TMX-100- developer choice

[Mark Sampson]

I was recently given several 100-sheet boxes of 4x5 T-Max 100, slightly expired. During my career at Kodak I shot a lot of this film, mostly in 120 roll form, so I'm well familiar with this emulsion. (I processed it in D-76 1:1 and, later, XTOL 1:1.) But that was mostly for purposes very different than the personal work I'd like to use this windfall for; so my experiences developing this film may not apply. The long-scale, natural-light subjects of my personal work are quite different from the technical and scientific photographs I made on the job. (For the last few years I have used Ilford FP4+, developing in Pyrocat-HD. I'm very happy with that method; before that (for 20 years) I used Tri-X Pan 4164 and developed in PMK.)
So my query is only for people who currently shoot TMX-100.
What do you find to be an effective film developer? It was suggested (by Gordon Hutchings) that PMK did not suit the T-Max films... and today I saw that Photographer's Formulary has a developer for T-Max films, which started this whole idea. Of course since I stock Pyrocat-HD, I will begin testing with that developer. But, well aware that there is no magic bullet, I'm interested in hearing user's experiences.

[Alan Klein]

The pro developer I used worked with XTOL standard supposedly for the best tones and sharpness.

[Corran]

T-Max 100 is my favorite b&w film.

I have used a lot of developers with this film, and currently my favorite is ADOX FX-39. It gives excellent tonality and pretty much full speed. I have also used Acufine with it, rated at 100 or 160, which had lovely tones and was fast working. Finally, for years prior to using the above I used Rodinal (1:50). I shot it at 64 instead and that developer worked well for taming highlights in situations where there was a very large range of brightness.

Never got along with any of the Pyro developers personally.

Rodinal is cheap and easy to work with so I would say give that a go. The others are more expensive, if it matters to you. While I like FX-39 I have recently discovered it doesn't keep well, which is its only drawback. I am considering returning to Rodinal due to this as the negatives were still really good - FX-39 has slightly less grain which matters more for 35mm, which I also shoot a lot of.

I bought a huge lot of TMX 4x5 a couple of years ago and am working through it, but that will run out of course. So if you decide you'd rather spring for something different let me know.......

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've developed it in Pyrocat-HD, as it's my main developer... but in my opinion, TMAX 100 and Xtol 1+1 is a match made in heaven.

[Rich14]

Xtol undiluted.

[AuditorOne]

I develop with D-23 mixed fresh using Ken Lee's formula (7.5g metol to 100g sodium sulfite in 1 liter distilled water. Used stock with no dilution for 135. Dilute 1:1 for 120 and 4x5. All formats agitated continuously using Jobo tank.

[Pere Casals]

I was recently given several 100-sheet boxes of 4x5 T-Max 100, slightly expired. During my career at Kodak I shot a lot of this film, mostly in 120 roll form, so I'm well familiar with this emulsion. (I processed it in D-76 1:1 and, later, XTOL 1:1.) But that was mostly for purposes very different than the personal work I'd like to use this windfall for; so my experiences developing this film may not apply. The long-scale, natural-light subjects of my personal work are quite different from the technical and scientific photographs I made on the job. (For the last few years I have used Ilford FP4+, developing in Pyrocat-HD. I'm very happy with that method; before that (for 20 years) I used Tri-X Pan 4164 and developed in PMK.)
So my query is only for people who currently shoot TMX-100.
What do you find to be an effective film developer? It was suggested (by Gordon Hutchings) that PMK did not suit the T-Max films... and today I saw that Photographer's Formulary has a developer for T-Max films, which started this whole idea. Of course since I stock Pyrocat-HD, I will begin testing with that developer. But, well aware that there is no magic bullet, I'm interested in hearing user's experiences.

Mark, for personal usage, I've been investigating in depth what developer to use for TMX and LF.


This is my conclusion: it doesn't matter at all. What it is important is adjusting your process to get what you want. Time, concentration, agitation... A curve is a curve, just you need to know what curve you want.

Developer choice may modify curve slightly, but what can make a difference is how you use any developer. You may want a full (box) speed developer... not an speed increase or lose. (For that, use the right film)


I use XTOL 1+1 because very low toxicity, and because commonality because for smaller formats I'd prefer XTOL fine grain combined with a sharp look, this looks contradictory, but is what Kodak says:



So no doubt it is the best all around (best acutance, and near best shadow detail, and fine grain), and also it is Low Tox


This said, I saw small details that can favour other options:


You like the slight D-76 midtone expansion instead the 1/3 stop shadow advantage of Xtol, and you don't want to expand mids in the Darkroom.

You want a more compensating developer and don't want do +/-N.

You use rotary, and want control contrast by concentration, so use HC-110.

You want to use your negative for alternative process: use Pyro stain, but TMX is very UV opaque (IIRC) , so not suitable for UV printing.

You want deep shadows, without darkroom complications: Add a toe cutter: Add some Benzotriazole to Xtol or 1.5cc concentrated Rodinal (like) to Xtol 1:2 (If you are to scan, better you put all in the linear part of the curve and play with PS curves, rather that risking in the toe). (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html) Xtol+Rod is the single developer mix I consider.


I found developer choice for 35mm and MF is important, because there grain nature can be important, and solvent action is critical.

For LF you are mostly concerned with tonality, and here the major factor is the particular color filter you use to get the final espectral response you like. This is the very important thing, IMHO.

If you find Xtol stock has some tendence (this has been said, I'm not sure at all) to blow lights, just use it diluted with lowe agitation.


After thinking a lot about it I concluded Xtol was very good, and I prefer to dump Vit-C. Use distilled like water if your water source is high iron and you plan to keep it a lot. I had no problem with a missplaced 18 moths stock bottle, I make drop tests. Open lights, I let fall a drop of developer on a film end (lights open) every minute, and then develop, then I compare (densitometer) with a film strip made when developer was fresh. I find Xtol more stable than D-76.


IMHO multigrade paper (long ago) changed a bit the rules, you have a great deal of control in the print, so film toe and shoulder usage is not critical.

IMHO TMX was designed with that in mind, with Multigrade paper it is a ver professional choice to put all you can in the linear part of the curve of the negative, and then cook the print like you want.

An amateur may prefer (or not) the particular response a film and a particular process delivers. A pro (if this still exists, beyond Sexton and Ross) may be prone to want a linear capture in the neg to have aboslute fredom to cook the print, and a bit this eliminates (IMHO) developer as a critical factor.



All that is IMHO

[Bruce Watson]

XTOL 1:1, 1:3 if you need longer development times.

[Mark Sampson]

Thanks everyone, some useful answers. I will begin testing with Pyrocat-HD, as I have some on hand. I guess I'll try XTOL, too, when I find the 500ml glass bottles that I stored it in (from the days when I shot 35mm Tri-X). If I get any interesting results, I'll post in a new thread. But that may take a while, so don't hold your collective breath.

[chassis]

D-76 1+2 for 14 minutes at 68F in a BTZS tube with 2 inversions every 3 minutes.