• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

D-76 1:1 in T-MAX 400 development times? Conflicting information everywhere

moodlover

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 19, 2015
Messages
229
Format
Medium Format
D-76 1:1
T-MAX 400 (code:TMY-2)
120 film, ASA 400, 20C/68F
TF-4 rapid fixer

Getting conflicting times everywhere I look. My Massive Dev Chart app was great for T-MAX 100, but its saying use the same time for T-MAX 400 (9m30s). Kodak's official data sheet for small tank processing shows 10m15s for the developer at 68F but 9m30s only for 70F. Why does Kodak's time differ from Massiv Dev Charts time? Which is correct?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BradS

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
8,130
Location
Soulsbyville, California
Format
35mm
Both D-76 and T-Max are kodak products....from a time when Kodak still devoted millions of dollars to research and development...why would you not at least start with what the official data sheet says? Surely, Kodak knows how to best use their products.
 
OP
OP

moodlover

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 19, 2015
Messages
229
Format
Medium Format
Because I don't want to lose highlight detail, I overexposed my roll by a stop or two for shadow detail and want to process normally. I also really like how the Massive Dev Chart app works so I am wondering why there are differences and if perhaps the public has found that the times on the dev chart give better results. Plus I paid $10 for the app, I want to trust it.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
55,211
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
T-Max 400 was updated in 2007 and renamed "Kodak Professional T-Max 400" film. A new data sheet was published: F-4043. Use the updated times in it, not the times in F4016 - the older data sheet for both the current T-Max 100 and the older version of the 400 version of the film.

You also need to be cautious of the data sheets for individual developers as some of them have not been updated for the newer film.

Here is a useful link: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...ilmDatabankBW.jhtml?pq-path=13700/14472/14475

For clarity, the older data sheet - F4016 - now applies only to T-Max 100, not the newer Professional T-Max 400.

And the Massive Development Table is a collection of data, not a definitive reference.
 
OP
OP

moodlover

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 19, 2015
Messages
229
Format
Medium Format
Well I linked to this in my first post (the words "Kodaks official data sheet") and that's where I found 10m15s at 68F in D-76 1:1. BUT, Massive Dev Chart is giving me 9m30s (unless I'm doing something wrong). When I select ISO 400-800 it goes to 10m15s but I don't want 800ISO, I want 400.

MattKing said:
And the Massive Development Table is a collection of data, not a definitive reference.
Click to expand...
I can understand that. Just figured if they're charging for this app at least the popular films' information would match precisely with the data sheets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
55,211
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

Because, as is often the case, the Massive Development Chart is either wrong or confused by the updated film .

Or the human being who chose the time for the app likes lower contrast negatives than Kodak does.

Or you are using the app to look up data for the older version of the film.

Interestingly enough, Kodak does not recommend an increase in development time if the film is under-exposed by metering at 800. Whereas the people behind the app have a different approach.

I have limited familiarity with the app - can you dial in your own preference for a particular combination, and then have it take it from there? If so, I would dial in Kodak's numbers to start.
 
OP
OP

moodlover

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 19, 2015
Messages
229
Format
Medium Format
MattKing said:
Because, as is often the case, the Massive Development Chart is either wrong or confused by the updated film .
Click to expand...
Ahh that sucks to hear, you'd think someone charging for an app would at least have the basic info right.

Not that I know of, there's only one option for T-MAX 400 120 film, it doesn't let you decide it's film code or version (why, I have no idea)...
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
55,211
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
A further thought. As Kodak recommends the same development for an EI of 800 as for an EI of 400, it may be that you do have agreement. It is just that you are interpreting "400-800" as being equivalent to a one stop push, whereas it is actually a slightly confusing way of indicating Kodak's standard recommendation.
 

Jim Noel

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
2,261
Format
Large Format
The Massive Development Chart is made up of info sent in by users. We know nothing about their facilities, agitation techniques, thermometer accuracy or experience. The Data Sheets provided by the manufacturers are always the most sound way to start, and then make alterations based on your results. If someone is charging for an app leading to the Massive Development Chart they are just ripping off people who could go directly to it on their computer at no cost.
 

markbarendt

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format

Kodak spent more than $10. They tested more than Ansel did too.

Believe it or not the standard Kodak and Ilford and Fuji and the rest use, is based on the results of public testing. The ISO standard is rooted in real testing done by real people judging real prints.

As to losing highlight detail, for a normal scene with T-max 400 you could probably get away with 4-5 stops extra exposure without losing highlight detail.
 

BradS

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
8,130
Location
Soulsbyville, California
Format
35mm

Bingo!


(Well said. Thanks.)
 
OP
OP

moodlover

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 19, 2015
Messages
229
Format
Medium Format
Haha thats very true. I guess I just see a lot of people using dev chart so I figured it was reliable (maybe it is, just not for the beginner perhaps). Also, this is the first time I'm hearing you can overexpose T-MAX that much, I've heard a lot of people say you have to be very accurate with the exposure.
 

Xmas

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
delete MDC

Paying money when there is a better free product...

Always use the film manufacturers data sheet and read every word.

If you want to use developers not there etc waste a few films until you get a standard negative to print on grade 2 filtration.

Under exposure will make your shadow detail black black black overexposure they will be ok however you will have to dodge or mask your highlights.

If you take a single reflective reading or incident dome and the scene is contrasty overexposed two stops. If you are not sure it is contrasty overexposed two stops.

Buy an enlarger and a print tank you don't need a darkroom heavy drapes and midnight most enlargers are for free. A perfect silver halide print on coffee table is like a lions head on wall you shot with a cross bow...
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,470
Format
4x5 Format
I find slightly longer development times than everybody else's recommendations: I use times over 13 minutes regularly.

These are my times for 4x5 film in trays, but my times for small tank are not much different... 13 minutes 30 seconds.

Sept9TMY2.pdf

If you can learn to measure contrast of your own negatives, you can become independent of the charts and recommendations from other people that might not pertain to your way of working. You can continue to use the Massive Dev Chart as a starting point for new film/developer combinations...

Suppose you take their times as-is, but you work the way I do... You might find that your negatives need to be printed using higher grade paper or filters.

That's not entirely bad, as many people would agree that enlarging from slightly thin negatives brings some advantages.

Just avoid underexposing in this scenario, as you may be achieving a slightly lower Exposure Index than the rated speed of the film.
 
OP
OP

moodlover

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 19, 2015
Messages
229
Format
Medium Format
Okay I followed the advice given here and went with Kodak's number of 10m15s and I am very happy with the results the negatives look wonderful. I can't believe how easy it is to develop film, I don't think I'll every stop now. Now I just gotta figure out how to avoid water stains!

I thought TF-4 fixer would come with some sort of wetting agent but there's still some residue left as the film dries. Is this LFN a good choice?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...KX0mXmliT_hoCjQDw_wcB&is=REG&m=Y&A=details&Q=
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,470
Format
4x5 Format
Good for you moodlover.

I only know Kodak Photo-Flo 200, and I use it in filtered water for the very last rinse.

p.s. I work for Kodak and the opinions and positions I take are not necessarily endorsed by EKC.
 

Xmas

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
Yes good stuff.

But if your water is hard you may need to use a film squeegee.

The difficult part of film processing is...

Avoiding water marks.

Try bottle of deionised water with wetting agent leave film to soak for more than a minute shake reel dry and hang would not work with my hard water though.

The second hard thing is film curl and dust you may be lucky...
 

markbarendt

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format

I can't remember a single time I've been "able" to truly "over" expose T-Max 400 to where the highlights were not printable.

I know it's ingrained in the vernacular to say "over" and "under" but IMO those words don't really describe what's happening. The placement of the subjects are simply being "placed" further up the film curve in most cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register