Developing Tmax 3200 with kodak Tmax Developer

Hey,

I shot a roll of Tmax 3200 film(24mm x 36mm) and i was wondering what dilution&developing time is recommended for developing the roll. I'm using Kodak Tmax for development.
The film was shot 3200@3200(or atleast if i got the whole EI thing right, basically i didn't under or overexposed any photo deliberatly)
Most of the shots are evening/night shots, made on a stand with a shutter time of about 2" - 45"

Hello,

Have a look at the Massive Development Chart :
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

Ah wow thanks man, looks very helpful !

Also I read somewhere it's better to develop tmax 3200 at 1600 or even 800 unless you really need the speed, is this correct ?

Some say the ISO of these films is rated too high, and the films should be exposed to a lower ISO.
You should check by yourself that you have enough shadow details on the negative.

mohawk said:

Ah wow thanks man, looks very helpful !

Also I read somewhere it's better to develop tmax 3200 at 1600 or even 800 unless you really need the speed, is this correct ?

Click to expand...

Both Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 seem to be in reality a true 1600 films as I have yet to obtain shadow details at 3200. I shoot Tmax 3200 at 1600 and develop in Clayton F76 at 1:11 rather than 1:9.

I reckon that the 'true' speed is closer to 1250 for these films and the stated dev. times are definitely push processing. Mohawk: If you EXPOSED the film at 3200 DON'T develop it for 800 or anything else. You'd be underexposing AND underdeveloping. Not a good thing

Actual speed is 800-1000, Tmax 3200 used to be called P3200, P standing for push and it was even partially explained on the canisters. When I used to work in a pro lab we charged extra for processing Tmax 3200 since it required twice the development times as other films. Negatives look really good and easy to print at a rated speed of 1000.

That's the problem with figures as name dsignation.

Kodak themselves say that TM P3200 has in their developers an ISO rating of 800-1000!

They also indicate that this film is intended for underexposure and prolonged development.

Anyway, a film is what you make of it.

Dear mohawk,

The film datasheet can be found here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

The developer datasheet can be found here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j86/j86.pdf

Neal Wydra

I had related fun one recent sunday.

hey all,

thanks for all your replies !

I developed the roll today at 3200. I didn't have a chance to make some contacts yet, but judging from the negatives, they tend to loose quiet some detail in the shadows(like you guys said).
So this brings me to the next question, if I shoot another 3200 and expose it as an 1600, should I then develop it as an 3200 or 1600 ? Because if you would do the latter, wouldnt you be overexposing +2 stops ?

Ian Tindale said:

I had related fun one recent sunday.

Click to expand...

haha, yea I read that when I was doing research for the film. I really like the outcome of them(especially the double exposure one), thanks for sharing !

No - develop it at whatever ISO you expose it. Expose 1600 - Develop 1600.

mohawk said:

haha, yea I read that when I was doing research for the film. I really like the outcome of them(especially the double exposure one), thanks for sharing !

Click to expand...

Heh - you'll have to tell Komrade P. that. He'll appreciate it. He shot the rolls - I just dev'd them. I was quite pleased that the results were about where they should be - that there was nothing untoward about the development process or results given the difficult subject lighting circumstances in most of the shoot. When we were hanging the rolls up in the bathroom, the film looked no more base-fogged than many ordinary film types exhibit, and certainly not a high amount. The frames looked a touch contrasty to me, but that's the difficulty of the subject. The main thing was that given the times on the massive dev chart (once I'd decoded it into meaningful units*) were pretty much spot on. The density of the dense parts of the film was about ideal, the clarity of the clear parts was ideal too - hopefully the bits in between fell somewhere useful along a linear portion of a curve.

* by which I mean, the massive dev chart gives its time units in a bit of an unprocessed manner which doesn't immediately translate into a time without further conscious processing by the user. I'd have thought (it being on a computer and all that) the web page should be doing this sort of thinking for us. I mean, it might say a time is 6.5 - what's that supposed to mean? 6 minutes 50 seconds? 6 minutes 30 seconds? 6 minutes 5 seconds? Stop making me think!

mohawk said:

hey all,

thanks for all your replies !

I developed the roll today at 3200. I didn't have a chance to make some contacts yet, but judging from the negatives, they tend to loose quiet some detail in the shadows(like you guys said).
So this brings me to the next question, if I shoot another 3200 and expose it as an 1600, should I then develop it as an 3200 or 1600 ? Because if you would do the latter, wouldnt you be overexposing +2 stops ?

Click to expand...

I shoot at 1600, develop at box time for 3200 9.25 but increase the dilution, Clayton F76 1:11 rather than 1:9.

The original T-Max 3200 gave me decent shadow detail and highlights at an EI of 1600 and developed as Kodak recommended for EI 3200. One's choice of EI and develolpment is a personal one. In poor light, we sometimes have to sacrifice shadow detail and other photographic quality to get any image at all. Shadow detail can also be sacrificed for dramatic effect: consider Eugene Smith's prints.