Problem with old TMZ 3200, need dev advice.

Hi, I just shot about 30 rolls of two year outdated Kodak 3200, all exposed at an EI of 800. So far, I'm using XTOL 1:2, 19m, which, for me, is perfect for fresh film.

I'm seeing a substantial speed loss (as well as latency, frame numbers are weak), increased base fog, as well as some heat damage.

The film is printable-but seriously disappointing. Now I've just begun developing and am thinking about a change in development strategy. Obviously I can't fix the speed loss, but I'd like to introduce a steeper curve to raise middle and high tone density, and hopefully reduce fog, or at least boost more image density above it.

So, keeping in mind that I like XTOL at the 1:2 dilution due to it's reduced solvency, and for the purpose of creating a steeper curve with more overall density (hopefully minimizing base fog), which would be the best of these three strategies: reduce dilution to 1:1, increase agitation, or increase temperature. The other possibility I've considered it switching to either Acufine, or T-MAX developers.

Advice?

HC-110 is supposed to be good for outdated films, but I've never tried it myself.
I have been using Diafine with good results on some old TXP 220. I've been getting EI 100 with that and with Diafine and TMZ, you should get your EI 800 back and maybe a bit more.

Hi Jim, I did try Diafine with TMZ a few times. Really sharp, but I don't think the emulsion holds enough A bath. I had some impossibly flat negs in poor light, but for really contrasty situations, it was great. I'll think about that HC110.

My new favorite developer for TMZ especially slightly old/fogged is Ethol UFG. Simply ridiculous speed, a bit more base fog than usual (but you are ready for that) and some really tight smooth fine grain. Same thing, 2 year old film, shot at 1600 and the diluted Xtol route just was not cutting it, I needed something stronger to pull it off. I've been tinkering with UFG a bit and did a bracketed test using one of rolls of TMZ and was immediately struck by the grain. Of course obvious and apparent, with a very smooth tone, but tight and fine like precise pinpoints of a laser. I won't be in the darkroom until later this week so I can't show you it right now, but I'll see if I can do a test print and scan for reference.

Hi MM,

Yeah, I hear you about the emulsions being to thin to absorb enough of the A bath. I've had similar problems with other divided devs.

Here's a link that may be helpful:http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

It's best to pull outdated film. Given that TMZ is only 800 to begin with, you might be pushing your luck (and your film) to get results with that combo.

Thanks for the link Jim. One idea I've been meaning to try is to develop in Diafine normally, A, B. Then rinse thoroughly and repeat. So twice, A, B, rinse, A, B, finish. Should give nice N+ development, or normal for thinner emulsions like TMZ.

jim appleyard said:

Hi MM,

Yeah, I hear you about the emulsions being to thin to absorb enough of the A bath. I've had similar problems with other divided devs.

Here's a link that may be helpful:http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

Click to expand...

There are few developers that are better than Xtol at expired and fogged films. Use it stock or 1+1. Xtol probably gives its best when used as a seasoned and replenished solution, since you have the chemistry handy it's worth a try.
Diafine is a compensating developer. If you have a flat negative to begin with, Diafine isn't going to help. You need something that builds contrast well, not something that holds it back. HC-110 would also be a good choice, or Ilford Ilfotec DD-X.

Rodinal is supposed to be a low fog developer. But in this case I think that the fog is already part of the latent image, due to the age of the film. Processing to lower fog would then lower speed. Then you're maybe back to 400.