D-76 Stock times for Tri-X (400TX)

[Don_ih]

@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.

 

[cliveh]

What type of enlarger are you printing the negatives from this film are you using?

 

[MattKing]

Did you not even read what I wrote?

Yes I read it. The recommendations don't match. And there are a number of potential reasons for that - including error - all of which are rather irrelevant to anyone not using Kodak produced D-76, or not creating their own datasheets for their own D-76 or D-76 like product.
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.

 

[MattKing]

@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.

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.

 

[Don_ih]

Matt, your comments are actually of no value. They don't address the concerns I brought up. If "error" is a reason for discrepancies among data sheets that are located on Kodak Alaris' website, that is a problem - one you seem to think is insignificant.

Kodak is not infallible, no mater how much you want them to be.

Kodak Alaris Big Macaroon Lagoona whatever may not have been making chemistry since 1200 BC, but they have been selling film and providing data sheets (they also provide the D76 data sheet).

 

[MattKing]

My comments in this thread are intended to only relate to trying to use Kodak data for chemistry that is currently available, or may be available in the future.
And unless things change radically, in the near future none of that chemistry is going to be coming from Kodak, or be branded Kodak, or be from any entity with any relationship to anything Kodak.
The comments are, and have always been (in this thread) intended as a warning to someone who plans on relying on Kodak data for these non-Kodak products.
If you have Kodak chemicals at hand, and are new to using them with Kodak films, the inconsistencies in the datasheets tell me that it would be better to rely on the data associated with the films, rather than the chemicals.
And if you, like Don and I are, are far from new at this stuff, use your knowledge and experience with the film and developer combination itself rather than the datasheet.

 

[michaelbothager]

What type of enlarger are you printing the negatives from this film are you using?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Steven Lee]

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.

Well... That's what people said about Ilford's ID-11, which is supposedly the same D76 formula. And yet, the HP5 datasheet lists different times for ID-11 and D76. Meanwhile, the Ultrafine 76 developer uses exactly the same times for all films as Kodak's D76. Apparently D76 clones are not identical somehow.

 

[MattKing]

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.

I'm not sure about the "maintaining" part. The only changes effected by Kodak Alaris to the pre-2012 datasheets are the addition of Kodak Alaris' name, and the deletion of most references to no longer available Kodak branded products.

 

[Don_ih]

And yet, the HP5 datasheet lists different times for ID-11 and D76.

That is strange, because, Delta 400 has the same time listed for ID11 and D76, as does Pan F. But FP4 and Delta 100 have different times listed, just like HP5. But at least the times listed in the individual film data sheets match what they list in their own ID11 data sheet.

And, even though it's said that ID11 is identical to D76, it's not called D76 and they are not required to tell anyone what quantities of which are in there.

 

[Bill Burk]

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. That’s a nice aim for EI 800 - 1600.

Kodak not specifying the contrast aim is the chief reason we are confused.

If you want to conclude that’s an error in the data sheet, I would support that opinion.

If you develop your Tri-X for 8 minutes you’ll get nice results. I would support everyone trying longer development times on occasion because contrasty negatives can be interesting.

 

[Don_ih]

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.

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.

 

[Don_ih]

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

Great it sounds as if this is now sorted out but as I am in a head spin now, Don,can you help with clarification:

Was the Kodak you contacted EK or KA?

Which is the correct time and from what sheet mentioned here did that come?

Which is/ are the wrong times and which is the Sino produced D76 sheet that gave the wrong time?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

And that datasheet is unchanged from before 2020, when Kodak Alaris hosted it, and was responsible for the distribution and marketing for D-76 and the other Kodak chemicals.
That current datasheet is also the same - with respect to many of the films listed - as the 2002 datasheet that was Eastman Kodak's responsibility.
Some of the films have changed - T-Max 400 in particular - and others have changed and also gone out of production - Plus-X being an example - but speaking generally, the discrepancy is long standing.

 

[Don_ih]

that datasheet is unchanged from before 2020, when Kodak Alaris hosted it

They still host it

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j78.pdf

but speaking generally, the discrepancy is long standing.

So the moral is they've always been a bunch of morons?

 

[Don_ih]

Actually, this is better:

Kodak says use the film data sheets to guide your development.

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

Thanks, Don, for clearing that up. To be fair I think I can recall Ilford having a couple of anomalies in its sheets but finding the info from Ilford seems much easier. Unfortunately Kodak's situation in relation to those chemicals still labelled Kodak is that to most consumers wishing to check situations in relation to those chemicals and matters of information in relation to those chemical would seem to suggest that we might be entering the wilderness period

pentaxuser

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

I think a quick cross-check of Time-CI listing the film and CI for the minutes development. Build a table and if the lookup tells 0.58 CI that’s normal. If it’s above 0.6 CI it’s probably a push time (or mistake).

So let’s compile a list and see what stands out.

 

[Don_ih]

Given the packets of D76 "Made in Germany" prior to the sale of that stuff to Sino seem to have the same times as the data sheet, written on the table on the front of the package, these "wrong" times have been around a while.

Above, expired 2016 Made in Germany with the wrong times listed.

Below, expired 2014, Made in USA, with the wrong times listed:

But wait! Not only do these packages have the wrong times listed, they also have the right times listed.

"Professional Tmax 100" has 6.5 minutes listed - and that, supposedly is correct.
"Tmax 100 Professional", what?, has 9 minutes listed.

There are also two listings "Professional Tmax 400" and "TMax 400 professional", but they both say 8, neither says 7.5 (from the film's data sheet ... but which film????)

Tri-x has it better, with three listings (not including the 320 Tri-x, of course), with one having a time matching the film's data sheet.

So. What is the difference between "Professional TMAX 100" and "TMAX 100 Professional"? It's obviously significant, because it causes one to need 2.5 minutes longer development than the other. I never knew you could change a film just by rearranging the words on its label.

Is TMX the code for older Tmax100 and 100TMX is the current code? If that's the case, then the D76 data sheet simplified this list from the package but chose the wrong time for the current film, which is what was speculated at the start of this thread. Of course, 400TMY is still wrong on these packages, unless that film has been changed in the past 7 years.

 

[pentaxuser]

It sounds and looks like the kind of mess that Monty Python could have had "Four Yorkshiremen" debating in a sketch. Pity it's real in this case

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

Just occurred to me, considering that HC 110 was changed, any possibility that Sino Promise changed D76 and did not tell anyone?

 

[Molli]

Those packages list times for Tri-X Pan (TX 8min. in Stock D76) and Professional Tri-X 400 (TX400 6¾min.).

I have a roll of 120 pan that came out of a second hand camera already exposed. Developed, the images easily fall into the 1970s Era. The unexposed, unopened box of 135 pan has an expiry date of 1978.

I've always assumed two different films = two different developing times, with the newer version needing less development to reach the same contrast index as the previous version.

I use D76 1+1. Aside from the 15sec. difference, I'm guessing it was the forty-plus years of poor storage that means I can't give you a proper comparison of the two stocks and developing times!

 

[MattKing]

There are two different versions of both T-Max 100 and T-Max 400.
From the F-32 datasheet in 2002:

From the 2007 F-4016 datasheet in 2007 - rotated sideways.

This was much of what I was referencing earlier, when I posted:

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.

Similar changes in the nature and name of Plus-X also occurred.