PDA

View Full Version : Can Anyone Confirm Removal of UV Blocker in TMAX 100



Fragomeni
21-Jan-2011, 11:25
Straight and to the point: Can anyone confirm that soaking in regular isopropyl rubbing alcohol will remove the UV blocking layer from Kodak TMAX 100? Thank you.

D. Bryant
21-Jan-2011, 11:53
Straight and to the point: Can anyone confirm that soaking in regular isopropyl rubbing alcohol will remove the UV blocking layer from Kodak TMAX 100? Thank you.

No it can't be removed, period. Don't use TMAX 100 for UV printing processes. End of story. Use TMY-2 instead.

Don Bryant

Fragomeni
21-Jan-2011, 11:58
Thats a shame but I guess it really doesn't matter in the long run. I have a few sheets of TMAX 100 8x10 left that I was gonna use but I guess not. Regardless after those sheets there are no more thanks to Kodak. I'll be testing Ilford Delta 100 as a possible replacement, any word on how well it responds to UV for alt processes?

Drew Wiley
21-Jan-2011, 14:33
Delta 100 has a curve quite different from TMX, with a longer toe, but similar grain. TMY has a similar curve, analogous dev properties, and slightly more grain and edge acutance.

Vaughn
21-Jan-2011, 14:47
Delta 100 passes UV with no problem (as does TMax400)

Sal Santamaura
21-Jan-2011, 14:53
...TMY has a similar curve, analogous dev properties, and slightly more grain and edge acutance.Similar to Delta 100 or TMX?

sanking
21-Jan-2011, 15:05
Similar to Delta 100 or TMX?

Sal,

TMY-2 is very similar in curve shape (very linear) to Tmax-100, just a tad more grain, but you really have to enlarge a lot to see a difference.

My experience with Delta 100 is fairly limited, but it also has a fairly linear curve, and very fine grain. I believe Lenny Eiger prefers it to other films.

Sandy

Fragomeni
21-Jan-2011, 23:36
Ok, I have a monkey wrench for you guys. I just returned home from a show where a friend of mine was showing. I saw platinum prints of hers made with TMAX 100. I asked her and she said that she printed them from relatively recent boxes of TMAX 100 and that the recent boxes printed as if there was no UV blocking layer. She said her exposure times were normal for pt. I specifically had her confirm that she was talking about 100 and not 400. She was talking about 100.
Either way I'll be bringing several negs to the workshop next week (I thought it was this weekend but its not) and some will be TMAX 100 8x10 from a box I bought just before they discontinued it so thats about a fresh as it gets. If by some miracle it prints I'll report back here.

Fragomeni
21-Jan-2011, 23:46
I just emailed her to have her triple check the box and confirm that its 100 and that she wasn't mixing it up with 400. I can't understand how she found 100 to work. If by some chance she confirms it was 100 I'll report back and let you all know.

Also, I did confirm tonight that denatured alcohol (mineral spirits for those in the UK) has some effect on removing the UV blocking layer. I obviously haven't tested it myself but I received first hand accounts that it has some effect on removing the UV blocking layer. If I thought I'd still be shooting TMAX 100 after next week I'd test it. Either way it might be worth looking into for those still using the film in 4x5 or special orders.

sanking
22-Jan-2011, 06:05
Well, I can confirm that I tested soaking Tmax-100 in isopropyl alcohol a few years ago and it had absolutely no effect on the UV stain. I read the base density before and after the soak with a UV densitometer and it did not change by even log 0.01.

Also, it is possible to make a pt/pd print from a Tmax-100 negative, you just have to add approximately three stops to what would be a normal exposure since the UV base stain is approximately log 1.00. So if your normal exposure is four minutes, with the blocking base it would become 32 minutes.

As far as I know Kodak has not changed the film base for Tmax-100, and if they had I believe this would have been announced.

Sandy

Fragomeni
22-Jan-2011, 10:54
Confirmed. If the box says 100TMAX it should be fine to use with UV exposure processes. If it says TMAX100 then it is the older run which contains the UV blocking layer. Kodak apparently left the UV blocker out after getting bombarded with complaints but there is no record of any official statement being released on the matter (not at all uncommon for Kodak). DISCLAIMER: I have not tested to see if this all holds true so I am basing this information on information I was just given (for the sake of sharing information that seems pertinent). I will personally test the 100TMAX 8x10 that I have next weekend at a Pt/Pl workshop and I'll report back.


Well, I can confirm that I tested soaking Tmax-100 in isopropyl alcohol a few years ago and it had absolutely no effect on the UV stain. I read the base density before and after the soak with a UV densitometer and it did not change by even log 0.01.
I thought it was isopropyl alcohol as well but it is denatured alcohol which is supposed to work. I confirmed this from someone who used the very technique will in the UK when they couldn't find any 400. They said it was a while back but it worked.

Michael Kadillak
22-Jan-2011, 12:18
I will find out directly from Kodak as we have some other dialog taking place with them.

We had a heck of a time getting Kodak to keep the UV coating off of TMY2 and it clearly was on TMX. That may have changed. You would have thought that this would be something that they would want to blow their horn over?

Fragomeni
22-Jan-2011, 12:23
I will find out directly from Kodak as we have some other dialog taking place with them.
THANK YOU!!


We had a heck of a time getting Kodak to keep the UV coating off of TMY2 and it clearly was on TMX. That may have changed. You would have thought that this would be something that they would want to blow their horn over?
Yea well they're not exactly know for being very aware in making product choices.

jnantz
22-Jan-2011, 12:31
I will find out directly from Kodak as we have some other dialog taking place with them.

We had a heck of a time getting Kodak to keep the UV coating off of TMY2 and it clearly was on TMX. That may have changed. You would have thought that this would be something that they would want to blow their horn over?

i had a conversation with them last june ( 2010 ) about this
and i was told the uv layer was still on the tmx films ...

Fragomeni
22-Jan-2011, 13:41
I have no idea. I saw the prints she made. She said the exposure times didn't vary much at all from other films known to not have a UV blocker. I'm flabbergasted. I don't even even know why im so obsessed with this given that Im not using TMAX 100 anymore haha.

P.S> John, I sent you a message over on APUG regarding a different topic. Check it out and get back to me please :)

Harold_4074
24-Jan-2011, 11:24
denatured alcohol (mineral spirits for those in the UK)

In the US, "mineral spirits" is a purified petroleum solvent, similar to naptha but less volatile; denatured alcohol is typically grain alcohol that has various additives to make it undrinkable. Alcohol is a fairly polar solvent; it is water soluble and a good solvent for some things (like shellac) but not others. Mineral spirits (the US version, anyway) is nonpolar, not water soluble, and a good solvent for things like oils and greases.

I apologize for what may seem like a nitpick, but perhaps this will help to keep someone out of a bind...

Fragomeni
24-Jan-2011, 11:54
It's not nitpicking at all. Realistically you probably did just save someone some grief if they went out and made the mistake of asking for the wrong thing. Thanks Harold.

Harold_4074
24-Jan-2011, 12:17
Fragomeni,

I'm glad that you saw it that way. As it happens, in the paint departments of the US there is likely to be both denatured alcohol and mineral spirits, but elsewhere the denatured alcohol may well be labeled "methylated spirits" so the situation is ripe for confusion.

PViapiano
24-Jan-2011, 16:18
Hmmm, I have a couple of boxes that are slightly out of date and the label says 100TMAX on them.

Rayt
25-Jan-2011, 06:23
Excuse the dumb question but which alternative process requires UV exposure?

jnantz
25-Jan-2011, 07:27
hi rayt

a lot of the processes that aren't silver gelatin based ... ( pt/pd, carbon, salt, pop, albumen &C )
but ... i even have trouble exposing dense tmx with a 300w floodlight
onto plain old rc paper. tmy exposures were about 2 seconds and
tmx exposures were about 50 seconds, so it isn't just uv processes
the anti-uv layer has its fun with.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/77968-more-dense-film-less-print-time.html

Rayt
25-Jan-2011, 08:47
Thanks. I am glad I asked. I plan to attend a workshop on carbon printing next year so this is good to know.

Michael Kadillak
25-Jan-2011, 10:22
Dear Michael,

The UV absorber dyes are present on current Kodak Professional T-Max 100 Film.

The film it is not present in is the Kodak Professional T-Max 400 Film 120 and sheet sizes, as well as all sizes of Kodak Tri-X Film.

Please let us know if you have future questions on these or other of our Kodak Professional products.

Sincerely,

Peter V.
Kodak Professional
Technical Support
800-242-2424 ext. 19

The person that concluded that the UV coating is missing on current T Max 100 film is obviously incorrect in this assertion.

Fragomeni
25-Jan-2011, 10:29
I don't know what to say to this until this weekend when I have a go at it myself. I'm fairly confident the person I got this from isn't making anything up. She's a highly skilled alt printer with a large body of work in Pt/Pl and Cyanotype much of which is made with TMAX 100. I don't know many people who open one box of film and then get confused and throw a different random film in the film holder. Either way, I'll check it out for myself this weekend. Also, did you get a chance to ask them if its true that denatured alcohol will remove the backing? I'd be interested in hearing their response to that.

Michael Kadillak
25-Jan-2011, 10:48
There is no question that she is a skilled alt process printer. A couple of things may be taking place that could easily justify her statement. First (and most unlikely) is that she could be using a different film. Second is that her printing light source may be emitting much more of a non-UV light source than she is aware of which could be allowing her to much more effectively get past the UV protective coating and make her statement. Technically, given what we know now directly from Kodak this likely what is taking place.

No big deal. If she is finding a way to make expressive alt process prints with T Max 100 sheet film I for one applaud her creative techniques.

Cheers!

Sal Santamaura
25-Jan-2011, 12:10
The film it is not present in is...as well as all sizes of Kodak Tri-X Film....Alt process printers take note: there's no UV-absorbing layer in 320TXP, which is still a regular stock item in 5x7 and 8x10.

mdm
25-Jan-2011, 13:17
[B][I]Dear Michael,

The UV absorber dyes are present on current Kodak Professional T-Max 100 Film.

The film it is not present in is the Kodak Professional T-Max 400 Film 120 and sheet sizes, as well as all sizes of Kodak Tri-X Film.



Thank you very much for that. I was wondering if 120 TMY was alt printable.

Can anyone tell me if 120 Fuji acros 100 has a UV blocking layer? I am interested in using 120 snapshots to influence the interpretation of a larger print, if I ever get there.

PViapiano
25-Jan-2011, 17:40
As posted by Michael above:

120 TMY does NOT have a UV blocker.

mdm
25-Jan-2011, 18:55
I understand that, he answered my question fortuitously. Still wondering about acros but will do some googling when I get a chance.

Michael Kadillak
25-Jan-2011, 20:22
OK Gang. Sit down when you read this because I am still in a quandary over it.

When I ask these types of technical questions inherently I try to ask the same question from at least two internal sources and expect that the responses will line up on top of one another and all will be well.

Here is my problem.

Earlier today I posted the response I got from Kodak Technical Services stating that TMX does in fact have the UV protective coating.

This evening I got my second response from another professional at Kodak and it turned out that he requested that an inside the Kodak Company chemist test the emulsion and he told me that TMX does not have the UV coating.

As a result first thing in the AM I am going to have some people talking together inside Kodak so we can once and for all get this issue resolved.

I apologize for the confusion but all I am doing is promptly reporting to those interested the progress (or lack thereof) on this rather basic question. One would think that this would not be this confusing but we must remember that the staff at Kodak has lost considerable internal expertise and those remaining are doing double duty in many assignments. It is what it is.

Cheers!

Sevo
26-Jan-2011, 01:34
Can anyone tell me if 120 Fuji acros 100 has a UV blocking layer? I am interested in using 120 snapshots to influence the interpretation of a larger print, if I ever get there.

Doing a quick transmission/fluorescence test, it does not seem to, at any rate not the batch I tried.

YMMV, though. I have no TMX to test, but from the descriptions it sounds most likely that the blocking dye is in the base. That is, it may be something the negative film manufacturers have no influence over other than watching out that they do not accidentally request UV hardened base films from their suppliers. Indeed it may even be something they aren't made aware of before the fact, and they may have to create awareness among the upper management that there are negative implications if all film is standardized to use the "best" base improved for long-term display/projection, or if bases are assigned by cost or availability rather than after an assessment of optical properties.

Mark Sampson
26-Jan-2011, 07:46
Sevo, Kodak designs and manufactures its own film base. I don't know why they put a UV-blocking layer in the base of TMX, but I'm sure there's a good reason. Perhaps for anti-halation purposes, but that's only a guess. I've known and worked with a few of Kodak's film designers; believe me, the design and production of film, b/w or color, is an enormously complex subject.

Fragomeni
29-Jan-2011, 17:44
Well folks I just spent a wonderful day printing pt/pl here in sunny Phoenix and printing with TMAX 100 (4x5, 5x7, and 8x10) negatives gave me no added difficulty and my exposure times were no different then the exposure times for people printing through Ilford HP5, Delta 100, Kodak TMAX 400, and Kodak Tri-X. One other gentleman was printing with TMAX 100 4x5 negatives and he had the same results as I did. The unique difference that we did notice was that the pt/pl seemed to want lower contrast negatives in the case of TMAX 100 rather then higher contrast negatives in the case of the other films. The copy negs I made with higher contrast did not successfully print and the other gentlemen made negs of higher contrast by extended development but when we went to negs that were made for regular silver printing they popped right out on the paper with very little trouble. We used a medium-contrast solution of 3 parts Palladium to 1 part Platinum with 1 drop of Gold Chloride. Exposures throughout the day using various films ranged from 7 minutes to 15 minutes for just about everyone regardless of film.

TMAX 100 did seem to behave differently to some degree as described above regarding normal contrast negs printing better then higher contrast negs but we saw very little evidence of the supposed impossibility of printing with TMAX 100 that so many have stated as fact. I have no idea why we've experienced different results then others but I can confirm that we saw no problem printing TMAX in 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. Also our film was the one labeled 100TMAX if that matters to anyone.

Just wanted to update you all with my experience as I said I would.

BarryS
29-Jan-2011, 21:28
I've made cyanotypes and gum prints using TMAX 100 and I've also never noticed the need for any additional exposure compared with other films. My gum prints expose in 50 seconds, so TMX is terrific as far as I'm concerned. I have a mix of fresh to very old TMX, but I think most of the gum prints have come from recent batches of film.