PDA

View Full Version : Best developer for 400 TMAX



Noah B
29-Sep-2011, 09:49
Hey all, do any of you shoot Kodak 400 TMAX film? There are a ton of developers out there and I usually use HC110 Dilution B for my 8x10 and 120 film. I was wondering which developers have the finest grain for this particular film.

Drew Wiley
29-Sep-2011, 10:01
This is a film which works well with quite a number of developers. Yes, HC110 is good,
or you could also try TMaxRS for a somewhat straighter line performance. I personally
like PMK pyro in trays; but there are all kinds of excellent competing pyro forumlas by
which to "hotrod" the performance of this particular film. I shoot it in everything from
35mm to 8x10.

Jay DeFehr
29-Sep-2011, 10:05
Unless you're game to mix your own from bulk, I'd recommend replenished Xtol for the best all-around mix of image qualities.

jeroldharter
29-Sep-2011, 10:12
You will get the usual gamut of responses here. Having read many of these threads, I would say that the most common responses are some version of pyro, Xtol, or TMAX RS. There are many variables of course but I would say those are the three emost common developers people use. I use Xtol.

Darin Boville
29-Sep-2011, 10:14
Does it mater whether the OP is enlarging optically or scanning? Or is the difference just a matter of changing developing times?

--Darin

Jay DeFehr
29-Sep-2011, 10:42
Darin,

I replied based on his specification of finest grain. Grain will always be finer with less development, all things being equal.

Drew Wiley
29-Sep-2011, 10:46
Certainly from a grain size standpoint, HC-110 would NOT be the best choice; common
D76 would give better results in this respect or TMRS. I've never tried XTOL.

Peter De Smidt
29-Sep-2011, 11:28
In my experience, Xtol will give finer grain than the other options mentioned. It also gives good film speed and sharpness. You can get finer grain, such as with microdol x, but you will always give something else up, such as film speed, accutance...

Pyrocat HD (and it's varients) will give slightly larger grain than Xtol or D76, but their stain leads to even higher resolution.

Jay DeFehr
29-Sep-2011, 11:48
Peter,

The enhanced resolution is not due to stain, but tanning. Otherwise, I agree with your post above.

MIke Sherck
29-Sep-2011, 16:17
I'll be the odd guy out and say that I like it in straight D76. FRESH D76, mind you! Tmax films don't like D76 which has sat around and oxidized for a while, even a few days.

I mix D76 a gallon at a time, then decant into four 1 quart containers, filled to the brim and tightly capped. It'll keep for months that way.

Mike

moltogordo
2-Oct-2011, 23:31
I'll be the odd guy out and say that I like it in straight D76. FRESH D76, mind you! Tmax films don't like D76 which has sat around and oxidized for a while, even a few days.

I mix D76 a gallon at a time, then decant into four 1 quart containers, filled to the brim and tightly capped. It'll keep for months that way.

Mike

I think I'll try this, Mike. I've used D76 1:1, but think it's a bit flat. I've also used Rodinal, which is an aquired taste but certainly snappy, with better graduation than HC110.

The advantage of D76 is if a place carries developer, D76 will be there. And it's a good soup.

Peter De Smidt
3-Oct-2011, 06:51
If d76 1+1 is "flat", then you might try developing a bit longer.

moltogordo
3-Oct-2011, 13:14
If d76 1+1 is "flat", then you might try developing a bit longer.

I actually think the problem is that up until my recent film renaissace, I was using tapwater. I'll use distilled now, like I should have in the first place. I haven't tried the 1+1 D76 combo in distilled. Our tapwater is hard, and probably has stuff in it that buffers development. Now that I'm back into film, I'll do it right. From a taste standpoint, our tapwater is much worse now than when I was doing film 7 or 8 years ago.

I'll try a test neg with distilled and give it an extra 10%. Thanks!

Larry Gebhardt
3-Oct-2011, 18:38
I am very fond of Pyrocat HD with TMax 400. The staining/tanning effect of the developer really hides the already minimal grain. And the sharpness is superb.

Roger Cole
4-Oct-2011, 03:24
T-Max RS for me.

frednewman
4-Oct-2011, 19:33
I think the best developer for 400 T-Max is Ilford's DDX. Really great film curves and the best film speed with the DDX. You can see some of the curves in the video on pre-soak vs no presoak on youtube.com:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WM2ldlD-L8

Fred Newman

Drew Wiley
4-Oct-2011, 19:38
76 has the peculiar characteristic of behaving somewhat differently immediately mixed versus when it has reached equilibrium a few days later (up to a month or
so afterwards tightly sealed). This is true even 1:1, so you have to standardize upon
one technique or the other. Distilled water helps with a different set of variables if
your tap water itself varies from time to time or contains excessive added whatever.
76 will certainly work decently, but is not on my personal A list for TMY.

peter schrager
4-Oct-2011, 21:24
picked up from one of the guys over at APUG....xtol 1+2 with one minute presoak; developed for 11:15 tray or tank (as in 120);use at 68 degrees please!! this makes for
beautiful negatives....I have even used this method for making alternate process negs;just increased time by about 40%
have a great day everyone...happy developing!
Peter

polyglot
6-Oct-2011, 02:21
Agree with XTOL for the fine grain... but this is TMY2 in LF we're talking about and grain shouldn't really be an issue. Therefore I prefer the Rodinal tonality; it's a bit stark but very sharp and snappy with good highlight separation.

Tom Monego
7-Oct-2011, 07:41
I always liked T-Max developers for T-Max film, that way the film kept its published speed, with D-76 I had to use ISO 100 or 200 or get too much contrast, never used Pyro.
One question, I lost my digital camera to a kayaking accident, and have an excuse now to resurrect my 4x5s. But I don't have a place in my house for film developing. Is there a dependable b&w processing lab in the US I could use, my local lab just closed down. I am in Vermont/New Hampshire area. If I have to buy film at B&H I may as well ship out the processing.

Tom

John Kasaian
7-Oct-2011, 07:59
I always liked T-Max developers for T-Max film, that way the film kept its published speed, with D-76 I had to use ISO 100 or 200 or get too much contrast, never used Pyro.
One question, I lost my digital camera to a kayaking accident, and have an excuse now to resurrect my 4x5s. But I don't have a place in my house for film developing. Is there a dependable b&w processing lab in the US I could use, my local lab just closed down. I am in Vermont/New Hampshire area. If I have to buy film at B&H I may as well ship out the processing.

Tom

Get a Unicolor off ebay dirt cheap & soup fillm on the kitchen drainboard. Graywolf Phillips has the details on the LF Home Page ---click on the blue banner at the top of this page

Rick A
7-Oct-2011, 13:40
A darkroom is not necessary to process film. All you need is a changing tent(I do not like bags)and a decent 4x5 developing tank like a Jobo or Combi-Plan, and the kitchen sink. I have the luxury of a room that I can black-out for loading my Jobo reel and tank, and I process at the kitchen sink. I also print optically (in the utility room off the kitchen), and wash my prints in the kitchen sink. Many people use a spare bathroom for a darkroom.

Andrew O'Neill
7-Oct-2011, 13:59
Xtol 1+1, D-76 1+1, and Pyrocat-HD. Matches made in heaven.

Jim Jones
7-Oct-2011, 15:37
With T-Max developer on hand for smaller film, I also use it for tray developing T-Max 400 sheet film. The diluted developer keeps well even when reused for roll film. A little from that bottle suffices for tray developing sheet film, and is then disgarded.

Lenny Eiger
7-Oct-2011, 15:50
D-76 is no match for Xtol 1:1 or more, or Pyro. D-76 is filled with sodium sulfite, which etches away the edges of grains, to make "finer grains" which are then further apart, making the film appear grainier. It was invented back in the 1920's. Xtol is quite an improvement.

And yes, to answer another's question, there is a big difference when you are trying to match the limited characteristics of darkroom paper, or trying to optimize what one can do with a scanner, or a specific alternative process.

Lenny

Tom Monego
7-Oct-2011, 18:36
Get a Unicolor off ebay dirt cheap & soup fillm on the kitchen drainboard. Graywolf Phillips has the details on the LF Home Page ---click on the blue banner at the top of this page

Already have a really nice Nikor 4x5 tank, its only problem is that it holds 1300cc to develop properly, I also don't have a facet that can hold my gravity works washer. So I can't just have 1 liter tanks hanging around. I had a dark room for 30 years, well aware of how to develop film, just don't want to take it on right now. Have a very demanding job, and time wise and mental wise it is not an option. I would more like to concentrate on making images, so would like to find a lab to develop 4x5 b&w correctly.

thanks
Tom

Ron Marshall
7-Oct-2011, 19:15
What Kodak says:

Bill Burk
7-Oct-2011, 20:04
I would more like to concentrate on making images, so would like to find a lab to develop 4x5 b&w correctly.

I'd almost say anyone on this forum would be a good choice.

But I certainly understand how much pleasure there is taking pictures and how the darkroom work can backup because you're working hard. That is why I have a backlog... Shoot 6 develop 8, that's the only way I can make progress. Now that soccer season has arrived I only have one or two nights a week when I can do even that.

Rick A
8-Oct-2011, 07:32
T-Max 400 exposed at ei200, developed in RO-9 1+50/8.5 minutes @ 20c. Printed on Ilford MGIV RC delux 8x10 souped in Ethol LPD. Scanned print, my favorite way to treat T-Max 400.

Roger Cole
8-Oct-2011, 10:46
D-76 is no match for Xtol 1:1 or more, or Pyro. D-76 is filled with sodium sulfite, which etches away the edges of grains, to make "finer grains" which are then further apart, making the film appear grainier. It was invented back in the 1920's. Xtol is quite an improvement.

And yes, to answer another's question, there is a big difference when you are trying to match the limited characteristics of darkroom paper, or trying to optimize what one can do with a scanner, or a specific alternative process.

Lenny

Um...disagree. Sulphite has some solvent action and was traditionally thought to reduce apparent graininess at the expense of sharpness. There is some debate about that, but D76 (AND Xtol) do appear grainier and sharper used diluted than full strength. Sulphite definitely does not make the negatives look "grainier" though. This flies in the face of decades of experience, including that of people who add a small amount of sulphite to Rodinal.

Remember ID11 Plus? The theory was that it wasn't the solvent effect of the sulphite that caused the apparent loss of sharpness, it was the physical redevelopment of the dissolved silver plating back onto the film, so ID11 Plus contained a silver sequestering agent, Cinnamic acid disulfide, that prevented this. It was discontinued when it was found that this agent reduced film speed with some new technology films:

http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/1999/oct99/0358.html

Pop Photo of the day did seem to show improved sharpness over regular ID11/D76, and the plus version contained the same amount of sulphite.

Besides, Xtol contains sulphite too. See MSDS for part A:

http://msds.kodak.com/ehswww/external/result/report.jsp?P_LANGU=E&P_SYS=8&P_SSN=21130&P_REP=00000000000000000002&P_RES=22371

AND part B:

http://msds.kodak.com/ehswww/external/result/report.jsp?P_LANGU=E&P_SYS=8&P_SSN=21130&P_REP=00000000000000000012&P_RES=22371

Xtol is a good developer but it isn't a miracle. One thing I distinctly do not like about it is that it dies rather suddenly and with no apparent color change. It looks fine, worked fine last week, then suddenly produces almost blank negatives.

I'd hesitate to even call it better overall than D76, though it's certainly different. D76 has been around so long because it's so good. It's not the fastest or the slowest in shadow detail, not the sharpest or the least sharp, the finest grained or the grainiest, but it is a very good all around developer.

EDIT: I did some Google-Fu on ID11 Plus and found the reason it was discontinued was that the silver sequestering agent, Cinnamic acid disulfide, tended to reduce film speed with some new technology films:

http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/1999/oct99/0358.html

Jay DeFehr
8-Oct-2011, 11:18
I think the sulfite effect in D-76 has more to do with physical development than with etching the grains. The dissolved silver in solution is re-plated on the film creating an effect similar to that of the dye in staining developers.

Xtol replenished produces very fine grain, and good sharpness, with near-full film speed, so I consider it a very good option for one who wants the finest grain from a commercially available developer. For the brave few willing to compound their own developers, Halcyon is very hard to match.

Ken Lee
8-Oct-2011, 12:13
According to the Film Developers Cookbook (http://www.amazon.com/Film-Developing-Cookbook-Darkroom-Vol/dp/0240802772) by Steve Anchell, Sodium Sulfite has the effect of producing finer grain at the expense of acutance - by the process you mentioned - but this is mitigated when the developer is diluted to 1:1 and beyond.

Anchell states that Sulfite-based formulas like D-76 and D-23, when diluted, give moderate grain and moderate acutance. According to Anchell, D-23 does this, while giving less compressed highlights than D-76.

Anchell suggests that large format negatives have a lesser need for fine grain, but a greater need for rich tonality. You might find this article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/D-23.php) interesting.

Lenny Eiger
8-Oct-2011, 17:58
I just remember reading about the sulfites from very old textbooks, describing MQ and PQ type developers, etc. There is something called solvent action, etc. However, I will add that I haven't done specific testing lately on any of this, nor am I going to. You guys can all have the last word on photochemistry.

I will only add that Ron Marshall (in post 27) posted a chart of "What Kodak says" and this chart matches my experience... in my darkroom. Xtol may not be magic but it wins over the other choices that get a lot of mention here.

Next year, I will test some Pyro against the Xtol, which I think will be interesting..

Lenny

BetterSense
8-Oct-2011, 18:25
There's no accounting for taste, but I don't see the point of D76 now that there is Xtol. If cost is a concern, and film speed isn't or I want a different look, there's always D23.

I use Xtol or Rodinal for sheet film, depending purely on my mood.

Lynn Jones
10-Oct-2011, 16:08
Any true fine grain developer.

Lynn

Roger Cole
10-Oct-2011, 18:08
There's no accounting for taste, but I don't see the point of D76 now that there is Xtol. If cost is a concern, and film speed isn't or I want a different look, there's always D23.

I use Xtol or Rodinal for sheet film, depending purely on my mood.

No, there isn't.

It's good. I just don't see it supplanting D76. It dies too suddenly and unpredictably with no sign it is dead, and currently only comes in the unwieldy 5 liter size.

Pawlowski6132
11-Oct-2011, 17:52
According to the Film Developers Cookbook (http://www.amazon.com/Film-Developing-Cookbook-Darkroom-Vol/dp/0240802772) by Steve Anchell, Sodium Sulfite has the effect of producing finer grain at the expense of acutance - by the process you mentioned - but this is mitigated when the developer is diluted to 1:1 and beyond.

Anchell states that Sulfite-based formulas like D-76 and D-23, when diluted, give moderate grain and moderate acutance. According to Anchell, D-23 does this, while giving less compressed highlights than D-76.

Anchell suggests that large format negatives have a lesser need for fine grain, but a greater need for rich tonality. You might find this article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/D-23.php) interesting.

Ken, do you use this as a divided developer or, in other words, use the D-23 and then use a second bath of Borax, or Sodium Metaborate or Sodium Carbonate?

MIke Sherck
11-Oct-2011, 19:07
I learn so much from these discussions. Thanks to everyone who's contributed!

Mike

Pawlowski6132
11-Oct-2011, 19:09
I learn so much from these discussions. Thanks to everyone who's contributed!

Mike

Even me?

:p

h2oman
11-Oct-2011, 20:33
OK, so here's the total gumby question: What do you folks mean when you say "replenished?"

Ken Lee
12-Oct-2011, 04:01
Ken, do you use this as a divided developer or, in other words, use the D-23 and then use a second bath of Borax, or Sodium Metaborate or Sodium Carbonate?

No - I'm referring to D-23, not Divided D-23.

When performing some tests with Divided D-23 (different times in A and B) I soon realized that the difference between Divided and regular formulas was negligible. However, I discovered the truth in Anchell's statement (emphasis mine):

"... it would seem that the best developers to use are those that exhibit superadditive characteristics. Most general-purpose developers fall into this category. However, there is a flip side. Most developers that utilize this effect tend to yield greater high-value density than those that rely on one developing agent. A developer of the semi-compensating type using either metol or pyro alone in a solution of relatively low pH, is capable of producing brilliant high values, full-scale mid-tones and shadows (e.g. Kodak D-23 and Kodak D-1, ABC Pyro, especially Edward Weston's variation)."

I concluded that when a divided developer is required (to accommodate a high contrast situation), a truly divided developer such as Divided Pyrocat (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=52913) is far superior. With truly divided developers, no development at all takes place in Solution A. Developer is absorbed into the film, but no development takes place until activation in Solution B.

"Divided" D-23 develops the image in both baths: the compensation effect is minimal compared to what we can get with a genuine divided developer. The thread to which I linked, on Divided Pyrocat, contains many compelling sample photos taken in extremely contrasty lighting: like shooting inside and outside of a cave at the same time !

Roger Cole
12-Oct-2011, 04:30
I'd almost say anyone on this forum would be a good choice.

But I certainly understand how much pleasure there is taking pictures and how the darkroom work can backup because you're working hard. That is why I have a backlog... Shoot 6 develop 8, that's the only way I can make progress. Now that soccer season has arrived I only have one or two nights a week when I can do even that.


I just remember reading about the sulfites from very old textbooks, describing MQ and PQ type developers, etc. There is something called solvent action, etc. However, I will add that I haven't done specific testing lately on any of this, nor am I going to. You guys can all have the last word on photochemistry.

I will only add that Ron Marshall (in post 27) posted a chart of "What Kodak says" and this chart matches my experience... in my darkroom. Xtol may not be magic but it wins over the other choices that get a lot of mention here.

Next year, I will test some Pyro against the Xtol, which I think will be interesting..

Lenny

Yep, and I agree with "what Kodak says" as far as it goes. And D76 and Xtol are very comparable in sharpness, with maybe a very slight edge to Xtol. This is at least partly because both have comparable sulphite concentrations. The same would hold at 1+1 though both would be sharper diluted.

Some people love the results with replenished Xtol. I don't know anyone using replenished D-76 any more, but there probably are folks. Either is cheap enough that the only reason not to dilute and use one shot would be that you prefer the results replenished, certainly not to save a few cents.

Jay DeFehr
12-Oct-2011, 07:35
Roger,

I thought I read somewhere that Xtol contains roughly 1/2 the sulfite of D-76, but maybe I'm remembering wrong.