Tmax 400 in D-76 correct dev time

[Jared09]

Hi, I know it's all over internet, but the data is not consistent. I want to develop 4x5 Tmax 400 sheet film in a tank (not processor), stock in 20C. Kodak recommends 6,5 min which I tried but it seams to be too short, i.e. it is printable but not dense enough. In another place Kodak suggests 6,75 min. The app on my iPhone "Massive dev chart" proposes 10 min. Steve Anchell in his "Darkroom cookbook" writes about 8 min. So what is the correct dev time for this combination? Has anyone tested the best option? I do not want to waste anymore film for trial and error.
Best
Jared

[Huub]

I am afraid that there is not such a thing as the correct development time. There are just to many variables in play, like the quality of your water, the way you measure your light, the kind of enlarger or scanning device you are going to use, the developing technique you use, the thermometer, et cetera. So you're a bit on your own and you should take the trial an error route to establish a developing time that works for you in your personal circumstances.

There are two things to consider in developing: shadow detail and contrast.

First look at your negatives and check shadow detail. If there is still plenty of details visible in the shadows, you're are good. If not, adding exposure will help. The best strategy to do this depends on the way you measure your light, but remember that overexposure hardly ever leads to problems with negative film. There might be a slight increase in grain, but in 4x5 grain ain't much of an issue anyway.

Second step is contrast. When most of your negatives print well on something like grade 2 or 3, your development time is good. Only when you need grade 4 and higher for getting decent prints with most of your negatives, you should increase your development time. As a rule of thumb: increasing time by 25% adds about one grade of contrast.

So try to print a few of those negatives. When not happy with shadow detail, increase exposure times for the next set of negatives. And when you need grade 4 and higher for printing them, try 8 or 9 minutes next time. When printig times get very short on your enlarger, put a grey filter on your enlarger lens to increase them to a something between 10 and 20 seconds on an average aperture.

And last but not least: don't fuz about 6.5 or 6.75 minutes as this won't make any noticable difference.

[Jared09]

Thanks for replying. I am aware of many variables, however when I develop other films I always start with recommended dev times, and in 99% of cases they work unless I want to push or pull a film. In this case the recommended Kodak dev time seems to be wrong, especially that others propose much longer time for the same combination, and the difference is not one but almost 4 minutes.
Has anyone tried it? What is your recommended starting point if Tmax 400 is properly exposed?

[Molli]

Hi Jared, just to check, are you reading the times for stock or 1:1?
I'm seeing 7½min. for small tanks using Stock D76 (10m15s for 1:1), and 8¼ for large tanks on Kodak's datasheet and the Massive Dev app (Android version here) shows 7½min. Stock and 10m15s for 1:1.
I use the latter (1:1 for 10m15s) in an SP-445 tank without issue.

[paulbarden]

I want to develop 4x5 Tmax 400 sheet film in a tank (not processor), stock in 20C. Kodak recommends 6,5 min which I tried but it seams to be too short, i.e. it is printable but not dense enough.

"Printable but not dense enough" doesn't tell us enough. Are you enlarging your 4x5 work? Contact printing? Alt processes?
The more important question is: is these sufficient shadow information on the negative? IE: enough density to be printable? If the answer is unquestionably yes, than exposure is not your problem: increase development time by 25-50% (you pick where you want to start) and re-evaluate. If Kodak says 6.5 minutes, and Anschell says 10 minutes, that difference isn't likely going to ruin your negatives. Try it and find out. Or pick the middle ground of 8 minutes and see what you get. You're not going to suddenly jump from "too thin" to "unusable density" by applying 2.5 minutes more time.
Another question is: how fresh is your D-76? Flat, underdeveloped negatives can result if your developer has aged too much.

I looked up sheet format TMY on the Dev Chart, and I see it recommends 6:45 for D-76 undiluted (at 400 ASA) and 9:30 for D-76 diluted 1:1, 400 ASA. When looking up films on the Dev Chart, be sure you are looking at the right listing for the format, ASA and dilution.

[Jared09]

Hi Jared, just to check, are you reading the times for stock or 1:1?
I'm seeing 7½min. for small tanks using Stock D76
I use the latter (1:1 for 10m15s) in an SP-445 tank without issue.

Hi, yes I am reading the times for stock (undiluted). 7,5 min sounds reasonable. Have you tried it, or you use only 1:1 solution?

[Jared09]

"Printable but not dense enough" doesn't tell us enough. Are you enlarging your 4x5 work? Contact printing? Alt processes?
The more important question is: is these sufficient shadow information on the negative? IE: enough density to be printable? If the answer is unquestionably yes, than exposure is not your problem: increase development time by 25-50% (you pick where you want to start) and re-evaluate. If Kodak says 6.5 minutes, and Anschell says 10 minutes, that difference isn't likely going to ruin your negatives. Try it and find out. Or pick the middle ground of 8 minutes and see what you get. You're not going to suddenly jump from "too thin" to "unusable density" by applying 2.5 minutes more time.
Another question is: how fresh is your D-76? Flat, underdeveloped negatives can result if your developer has aged too much.

I looked up sheet format TMY on the Dev Chart, and I see it recommends 6:45 for D-76 undiluted (at 400 ASA) and 9:30 for D-76 diluted 1:1, 400 ASA. When looking up films on the Dev Chart, be sure you are looking at the right listing for the format, ASA and dilution.

Yes, I am making a traditional silver print from 4x5 negative (enlarging). There is sufficient shadow detail on the negative after 6,5 min developing in a stock solution, however the negative seems to be weak (not dense enough), and the problem is not the exposure time because I am sure it was correct. I know that the best idea would be to experiment as you suggest, but the problem is that I have a series of exposed photos which are a part of a project and I don't want to ruin some of them by trying to find out what the correct dev time should be. This is why I am asking if you have any experience in this matter. And yes, D-76 was fresh.

[jnantz]

Hi Jared

Usually times given by manufacturers and people on the internet are "starting points". Not everyone's shutters are exactly the same, people expose their films differently because their meters are a bit off, they may see light differently and they have found their happy place. Their times don't take to account that no 2 people process their film the same even using the same tank or tray or combi plan or rolling processor &c. I usually shuffle process 10-30 sheets of film in a tray my thin film is probably your "YIKES, this stuff is cooked!". You might expose a few sheets and do a few tests. I can't give you a time dilution and temperature for your chosen developer cause I've never used D76 before, im more of a ansco130 or d72(DEKTOL) or sprint systems, or caffenol person... and that is pretty much useless for you.. Don't forget to have fun :). John

[paulbarden]

Yes, I am making a traditional silver print from 4x5 negative (enlarging). There is sufficient shadow detail on the negative after 6,5 min developing in a stock solution, however the negative seems to be weak (not dense enough), and the problem is not the exposure time because I am sure it was correct. I know that the best idea would be to experiment as you suggest, but the problem is that I have a series of exposed photos which are a part of a project and I don't want to ruin some of them by trying to find out what the correct dev time should be. This is why I am asking if you have any experience in this matter. And yes, D-76 was fresh.

Then make some new "disposable" exposures that you can experiment on, and then apply what you learn to the important film.

Yes, I have experience in the matter, which is why I suggested to you that the range of times you found are not outrageous, and extending the time to even ten minutes is not going to be enough to ruin the film. But as I say, make some new test exposures and experiment on those, gather the data and apply what you found to the more valuable exposed film.

[Jared09]

Many thanks for all your tips. I will expose another film and try 7,5 min for the beginning. Btw. is there any advantage of dissolving developer (apart from increasing volume) 1:1 or even more?

[paulbarden]

Btw. is there any advantage of dissolving developer (apart from increasing volume) 1:1 or even more?

You're going to get twenty different answers to this question, but choosing a 1:1 dilution over Stock developer is going to have a very subtle effect on the negative. When working with D-76 (a solvent developer with lots of Sodium sulfite in it) diluting the developer has the effect of decreasing contrast slightly, while increasing the apparent grain and slightly improving acutance.

I suggest you read this discussion (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?100468-Developer-Dilution) for more thoughts on the matter.

[jp]

I have only used d76 1:1 and used something just longer than 10 minutes but it's hard to remember since I've used pyrocat for such a long time now.
The benefit for me of using 1:1 was that I could adjust the temp very easily. If my stock was 65f and I wanted 70f working, I'd put in 75f mix water and the two simply average to 70f.

[Neal Chaves]

Try this procedure on the TMax 400. Personally, I tested TMax in HC110 and Kodak TMax developer and much prefer TXP or now HP5+ due to cost and consistancy. I have also standardized on Ilfotec HC developer.

Years ago I learned an excellent method to find the correct developing time and EI for any film. I source was an article by William Mortensen. Mortensen wrote some excellent books and articles about basic sensitometry. The last time I did this test was when I abandoned Tri-X and switched to HP5+ due to cost about five years ago. I proceed as follows.

I set up my trays with my favorite developer HC110B (1:31), now Ilfotec HC (1:31). I pull out a sheet from the package in the dark. and then when the package is sealed again I turn on the room lights. This part of the test is done under the lights. I cut the sheet into five strips and mark them 1-5 by punching holes with a paper punch. Lets say the recommended time is 5:00. I want to see 3:00, 4:00, 5:00, 6:00 and 7:00, so I throw all the strips into the developer and agitate as usual until 3:00 when I move the No.1 strip over to the stop bath. Then I pull No.2 at 4:00, No.3 at 5:00, etc. I fix, wash and dry the strips as usual. What we are looking for is the best usable film DMax value. Obviously the film has been fully exposed! When strips dry lay down a page of news print on a table in good light. Find the strip through which the news print is barely visible. That's your developing time. Now to find the film speed.

Go outside in unchanging light conditions and expose five sheets and expose one at the manufacturers rating and then the other four at one half a stop and one stop less and one half a stop and one stop more. In the dark, develop them all together for your newly derived time. Contact print them together exposing and developing the paper for maximum usable paper DMax value through the film base plus fog negative rebate area. Pick out the best-looking contact print and you have your film speed.

Because my 7:00 negative looked the best on the first test, I did the test again with 7:00 as the central developing time and found that 8:00 was indeed too dense. This HP5+ time was the same as the as the developing time I had been using for Tri-X and film speed was also the same, EI400. I have also switched to Ilfotec HC developer due to cost and availability and find it to be a clone of HC110.

Many of the last generation of B&W gurus favored a development time of 5:00 for Tri-X and suggested an EI of 64-100. You can do the above test backwards, developing for 5:00 minutes and finding the film speed. I like 100. The difference between negatives exposed at 100 and developed for 5:00 and those exposed at 400 and developed for 7:00 is quite subtle. Both could be considered "normal" or N negatives. The 100 negative has slightly greater shadow and highlight detail that only a careful, knowledgeable viewer could detect. This slight improvement might not be worthwhile trading for two stops in the field. I do routinely rate HP5+ at 100 under powerful strobe light in the studio and it produces beautiful skin tones.

From here, if you are still with me, you can derive expansion and contraction schemes for both the 100 and 400 "normal negs". I do this by changing dilution rather than time. Make sure you have at least 1 oz. of the concentrated sauce for each 8X10 sheet or equivalent. For contractions I found that 3/4 oz. concentrate to 31 1/4 ozs. H20 yields an N-1 neg at a one stop loss in film speed and 1/2 oz. concentrate to 31 1/2 ozs. H20 yields an N-2 neg at a two stop loss in film speed. For expensions, 1 1/4 oz. of concentrate to 30 3/4 ozs. H20 yields an N+1 neg at a one stop gain in speed and 1 1/2 ozs. concentrate to 30 1/2 ozs. H20 produces an N+2 negative with a two stop gain in speed.

If you look at the chart of Tri-X film speed in Phil Davis' BTZS book you can easily pick out the film speed in HC110B 5:00 as EI 64.

Don't apply reciprocity exposure and development corrections for long exposures (1/2 sec. +) based on published data. Test for yourself and you may be surprised. I wasted a lot of time and effort producing long exposure negatives that were thick and flat. When I finally tested, I found no compensation was required for TXP or now HP5+ out to one minute.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd avoid anything as hot as 75 F with TMY; there's a risk of edge frilling - I've seen it happen. I recommend full box speed of 400, and now routinely process TMY in PMK pyro. But D76 is easy to do and gives decent results. I'd start out with 1:1 dilution, normal 20C, ballpark 10 min, and then evaluate results for either slightly more or slightly less time. As others have already pointed out, a lot depends on your specifics in terms of agitation. You simply have to test first, and then fine tune it.

Gosh, a lot of the foregoing talk is like having a navigation device in your car that takes you on some convoluted detour for two and a half hours, when you could have gotten there straight down the freeway in ten minutes instead. Let the poor fellow learn to drive first!

[Molli]

Hi, yes I am reading the times for stock (undiluted). 7,5 min sounds reasonable. Have you tried it, or you use only 1:1 solution?My apologies for the delayed reply, notifications have been rather haphazard for me.
I've always and only used D76 at 1:1
The most recent batch of Tmax I developed was actually 35mm and I decided to develop it outside because it was suffocatingly hot inside the house. I THOUGHT I was doing a fair job with a cold water bath to keep the temperature down, but I was seriously wrong. Even so, for photos taken out in the blaze of an Australian summer and developed in chemicals that got up to 24°C in the process, the resulting negatives were still easily printed at Grade 2 and no harm done. At that temperature, I should barely have had them in the developer for 6-7 minutes, let alone the full 10min. I use for 1:1
I'm sorry not to be able to give you a first hand account of using Stock D76, but I hope I've given you a little confidence in the datasheet times given. Obviously your own methodology will bring its own variations, I'm just saying 'bog standard' works for me (and, quite possibly, I've simply evolved a way of working to fit those standards).