Best developer for Kodak TMY2

[RattyMouse]

RattyMouse,
I see you are holding out just like me. I refuse to risk even one negative, good or bad, on a film like TMY2, no matter how good it "CAN" be. This dilemma should have played out months ago.

Well, I've never really shot much Delta 400, so now is as good a time as any to get my feet wet with that film. I just love TMAX400 because you can shoot it at ISO800 if need be and still develop normally. Anyway, I started using TMAX400 on my first trip to Japan and really loved the images I came away with and so repeated that for my next 4-5 trips there so it became sort of a ritual for me to shoot this film (and use DD-X) to develop it. Great, great results.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well, I've never really shot much Delta 400, so now is as good a time as any to get my feet wet with that film. I just love TMAX400 because you can shoot it at ISO800 if need be and still develop normally. Anyway, I started using TMAX400 on my first trip to Japan and really loved the images I came away with and so repeated that for my next 4-5 trips there so it became sort of a ritual for me to shoot this film (and use DD-X) to develop it. Great, great results.

DD-X and Delta ought to be excellent for you. I have only used two bottles of DD-X, but thought it was really a fine developer. I settled on Xtol-R since cost is much less and the results are darn good, but for a store-bought developer DD-X is very hard to beat. I too, like TMY2, but I'm just a little gun shy at the moment.

 

[Ian Grant]

XTOL is about 90g/l sulfite (based on the patent, which may or may not correspond exactly with the commercial formula).

I don't buy the t-grain/sulfite stuff. That was mostly a Crawley thing perpetuated by Anchell/Troop and I don't think it has much merit although clearly tablular films, being finer grained, are also a good fit with non-solvent developers. In any case D-76 was the release developer for the T Max films and they performed excellently with it. XTOL was a later development and was a step forward (albeit a small one) in solvent developers.

My understanding of the T grain Sulphite issue came from information Kodak put out themselves around the time Tmax films were first released in the UKand the announcement that they would be launching a new developer Xtol which would give better results with the films compared to D76/ID-11, initially they rushed out Tmax developer..

I can't remember know if John Sexton also mention this in his articled on Tmax pre it's release, (I have 2 somewhere from Darkroom Techniques), but it was long before I'd ever heard of Steve Anchell. As editor of the then weekly BJP Geoffrey Crawley had very close links with the film & paper manufacturers so I doubt he'd have had his facts wrong, in the 80's there were still occasional articles written by chemists etc from Ilford and Kodak.

Ian

 

[juan]

I've gotten good results from the Pyrocats, FX-37 and HC-110. With HC-110 I found more dilute versions than my normal dilution B were more controllable.

 

[removed account4]

rick

also look at sprint film developer
it gives great results for tmx, tmy tmz and every other film you can put through it. you can over develop your film and it won't
block up your highlights like some other develoeprs do, you can use it deep tank, replenished &c too. comes as a liquid mixes 1:9 ...

 

[Anon Ymous]

FWIW, I've developed TMY2 in D76 1+1 and stock/replenished Xtol. It always performed very well and got nice, sharp, well detailed negatives. I've also developed TMX in homebrew Perceptol 1+1 and got very fine grain, combined with sharpness. I didn't get any edge effects, but you don't (IMHO) need them to get sharp negatives. A sharp lens, combined with a sharp film will give you sharp negatives, regardless of the developer used.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I never liked TMAX films when they came out but Kodak has improved them, definitely TMY2. I have not tried TMX again yet but I think that may be the original emulsion...opinions?...

TMAX 100 is not the same film introduced around 1987. In 2002, when coating was moved to Bldg. 38, grain of the newly designated "100TMX" increased compared to its predecessor, while acutance, already not spectacular, decreased. I didn't notice much change in TMAX 400 at that time, but found it significantly improved when the current version was introduced in late 2007.

While the degree to which these observations apply might vary depending on developer used, I've found them to be applicable regardless of processing.

 

[RichardJack]

Thanks for all of your replies. I really can't complain about the results that I'm getting with TMAX developer. The frames taken with a metered body were better than my sunny-16 guesses, that could of been a factor. I will definitely give XTOL a try. I have to mail order it, local stores don't carry it. I usually mix my chemicals with distilled water and in most cases only use them one shot unless it's within a half hour of each other.
I recently got back into film, does anyone know if Ilford made any improvements to their Delta films in the last 10 years? I'm still using up my outdated stock.
regards,
Rick

 

[mshchem]

+1 or +2 or +3 even!

Yes, I use XTOL straight with the Jobo, 1:1 with hand inversion. It's the film more than the developer.

 

[mshchem]

Thanks for all of your replies. I really can't complain about the results that I'm getting with TMAX developer. The frames taken with a metered body were better than my sunny-16 guesses, that could of been a factor. I will definitely give XTOL a try. I have to mail order it, local stores don't carry it. I usually mix my chemicals with distilled water and in most cases only use them one shot unless it's within a half hour of each other.
I recently got back into film, does anyone know if Ilford made any improvements to their Delta films in the last 10 years? I'm still using up my outdated stock.
regards,
Rick

I'm still shooting up TMY 1 that's got 1996 expy.that I bought for 10 bucks a hundred sheet box ,always been in the fridge works great. I don't know about recent improvement in Ilford. I must say modern black and white films blow me away Kodak,Ilford and Fuji is about all I've tried. I remember Tri-X back in the 70's, that was when grain was grain!
About 90 % of what I shoot is medium format 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 on TMY 2. Sheet film, lately, new purchases have been Ilford Delta 100 and HP5 mostly 8x10 sheet works great.
Best Regards Mike

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for all of your replies. I really can't complain about the results that I'm getting with TMAX developer. The frames taken with a metered body were better than my sunny-16 guesses, that could of been a factor. I will definitely give XTOL a try. I have to mail order it, local stores don't carry it. I usually mix my chemicals with distilled water and in most cases only use them one shot unless it's within a half hour of each other.
I recently got back into film, does anyone know if Ilford made any improvements to their Delta films in the last 10 years? I'm still using up my outdated stock.
regards,
Rick

As far as I know the Delta films are the same. We just took a trip and went through about 20 rolls between us of Delta 400 120, and it looks the same as always. There was a point many years ago where the Delta films changed names, like Delta 400 to 400 Delta, or the other way around... Not sure if the formulation changed or not.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've read that Kodak states the resolution of TMY2 is 200 l/mm.
So far I have only processed it in TMAX developer 1:4. (shooting 120)
I recently did a lens test of 7 of my Bronica normal lenses (75-80mm) and noticed while many of my lenses could resolve 80 l/mm (which was the upper limits of my NBS targets) there is no way I could resolve 100 l/mm or more because of the grain. This is still great film IMO for a ISO400 film and will keep using it. I'm wondering how Kodak got that number? I've always read that TMAX developer was formulated for the TMAX films and was the best choice. Has anyone that has use TMAX developer gotten better results with something else? I'd prefer keeping the ISO at it's standard rating of 400.
thanks in advance,
Rick

IMO D76 or ID 11 1+1

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

IMO D76 or ID 11 1+1

I have used that combination in the past, and in my opinion TMY-2 sings in just about every developer used with it. It truly is a spectacular film.

But then again, I'm also a firm believer in the continuous use of materials, exploring alterations in technique and HOW the products are used, which in my opinion yields more performance improvement than trying to find the best materials. It also teaches us a lot about what exactly to expect once the film has been processed, which helps a lot with the printing, and eventually it gives a person a lot of feel for the whole work flow as one large interdependent system, where every step of the process matters down the road. If we know to a larger degree how the steps affect the outcome, we are better off in terms of the results achieved; we are much more in control.
I know people are curious about different developers, and I am like this also, which is why I'm working my way through some ADOX FX-39 I felt like I had to try. After it is gone, and I have used up my stash of Harvey's Panthermic 777, I'll probably go back to using Xtol again. Sometimes a walk on the other side of the fence is needed to appreciate what we have.

 

[haziz]

Xtol and D76 are both good choices for Tmax 400 (TMY). I usually use them diluted 1:1, one shot.

 

[Jim Blomfield]

+1 TMY2 and DD-X

 

[destroya]

i just developed 4 rolls in Pyro-hdc. came out perferct as always. I think its hard to find a developer that does not work well with TMY.

 

[RichardJack]

Great replies, I have so much to try. What is your opinion of TMX vs TMY2? Did Kodak improve TMX the same time they did TMY?
I'm getting the feeling that there is no advantage of using TMX over TMY2...your thoughts? I've been lost in the digital world for the last 15 years and making my way back.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Great replies, I have so much to try. What is your opinion of TMX vs TMY2? Did Kodak improve TMX the same time they did TMY?
I'm getting the feeling that there is no advantage of using TMX over TMY2...your thoughts? I've been lost in the digital world for the last 15 years and making my way back.

TMX has a fair bit finer grain, higher sharpness, higher resolution than TMY2. But it's 2-3 stops slower in the same developer, and I've always loved the results I get with TMY-2 in print, all the way up to 16x20 from 35mm. With a film that's that much slower you'd be shooting differently too, since longer shutter times will be required for the same depth of field. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is subjective.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I have used that combination in the past, and in my opinion TMY-2 sings in just about every developer used with it. It truly is a spectacular film.

But then again, I'm also a firm believer in the continuous use of materials, exploring alterations in technique and HOW the products are used, which in my opinion yields more performance improvement than trying to find the best materials. It also teaches us a lot about what exactly to expect once the film has been processed, which helps a lot with the printing, and eventually it gives a person a lot of feel for the whole work flow as one large interdependent system, where every step of the process matters down the road. If we know to a larger degree how the steps affect the outcome, we are better off in terms of the results achieved; we are much more in control.
I know people are curious about different developers, and I am like this also, which is why I'm working my way through some ADOX FX-39 I felt like I had to try. After it is gone, and I have used up my stash of Harvey's Panthermic 777, I'll probably go back to using Xtol again. Sometimes a walk on the other side of the fence is needed to appreciate what we have.

Thomas I've gone down that road but why keep trying different developers? I use xtol 1+2 semi and it works for me; makes great prints. of course I'm always wanting to try different but you'll never make art if you don't know your materials

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas I've gone down that road but why keep trying different developers? I use xtol 1+2 semi and it works for me; makes great prints. of course I'm always wanting to try different but you'll never make art if you don't know your materials

Well, logically I mostly agree. I'm extremely curious about the different developers out there, and it's fun to try new things. It keeps me interested in continuing on with photography, as silly as that sounds. I get bored with repetition very easily.