Ilford typo?

[Juan Valdenebro]

I was taking a look at Ilford's pub for their powder film developers...
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/2008/product_id/708/
... when I saw there's a time for TMax400 @ 6400... In D-76!
Strange too, Microphen, next column, is not recommended above 400...
Then I saw TMZ shows no time for 6400, so...
Could it be TMZ's time for 6400 was simply placed by mistake in TMY's chart, just above where it should be?
But why no times for TMY pushed in Microphen?
Stranger, ALL times for pushing TMY are for ID-11 stock (D-76), from 800 to 6400...
What do you think?

 

[Rick A]

That's a question best posed to Ilford.

 

[pentaxuser]

It is a worthwhile question to ask but as Rick says the answer needs to come from Ilford. If you ask Ilford then I for one will be interested in its answer.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Harman Tech Service are here on Photrio - "Start a Conversation" with them (click on the Inbox at the top right).

 

[BMbikerider]

Don't expect a quick reply at this time of year, unless it is an automated one - they will probably be closed until the 1st week in 2019.

 

[Willyekerslike]

To OP,
You are talking about an Ilford data sheet yet you are also talking about a Kodak product, D76. Yes I know people say they are the same but I do not believe they are these days, I have noted several instances where the times for D76 differ from ID-11 for the same film.

I think the answer to your riddle may be that Ilford did not carry out too much testing of Kodak film outside the box speed sure in the knowledge that Kodak would have suplied the information for TMax400 users using Kodak D-76.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I was taking a look at Ilford's pub for their powder film developers...
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/2008/product_id/708/
... when I saw there's a time for TMax400 @ 6400... In D-76!
Strange too, Microphen, next column, is not recommended above 400...
Then I saw TMZ shows no time for 6400, so...
Could it be TMZ's time for 6400 was simply placed by mistake in TMY's chart, just above where it should be?
But why no times for TMY pushed in Microphen?
Stranger, ALL times for pushing TMY are for ID-11 stock (D-76), from 800 to 6400...
What do you think?

There's probably a good reason for it & there's probably internal test data to explain why - unlikely to be a typo. Unfortunately that 'why' doesn't seem to appear in any of their technical publications. Earliest I can find a reference to it is a datasheet from 2002 relating to using ID-11 as a replenished system, so it's not TMY-II that it's referring to. I suspect that it probably relates to the more widespread use of ID-11 in larger scale processing environments worldwide - demand for Microphen and Perceptol had largely (almost totally by now) shrunk to sectors of the amateur market. There may also have been policy changes which led to 'gap-filling' efforts in published data sheets to catch up with Kodak's documentation of XTOL etc & market research may have indicated end users tended to use TMY in different ways from TMZ.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks everyone...
Just started a conversation with Ilford, as Matt said, letting them know I had just started the thread...
In a few ways, as Lachlan said, it seems (to me) marketing reasons could have been involved, but let's hope Ilford soon will share new (photographic) information here...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Someone using ID-11 or D-76 stock for pushing?
Or wet printing TMY @ 6400 in any developer?

 

[tezzasmall]

I was taking a look at Ilford's pub for their powder film developers...
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/2008/product_id/708/
... when I saw there's a time for TMax400 @ 6400... In D-76!?

I'm a little confused, for having just looked at the file attached, no where is D76 mentioned = only Ilford's PERCEPTOL, ID-11 and MICROPHEN...?

Terry S

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I'm a little confused, for having just looked at the file attached, no where is D76 mentioned = only Ilford's PERCEPTOL, ID-11 and MICROPHEN...?

Terry S

Hello,
D-76 and ID-11 develop film the same way.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Someone using ID-11 or D-76 stock for pushing?
Or wet printing TMY @ 6400 in any developer?

If you look at Kodak's data, you'll see that a specific rise in CI equates to a rise in EI - Ilford essentially follow the same system, so it might be something like a G-bar of 0.6 = EI 400, 0.7 = 800, 0.8 = 1600 as a suggested EI etc. In other words, the film is capable of being developed to a potentially very high contrast index, but the suggested EI is only an extrapolation. D-76 etc is fine for reaching high CI's - more than capable of reaching densities for Pl/Pt type processes etc. Have printed some fairly heavily pushed TMY/ TMY-II in the darkroom, but never rated at 6400 AFAIK - with Tmax 400's short toe, don't expect the shadows to have anything useful at all. On the other hand, the long straight line once off the toe is a lifesaver when burning in over dense highlights.

 

[tezzasmall]

Hello,
D-76 and ID-11 develop film the same way.

They may both 'develop film the same way' but others on here would argue that they are NOT actually the same formula though.

Terry S

 

[Ian Grant]

It's most likely Ilford haven't tested all competitors films and speed combinations so there's no recommended times.

Ilford used to provide push process times for XP1 which had a none standard normal development time. With XP2 having a standard C41 development time the push process times were dropped, that doesn't mean it can't be push processed just that most labs didn't want to do it. I had a discussion about this at a business meeting with Ilford in the early 1980's and the conclusion was XP2 pushed really nocely..

My point is don't draw incorrect assumptions.

Ian

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

They may both 'develop film the same way' but others on here would argue that they are NOT actually the same formula though.

Terry S

Hi Terry,

Do you imply ID-11 and D-76 push film differently?
Not in theory or chemically speaking, but from a speed and tonality point of view...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

It's most likely Ilford haven't tested all competitors films and speed combinations so there's no recommended times.

Ilford used to provide push process times for XP1 which had a none standard normal development time. With XP2 having a standard C41 development time the push process times were dropped, that doesn't mean it can't be push processed just that most labs didn't want to do it. I had a discussion about this at a business meeting with Ilford in the early 1980's and the conclusion was XP2 pushed really nocely..

My point is don't draw incorrect assumptions.

Ian

Good to know, thanks... So perhaps XP2 can be very well used for overcast with the Hasselblad without a tripod... Right now I'm thinking of how to do that with TMY (just loaded), because TMX at 50 is too slow for me for this first time handholding 6x6... I don´t know yet if in the case of MF TMY without tripod it will be better metering (sekonic spot, gray card) @ 200 or @ 400, and, doubt again, in Mic-X or in Xtol... And which dilutions... All comments are welcome as I have never done MF without a tripod...

 

[MattKing]

TMY at an EI of 250 (due to contrast) in X-Tol is eminently hand-holdable.
A self portrait of sorts as an example:

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks for the example, Matt...
It seems -as years go by- for TMax films few people prefer anything over Xtol... It's a good balance... I've seen Xtol stock make TMZ look like a 400 film... It took me some time to accept it is that good...
A precise question:
It's often said TMX and TMY have linear curves in the toe so there's clean shadow separation without losing lots of speed... How does TMY behave (grain and tone) IF you get close to 400 instead of 200?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If you look at Kodak's data, you'll see that a specific rise in CI equates to a rise in EI - Ilford essentially follow the same system, so it might be something like a G-bar of 0.6 = EI 400, 0.7 = 800, 0.8 = 1600 as a suggested EI etc. In other words, the film is capable of being developed to a potentially very high contrast index, but the suggested EI is only an extrapolation. D-76 etc is fine for reaching high CI's - more than capable of reaching densities for Pl/Pt type processes etc. Have printed some fairly heavily pushed TMY/ TMY-II in the darkroom, but never rated at 6400 AFAIK - with Tmax 400's short toe, don't expect the shadows to have anything useful at all. On the other hand, the long straight line once off the toe is a lifesaver when burning in over dense highlights.

Hello Lachlan,
I see you consider TMY a short toe film: is it different to TMX in that regard? I thought both of them had the same design for their shadows, with a good part of the straight line going down: clear shadow microcontrast close to box speed (at least closer than other films)... Would that be closer to TMX than to TMY?

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for the example, Matt...
It seems -as years go by- for TMax films few people prefer anything over Xtol... It's a good balance... I've seen Xtol stock make TMZ look like a 400 film... It took me some time to accept it is that good...
A precise question:
It's often said TMX and TMY have linear curves in the toe so there's clean shadow separation without losing lots of speed... How does TMY behave (grain and tone) IF you get close to 400 instead of 200?

I meter and shoot TMY-2 at speeds between 200 and 800, depending on subject.
I develop TMY-2 normally in most cases. If the lighting conditions warrant it, I sometimes increase development, but rarely decrease development. It tends to perform really well in replenished X-Tol, but it also performed really well with slightly less speed in replenished HC-110 E.
The car shot I posted was metered at 250 because of all the shadowed areas that I wanted to render "generously".
This is from 35mm TMY-2 metered at 400 and developed slightly longer (39 instead of 38 on the Kodak Darkroom dataguide developing computer) in X-Tol R:

 

[pentaxuser]

Matt, as a "self portrait of sorts" it is pretty good. A broad gleaming smile although the lower canines might be too prominent

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

Hello Lachlan,
I see you consider TMY a short toe film: is it different to TMX in that regard? I thought both of them had the same design for their shadows, with a good part of the straight line going down: clear shadow microcontrast close to box speed (at least closer than other films)... Would that be closer to TMX than to TMY?

It's perhaps a hint softer in the toe than TMX, but, yes at box rating (depending on exposure method of course) or even only slightly overexposed with TMY-II you are either very very quickly off the toe & on to the straight line, or completely on the straight line, but begin to significantly underexpose into the toe & push & shadows will crush much faster than films with longer toes. Compare & contrast with something like TXP which is well known for having a long toe.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

It's perhaps a hint softer in the toe than TMX, but, yes at box rating (depending on exposure method of course) or even only slightly overexposed with TMY-II you are either very very quickly off the toe & on to the straight line, or completely on the straight line, but begin to significantly underexpose into the toe & push & shadows will crush much faster than films with longer toes. Compare & contrast with something like TXP which is well known for having a long toe.

Thank you very much, Lachlan.