Kodak's times for TMax 400 @1600, goofy?

[Vonder]

I've recently been experimenting with pushing two 400 speed films to 1600: Kodak's TMax and Ilford's Delta. The developing times for each, with stock Xtol at 68d egrees F, are 8.5 minutes for the Kodak and 13 minutes for the Ilford. These are manufacturer published times.

However.

While the Delta 400 negatives are nice, with good shadow detail, and good exposure, the Kodak negs are horrible. NO shadow detail and all the negatives look devoid of detail outside the best-lit areas.

Is that what's supposed to happen? Is Kodak off its rocker here?

 

[Photo Engineer]

In my Kodak dataguide the time given for 1600 speed is 11.5 minutes for the film pushed to 1600 in Xtol.

This is for small tank. For large tank it is 13.5 minutes.

PE

 

[Vonder]

Where is this?

In my Kodak dataguide the time given for 1600 speed is 11.5 minutes for the film pushed to 1600 in Xtol.

This is for small tank. For large tank it is 13.5 minutes.

PE

I am using data from Kodak's website, publication f4043.pdf. On the film box it says to go to www.kodak.com/go/bwfilms and then I click on the T-MAX 400 link... which is where that publication exists...

Am I misreading the publication?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think your reference must be in error as the normal process time and push process times (400 vs 1600) are so close.

My data comes from the 6th edition of the Kodak B&W Darkroom Dataguide. It is on Page 30. The situation is made confusing as there are really two ways to look at this. There is the 400 film pushed and the TMZ at varying speeds. That latter is actually more correct I think due to the close values for the two times noted above.

PE

 

[MattKing]

Does any of this flow from the recent changes to the TMAX 400 emulsion?

I would agree, however, that the 400 ISO and 1600 ISO times seem awfully close.

Matt

 

[erikg]

Something does seem amiss. I took a look at the PDF that Wolfeye is working from and I don't think he is misreading it. The times are different from what PE states and do not seem to provide enough compensation for a two stop push. PE's dataguide numbers make more sense.

 

[Vonder]

Kodak states that a 1-stop push requires no extra development time. That seems odd in and of itself.

Mayve Kodak is trying to make amatuers look bad, and only give out the real times to pros.

 

[BobNewYork]

I never had success in pushing TMY, (I should add that I haven't tried it with the new version) I always found pushed Tri-X to be far superior. I had assumed, (yeah I know - U and ME) that the flat crystals were the issue so I never pursued it further. Xtol 1+2 and Rodinal 1+99 (though for 25 minutes) gave me great "gritty" images.

Bob H

 

[markbarendt]

I'm even more confused.

I've got the xtol-j109.pdf publication page 6

Stock xtol, 68 degrees, 400 or 800, 6.5 minutes
Stock xtol, 68 degrees, 1600, 8.5 minutes

 

[markbarendt]

I'm even more confused.

I've got the xtol-j109.pdf publication page 6

Stock xtol, 68 degrees, 400 or 800, 6.5 minutes
Stock xtol, 68 degrees, 1600, 8.5 minutes

Here's the pdf

 

[Photo Engineer]

I cannot be sure, but I think there is an error. You can't really get a decent push with such a small time difference. But, I may be wrong. I did give you figures from the older book from about 2004 or 2006 so it may not relate to the newer film. But, misteakes do happenize .

Best of luck.

PE

 

[Vonder]

Thank you

I cannot be sure, but I think there is an error. You can't really get a decent push with such a small time difference. But, I may be wrong. I did give you figures from the older book from about 2004 or 2006 so it may not relate to the newer film. But, misteakes do happenize .

Best of luck.

PE

I appreciate the info. I've scanned the film and despite how the negs looked, they are useable. Funny too - this roll has a pink cast to it, while one I developed last week with the same time and temps looks normal.

My next roll will be developed 11.5 minutes. I will let you know how it comes out.

 

[tim_walls]

I appreciate the info. I've scanned the film and despite how the negs looked, they are useable. Funny too - this roll has a pink cast to it, while one I developed last week with the same time and temps looks normal.

My next roll will be developed 11.5 minutes. I will let you know how it comes out.

Funnily enough, I dev'd a roll of TMY400 (old formulation) pushed to 1600 just yesterday - before I'd read this thread of course! They look rather underexposed, but I can't actually remember when the roll dates from or what I was trying to achieve - I just found it in my 'pile of stuff I've shot but obviously didn't care enough to do anything with' with "PUSH TO 1600" scrawled on the side, so no judgements can really be made...


Anyway, I have a folder of datasheets for the films I use - the one I have for TMX/TMY is "F-4016: Kodak Professional T-Max Films" (February 2004,) and the times in that appear to be in agreement with yours: Viz. 6.5 mins in XTOL normal, 7.25 mins one stop push, 8.5 mins two stop push.

Personally I used HC110 dil B, but the times are very similar (6 mins rated, 6 mins one stop push (!), 8.5 mins two stop push.)


All the recommendations in the datasheet follow a similar pattern - e.g. for a VERSAMAT Model 11 roller-transport processor the recommended machine speeds are 5.5 ft/minute at ISO400, 5.5 ft/minute push one stop, 4.5 ft/minute push two stops.

I'm thinking the baseline recommendations in those TMX/TMY datasheets take a rather optimistic view of the film's latitude with normal development .



Oh, and to get rid of that pink cast - fix, fix and fix again. I fix TMX/TMY for a good 50% more than "necessary" to lose the pink stain, although I've no evidence that it does any harm if you don't.