-darkroom types like me fooled around with it for the original reason. But having done so, HC-110 proved "close enough", so there went another hypothetical RS customer. It didn't work ideally except at 75, and at that temp, I was getting edge frilling, so had to be extra careful that none of those little specks of gelatin got stuck back on the film somewhere else.

Michael R

11-Jul-2021, 19:35

There were a few reasons for the release of TMax developer, but optimization of image structure was not one of them.

Drew Wiley

12-Jul-2021, 12:23

Well, I never did use TMax RS developer to optimize image structure in any pictorial sense, but only for the specific technical lab application already mentioned. I greatly prefer pyro for field subjects. But at the time, I was mainly still shooting Bergger 200 as my primary 8x10 film, which had a better native straight line and slightly longer scale than TMax400 anyway. But it was too grainy in my opinion for 4x5 work. All of that is just retrospective now. Lots of current developer options work well for either speed of TMax, though I obviously do have certain personal preferences. I've never been a "one film / one developer" type. And even if I had been, I sure wouldn't have shelled out the unnecessary extra money for dedicated TMax RS developer.

interneg

12-Jul-2021, 17:19

I wouldn't be completely surprised if taking something like Microphen or ID-68 diluted to 1+3 (or more), and boosting the borax (etc) levels to speed it up might get into the same range as Tmax RS in useful function - at least in terms of the sharp upsweep in the highlights at higher CIs (if they relate to iodide etc placement in the slow emulsion(s)). Or ID-68 might at least give some building blocks to get started in a meaningful way.

Drew Wiley

12-Jul-2021, 18:51

No. The whole point of TMax RS, at least in its optimized sense, was to eliminate any upsweep in the curve. A truly straight line at relatively high gamma was the object, just like was possible with previous Super-XX, but with even better selective tricolor consistently, which was in fact possible. A slight kink mark at the middle of one or another of the respective curves might not bother a dye transfer kindergartner like me, but it would have caused fury with those who commercially depended on dye transfer technique in relation to superlative skintone reproduction in order to make a living. I say, "would have" because they were already infuriated about Kodak's right hand not knowing what the left was doing with respect to the future of dye transfer itself, and how certain important quality issues had already suddenly deteriorated due to generational changes at Kodak. Making these products was just as much an art as a science, and apparently the newbies tried to cut corners. It didn't affect me. I was doing Ciba. But I sure remember the squabble. It ruined the careers of certain printers, and they never forgave Kodak or trusted them again. This or that allegedly improved developer was lost in the dust storm. And dye printers could be an extremely stubborn lot, each seemingly with their own secretive formulas and techniques, and some big tempers too.

What you're describing, Interneg, can easily be achieved with D76 and TMax film. Or HC-110 provides even greater versatility. Neither will give a true straight line. But that's really only necessary in an ideal sense when making lab separations from a film original, like a chrome, and for proportionately matching masks. As long as all three RGB curves overlap, direct in-camera separations with a modest upsweep using HC-110, for example, would seem perfectly acceptable. All these applications are now so arcane that there is probably zero financial incentive to keep manufacturing a developer like RS. The last of the commercial DT operations are using scans and curve-altering software.

Most people here probably don't give a damn about the applications of TMax to color photography. But masking techniques also potentially apply to masking for sake of black and white printing, so it's useful to at least recognize analogous virtues to a particular film or developer. I find TMax 100 and HC-110 excellent for that application too, especially for smaller format original negatives, where very fine grain is a priority in masks. For LF originals, FP4 is a good masking film, but a stop slower.

Dugan

12-Jul-2021, 18:59

The lab I used to work in in the '90's used TMax RS as the general-purpose developer.

Drew Wiley

12-Jul-2021, 19:09

Dugan

12-Jul-2021, 20:52

The lab I worked at had Richcolor dip & dunk machines, with auto replenishment.
19 liter batches of TMax RS developer.
I was the mix guy....I ran my own negs through it, and they are holding up nicely and print well.

Drew Wiley

13-Jul-2021, 09:49

Yep, that's a LOT of developer at once. Definitely commercial. Here labs have recently been using Xtol for their dip n' dunk machines. I've always done b&w film dev myself, one little batch at a time.

Michael R

29-Jul-2021, 06:10

Drew Wiley

29-Jul-2021, 10:02

David Lindquist

29-Jul-2021, 11:30

Hello everyone,

Just reviving this as in John Sexton’s latest newsletter, he indicates he has been doing some preliminary development tests using the current/latest reformulation of the regular TMax developer (ie the non-RS version) with TMax films and so far he is not seeing dichroic fog issues.

Of course these are preliminary tests/evaluations but this is certainly something you might want to test for yourself if you have been impacted by the discontinuation of TMax RS.

I was about to reply along these lines.

Anyway John Sexton's newsletter may be read here: http://www.johnsexton.com/newsletter07-2021.html

Note that he describes the tests he and his wife did as PRELIMINARY (the caps are his).

Thank you Michael for saving me from typing quite so much.

David

Drew Wiley

29-Jul-2021, 12:12

Hmmm.... thanks for the link. But on John's site, I also stumbled onto a link to the background story behind, Yosemite and Range of Light, my very favorite AA book. I'll try to watch the whole flick later in the day. But I find it strange that the re-formulators at Kodak never kept John in the loop as per exactly what they intended to do, since he was so instrumental in promoting the whole TMax concept to begin with. A generational gap, I suppose. Things always seem to get out of step that way.

Pat Kearns

29-Jul-2021, 21:32

I still have an unopened bottle of concentrate of the original RS. Wonder if it's still any good. For those relatively few lab applications I actually needed that, I simply settled on a tweak of HC-110 instead, which isn't going to deliver quite the same linearity to the characteristic curve, but seems close enough, and is a lot more practical. Problem is, HC-110 has now been reformulated, and I don't know if any performance variable has been affected in the transition. I still have enough of older formula to sustain me awhile. The concentrate seems to keep well a very long time in a partial bottle, at least in the traditional version.

Drew, I had three unopened bottles of concentrate of the original RS that expired 06/2018 that I tested and it was still good. I used it on a project I shot at my late father-in-law's house April 2021- June 2021 and the negatives turned out good. My dilution was 1:7 from the concentrate so depending on its expiration date your bottle may still have some life in it.

Drew Wiley

30-Jul-2021, 09:43

I only used TMax RS for developing very nitpicky precisely matched color separation 8X10 TMax100 sheet film negatives. So before trusting that bottle, I'd have to do a critical test and check it with a densitometer first. I'm sure this bottle is at least a decade older than yours. But I don't have time for that kind of project now. All my recent color to black and white conversions have simply involved TMax or FP4 internegatives from LF chrome film shots, for sake of ordinary silver b&w printing, a much less critical application which HC-110 is plenty competent for.

chris.walker1873

8-Aug-2023, 21:10

Hello, Phil -- did you find a way around this problem? I had to leave film photography for a while, and when I came back I discovered T-Max RS had left permanently. So I'm trying to find a replacement...

Many thanks,

Chris

John Brady

9-Aug-2023, 04:09

T-max rs has been long gone now, so I imagine all of us have moved on. In my case, I made the switch to Ilford ddx and use it one shot diluted 1:9 similar to the way I was using tmax-rs. I have slowly been weaning myself off of t-max film also. $20+ per sheet for 8x10 is getting ridiculous! I have been using more Ilford Delta 100 and fp4, I also find myself shooting 4x5 more than I was. The cost of Kodak sucks, but life goes on!

ic-racer

9-Aug-2023, 06:01

T-max (non -RS) is available and works well. Since the early 2000s I never had an issue with dichroic fog in my prints.

jnantz

9-Aug-2023, 10:06

I'm assuming that wasn't a DT lab, Dugan. The distinction is, to get an optimal straight line, it would have to been used at high concentration, ideally one-shot, making it prohibitively expensive. I've never had a motive to try RS for general black and white film usage. Pyro addiction is hard to break. But pyro isn't a very realistic choice for high volume lab applications.

RS was a Replenishment System

T-max (non -RS) is available and works well. Since the early 2000s I never had an issue with dichroic fog in my prints.

it's a film developer, not a print developer and it was a warning from The Great Yellow Father, KODAK not random people on a website chat forum.. who said not to use the regular ( NON RS ) TMAX with sheet film. Apparently the RIT student
who had helped on the phones at their "800-242-2424 pro hot line" didn't read the memo and was confused about which of the two brand new developers to use ... hope you don't get DF on your FILM if you continue to use the developer .

ic-racer

9-Aug-2023, 11:59

Like I posted, I never noticed any effect of dichoric fog in my prints from tmax LF negatives processed in Tmax (Non-RS) developer.

I guess if it screwed up your prints, too bad.

jnantz

9-Aug-2023, 13:16

Like I posted, I never noticed any effect of dichoric fog in my prints from tmax LF negatives processed in Tmax (Non-RS) developer.

I guess if it screwed up your prints, too bad.

i think you misunderstood what I wrote. It didn't screw up my prints. Thankfully .... because I spoke to someone ( Paul Krott ) who was well versed in photochemistry the DF was removed before the negatives were enlarged and printed ( which they were, and the archives was very happy ). I found it amazing the people RIT (who are feeders for EK and cream of the crop ) and the people at EK ( who are supposed to know about mundane products used since the 1800s and packaged and sold by EK themselves) were clueless and told me to use a q tip ? I would hope they figured it out seeing Roberta ( and her cohort ) probably got plenty of calls from working professionals who were screwed and got DF because she ( and others? ) advised them to use the wrong developer, I mean being advised "if you can't remove the greenish blue metallic sheen that is part of your film’s emulsion with a q tip, throw away your negatives they are ruined and there is nothing that can save them" is kind of lame ... and then being told "There was never a "Roberta" that worked here" ... like you are being gas lit again kind of lame... too bad is an expression like "whatever" .. I was advised by the kodak professional photography division who advised thousands of professionals worldwide, daily about products they sell, you'd have thought they would have told their telephone crew / interns from RIT "sheet film is only used with TMAX RS, otherwise the person will get DF " ... it would be "too bad" if I was a hobbyist and I was doing it for kicks, it was just film used to photograph my cat, but it wasn't, it was for a job, and not used blindly.