How to achieve finer grain with TMAX 100?

[hoakin1981]

Thank you...

...all for all the great feedback so far. Apparently the common consensus is that there is not much more I can do with HC-110 without risking ruining some negatives in the process. Since with my current method I already get great results I will stick with it until my 1ltr bottle of HC-110 is finished.

Afterwards, I will probably give a try at T-MAX developer, even though I am not crazy about the longer development times I see.

Always great advice, again a big thanks to all!

 

[Ian Grant]

Afterwards, I will probably give a try at T-MAX developer, even though I am not crazy about the longer development times I see.

Always great advice, again a big thanks to all!

Look at Kodak's chart Mark Barendt post the link to, Tmax developer is design to get full film speed from Tmax films but it give poorer grain as a consequence.

Of all the Kodak developers Xtol is the best by a long way in every respect, fine grain, effective EI, sharpness and tonality (tonal range).

Ian

 

[markbarendt]

...all for all the great feedback so far. Apparently the common consensus is that there is not much more I can do with HC-110 without risking ruining some negatives in the process. Since with my current method I already get great results I will stick with it until my 1ltr bottle of HC-110 is finished.

Afterwards, I will probably give a try at T-MAX developer, even though I am not crazy about the longer development times I see.

Always great advice, again a big thanks to all!

hoakin1981 I do think that sticking with HC-110 until the bottle is gone is a great choice. The effect of switching developers is real but not normally as big a deal as some might imagine.

Given your stated goal though I was surprised enough by your apparent choice of TMax after the HC-110 is gone that I reread the thread to see what I'd missed.

To be honest, I'm still befuddled why you would choose TMax over XTol.

 

[hoakin1981]

hoakin1981 I do think that sticking with HC-110 until the bottle is gone is a great choice. The effect of switching developers is real but not normally as big a deal as some might imagine.

Given your stated goal though I was surprised enough by your apparent choice of TMax after the HC-110 is gone that I reread the thread to see what I'd missed.

To be honest, I'm still befuddled why you would choose TMax over XTol.

Well I have not thoroughly investigated the matter at this point since as said I have a lot of HC-110 left. However, from a brief look at the local shops here in Athens I realized that:

1. X-tol does not seem to be sold here (perhaps it is not so demanded so they do not import it)
2. T-Max is available to buy
3. X-tol is in powder form which means that new large (2ltr minimum) containers etc. are needed which is extra mess.
4. From online searches I mostly saw the 5ltr version which I totally out of the question since I have no idea how I would store it.

As said, these are some initial findings. When the time comes to choose whether I will change developer or not (not normally as big a deal as some might imagine=very true) I will re-evaluate my options and decide then.

 

[markbarendt]

That makes more sense now.

 

[baachitraka]

I may ask you to print those negatives or atleast scan them to see the results. I personally use D-76 with Hp5+(ISO 400) and I have no complaints on the grain from the prints.

 

[polyglot]

Well I have not thoroughly investigated the matter at this point since as said I have a lot of HC-110 left. However, from a brief look at the local shops here in Athens I realized that:

1. X-tol does not seem to be sold here (perhaps it is not so demanded so they do not import it)
2. T-Max is available to buy
3. X-tol is in powder form which means that new large (2ltr minimum) containers etc. are needed which is extra mess.
4. From online searches I mostly saw the 5ltr version which I totally out of the question since I have no idea how I would store it.

As said, these are some initial findings. When the time comes to choose whether I will change developer or not (not normally as big a deal as some might imagine=very true) I will re-evaluate my options and decide then.

Can you buy drinking water in bladders? Silvered mylar bags in cubic boxes? They're about $3.50 for 10L here in Australia and are the best way to keep Xtol stock; it will happily keep for at least a year in one of those because they never let any air in. The box just sits on a shelf and when you need some developer, you just take it from the tap in the box.

If you're doing small quantities of 120 film in a Paterson tank, you get 20 rolls developed from a 5L pack of Xtol, which is about 70c/roll at (high) Australian pricing. Would you not use 20 rolls in a year? Or if you're shooting larger quantities and using a Jobo, you need only 100mL per roll, so 50 rolls per pack at 30c/roll. Seems pretty economical to me. Mixing some powder once every 20 to 50 rolls is not arduous at all, and the powder keeps indefinitely.

 

[pentaxuser]

What polyglot has said inhis first paragraph about storage containers. Well worth the small effort to keeps 5L of Xtol fresh

pentaxuser

 

[markbarendt]

Can you buy drinking water in bladders? Silvered mylar bags in cubic boxes? They're about $3.50 for 10L here in Australia and are the best way to keep Xtol stock; it will happily keep for at least a year in one of those because they never let any air in. The box just sits on a shelf and when you need some developer, you just take it from the tap in the box.

If you're doing small quantities of 120 film in a Paterson tank, you get 20 rolls developed from a 5L pack of Xtol, which is about 70c/roll at (high) Australian pricing. Would you not use 20 rolls in a year? Or if you're shooting larger quantities and using a Jobo, you need only 100mL per roll, so 50 rolls per pack at 30c/roll. Seems pretty economical to me. Mixing some powder once every 20 to 50 rolls is not arduous at all, and the powder keeps indefinitely.

Yep the bag-in-a-box solution is the perfect way to store XTol stock and other chems. Just label them well and keep away from children.

I do think though if I had the only choice was HC-110 and TMax, and I was worried about grain, I'd just stick with HC-110.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yep the bag-in-a-box solution is the perfect way to store XTol stock and other chems. Just label them well and keep away from children.

I do think though if I had the only choice was HC-110 and TMax, and I was worried about grain, I'd just stick with HC-110.

Yes, all practical matters aside, HC-110 actually yields finer grain than TMax. I would prefer to find some Ilfotec DD-X if at all possible, if liquid concentrate is desired. HC-110 is more economical, though.
If really super fine grain is wanted, and changing developers is on the agenda, Ilford Perceptol would be the best. Yet it is powder developer, but it comes in 1 liter packages, and you will lose some film speed.

 

[darkosaric]

For me is unusual to find any grain in Tmax 100 in 120 format - no matter which developer. How big are your prints? I have problems finding any grain in 35mm Tmax 100 in 40x60cm prints...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Chris is right

Proper treatment means using the right developer, and HC-110 isn't it.

I've used HC-110 with TMX and it's not a good combination. The highlights sometimes gets blocked. For finer grain, you might try XTOL and a shorter wet time.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've used HC-110 with TMX and it's not a good combination. The highlights sometimes gets blocked. For finer grain, you might try XTOL and a shorter wet time.

Blocked highlights occur when you develop the film too long. How is that the developer's fault?

 

[Rudeofus]

However, from a brief look at the local shops here in Athens I realized that:

1. X-tol does not seem to be sold here (perhaps it is not so demanded so they do not import it)
2. T-Max is available to buy
3. X-tol is in powder form which means that new large (2ltr minimum) containers etc. are needed which is extra mess.
4. From online searches I mostly saw the 5ltr version which I totally out of the question since I have no idea how I would store it.

You should be able to order Xtol from EU retailers, and it comes in a relatively small and lightweight package that should be cheap to send around. You should also be able to cheaply get canisters with 5l of deionized water, which you can use for mixing a batch.

PS: I take it you are not ready to scratch mix your own dev?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Yes that's true

Blocked highlights occur when you develop the film too long. How is that the developer's fault?

I find HC-110 is not very forgiving if I over expose a bit or over develop. I find XTOL replenished is much more forgiving with TMX than HC-110 (B). I love HC-110 and it's look great used with Arista EDU.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I haven't read thru all the previous posts, but I'd simply ask WHY you think you need finer grain? If TMX looks "unsharp", it's probably because
this particular film has relatively poor edge effect, and making the grain mushier certainly isn't going to help. Why not just switch to another film
with the characteristics you need?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I find HC-110 is not very forgiving if I over expose a bit or over develop. I find XTOL replenished is much more forgiving with TMX than HC-110 (B). I love HC-110 and it's look great used with Arista EDU.

I agree with what you say, but the final total contrast of negatives is in the hands of the person developing the film. Sure, some films react stronger to development changes, and some developers (like HC-110 Dil.B) develop negatives extremely fast, which makes it more difficult to develop to the contrast wanted and needed. But it's still under the operator's control.

You can dilute the developer more for longer developing times, which makes it easier to make adjustments. It's a matter of precision, for sure.

 

[miha]

Some developers give higher contrast, HC is one of them, others are softer working, TT Neofin comes to mind. I have little experience with TMX (a couple of rolls 120 only) but I was able to print 11x11 inch pretty much grainless.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Definitely

You can dilute the developer more for longer developing times, which makes it easier to make adjustments. It's a matter of precision, for sure.

The nice thing about HC-110 is is a very flexible developer. I've used it 1:100 from concentrate for stand development and it works well.

I used to use the dilution B because it was the "standard" dilution and I was using the replenisher back when it was available. I processed other films in with that standard dilution. But TMX was the tricky one.

 

[timor]

If TMX looks "unsharp", it's probably because
this particular film has relatively poor edge effect,

Yeah... right.
But you right. mutilate the grain with developers of strong silver solving action will not help this film.

 

[erikg]

I've found HC-110 to do pretty well with TMX, it was the standard in the studio when we were all film. I used it 1:50, sometimes 1:75. It is very flexible. I found that it doesn't look noticeably different at 1:33 on up to 1:100, it's just a matter of choosing a dilution for a safe development time. It may be stating the obvious but if you wish to avoid a grainy appearance don't over-expose and don't over develop. Over-exposure is a bigger cause for graininess than many will admit.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It may be stating the obvious but if you wish to avoid a grainy appearance don't over-expose and don't over develop. Over-exposure is a bigger cause for graininess than many will admit.

Yes, absolutely. I sometimes overexpose my negatives on purpose for that very reason. All it really does is give longer printing times, but the films I use offer similar tonality compared to normal exposure, but with one big difference - the grain!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

same here developed in D76 1+1 and enlarged to 11x14, I can't detect any grain from 120 negatives.

 

[Bill Burk]

I just developed a couple rolls TMAX-100 in D-76 1:1 and thought of your dilemma...

I am certain you don't need to adjust your processing to get less grain. The problem is that you are scanning.

Following an earlier post, you shared a scan that is very, very grainy from 35mm TMAX-100 in HC-110.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

For comparison, here is an example traditional darkroom print where I TRIED to get the most prominent grain possible. I used half-frame 35mm Tri-X developed in Dektol... I don't know a way to get more grain than this... And this is less grain than you show.

I'm not trying to throw this in your face, and if anything I say seems confrontational, I will do my best to clarify and bring it towards being constructive...

Your case illustrates the "problem" we run into when we discuss scanning on APUG. For you to get the best results from scanning, you would probably want to shoot color negative film and convert to black and white in post-processing. Or shoot chromogenic monochrome film. You've got two film backs and are shooting color negative so you can try and see the difference without any further investment.

But I prefer silver grain black and white negatives above all other photographic media, and assure you that you can get the look you want with TMAX 100 and HC-110. You just might have to trust that the image is in the negative, and will have to be printed on silver gelatin to be revealed.

 

[MattKing]

+1 re: Bill Burk's post.

Except, it may be that by changing your scanning routine/equipment/software you can eliminate the scanning artifacts that are being added by that step in the process.

That isn't a subject for APUG discussion.