Did you not even read what I wrote?
@michaelbothager my main concern is the apparent inconsistency throughout all listed film stocks. Unless they pluck target contrast indexes willy nilly out of the air when they list recommended developing times, it makes no sense.
No wonder people switch to Xtol -- because oddly enough those times all match.
If you are asking me, it is not relevant for my original question. I was merely wondering about the discrepancies in Tri-X development times in the two data sheets, nothing else. But I haven't got a darkroom (unfortunately), so I scan on a Imacon PIII.What type of enlarger are you printing the negatives from this film are you using?
This may be a possible reason for the inconsistencies and lack of coordinated updates between the two data sheets.Eastman Kodak has not, of course, actually produced any of its chemicals since approximately 2000, and has had no role in the marketing or technical support of those chemicals since the bankruptcy in 2012.
Kodak Alaris is also out of the chemicals game since 2020.
Most importantly though, almost all of the direct, commercial lab user to film and chemistry manufacturer/marketer and support source is gone with the near disappearance of the industry. That was the interaction that historically kept datasheets current.
I would fully expect Adox Spirit of 76 to give results identical to Kodak D76 with the same processing times. D76 isn't a magic potion.
If you are asking me, it is not relevant for my original question. I was merely wondering about the discrepancies in Tri-X development times in the two data sheets, nothing else. But I haven't got a darkroom (unfortunately), so I scan on a Imacon PIII.
This may be a possible reason for the inconsistencies and lack of coordinated updates between the two data sheets.
But Kodak Alaris is hosting both data sheets on their web site (imaging.kodakalaris.com) and is the owner (if thats the right description) of both PDF documents, signed with "KODAK ALARIS • ROCHESTER, NY 14615" at the end of both documents. They also lists that the trademarks belonging to Eastman Kodak (Tri-X...) and Kodak Alaris (D-76...). This, to me, suggests, that Kodak Alaris is maintaining and revising both documents, hence the inconsistencies should not be present... but this is speculation on my part. I guess that no one outside of Kodak Alaris really know why there is a discrepancy, and maybe not even inside Kodak Alaris.
And yet, the HP5 datasheet lists different times for ID-11 and D76.
It’s clear that 8 minutes in D-76 stock 68-degrees F in small tank with 30 second intervals between agitation will aim for above 0.62 Contrast Index.
Well, I contacted Kodak and asked them. The response is, essentially, the times give on data sheets for the films are correct and there's no good explanation for the times on the D76 sheet other than it came from Sino.
So, case closed. Burn the D76 sheet.
The current D76 sheet hosted by Kodak Alaris is provided by Sino and it has the wrong times for Tri-x, Tmax 100, and Tmax 400.
that datasheet is unchanged from before 2020, when Kodak Alaris hosted it
but speaking generally, the discrepancy is long standing.
The current D76 sheet hosted by Kodak Alaris is provided by Sino and it has the wrong times for Tri-x, Tmax 100, and Tmax 400.
The correct times are on the individual sheets for the films. In the case of Tri-X, it would be 6 mins, 45 secs.
I contacted Kodak Alaris.
Does that explain the other discrepancies on the D76 sheet with the other films? It only matches PlusX, it's 2.5 minutes off Tmax 100, but only 30 seconds off Tmax 400.
By the way, matters are further complicated by the changes over the years in the various Kodak films, with correspondingly confusingly small changes in the names of those films.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?