Problems with Kodak T-Max

[photobackpacker]

Hi Ole.

Tmax is extremely consistent if processing techniques are extremely consistent. It is as simple as that. When you test for threshold exposure, run two plates. 1 shot at an aperature 4 stops smaller than the metered reading and one shot at 3 stops larger than meter reading. Control your time and temp with the greatest accuracy you can apply. It the densest sheet is over 1.35 and the lightest is .1 to .15 then you have developed too long.

Once you find the right time, N+1 and N+2 can be approximated by adding 30% over normal development for each. N-1 and N-2 may be approximated by reducing normal development by 25% for each.

I use Tmax RS 1:9 @ 75 degrees as recommended by Sexton. My times will not be relevent to you since I am doing rotary processing.

Use your developer one-shot and use ballast sheets to put the same development load on each batch.

PM me if you want further discussion. You will really be impressed by the push and pull capabilities of this emulsion!

Good Light!!!!

 

[Tom Stanworth]

this last post is very true. I have never found real probs with contrast if temp and time are controlled. However, I personally think it is awful stuff and like others cannot really explain why I dont like the results. There is something missing to my eye. Its just plain dull to me, lifeless. I want to like it, as I still have 50 readyloads in the fridge. I will use it, but for techie scenes such as architecture or for scenes dominated by shadow and highlight where it is actually very very good. My snowdonia sunset shot on my wall looks good to my eye for this reason as I think as shadow and highlight speration is good. I find hower, that it is in the mid tones where Tmax is terrible. scnes that are dominated by middle grays (maybe z4-6) jjust look lifeless. Unfortunately this is 99% of lanscapes, portraits etc. I will never buy it again and if I need packet film, will use acros, which is much prettier, but still sufers sometimes from that too modern look, lacking mystique.

I have used ID11, pyrocat HD and exactol Lux and all suffer th same. Pyro devs definitely help tame hot spots tho!

 

[Ole]

Thanks Blaughn,
but that wasn't exactly what I was asking, I think...

First if all I tend not to do any testing. I assume that the first sheet or plate or whatever is a test, and make extensive notes about the EV values of various areas of the scene, but that's as far as it goes. With film and plates in these sizes I usually develop by inspection, so I tend to be very inconsistent about times.

I can avoid blown highlights by stopping development at the right time (and that's what I usually do), but Tmax tends to give me "boring" negatives whatever I do. Even when I follow instructions; and when I give the "extra" (N+x) that I often do to increase the contrast the hihglights tend to block up before the contrast is where I like it. So I normally prefer more "flexible" emulsions than the "funnygrains".

I'll try a scene with a "normal" contrast range first - if I can find one...

 

[photobackpacker]

We have a dialogue between a test and analyze proponent (me) and a use it and take good notes (you). Both approaches are valid. I take extensive notes while shooting as it helps me to learn more about the materials I am using so we have some common ground there. Acknowledging that we come at the problem differently, let me throw out some suggestions.

I have never developed by inspection. When I first view a negative, the one that is most appealing to my eye is the one where the highlight densities seem to "pop". These negatives, however, are almost always pushing highlights up into the shoulder of the curve were information is lost. Is it possible that your eye is calibrated to the same bias as mine?

I really don't want to launch a "defense of TMax" thread. There is simply no point. I use it successfully as do others. I read your earlier post as you were probably going to be lured into the TMax jungle by the bargain pricing and were looking for some hope that it would not be simply money down the drain. To this end, if you just can't resist the bargain on the glass plates, I suggest a simple test: Let your eye be your guide in development and then use a densitometer to see where your eye is leading you (for both the blown highlights as well as the boring highlights.) What I am suggesting is that perhaps this emulsion is different enough under inspection development conditions that you are overshooting your mark on either side of the ideal. If you are sneaking into the 1.35 and above (diffusion enlarger), you need to either recalibrate your eye for this emulsion or switch over to a strict timed development regimen.

Your description of overshooting on N+ is also not unusual. The understanding that film manufacturers' recommended times are starting points is especially true for TMax. Without a means of calibrating results, I wouldn't know how I would approach the process. Once you have established an acceptable "normal" development time for TMax, the "add 30% for N+ and subtract 25% for N-" will get you extremely close.

Good luck.

 

[Ole]

There is a bewildering variation in the response when developing by inspection, but the main variable is the developer, not the film. The term "surface developer" really begins to make sense when you see how the development proceeds when using one of these - it has nothing at all to do with the individual grains, but the entire emulsion side goes dark from the surface in! Other developers will develop more evenly throughout the emulsion, and ignoring the difference can give nasty surprises when your eye is "calibrated" to one developer! Since I like to experiment, I'm well aware of the differences. Now. Since some of my favorite developers are FX-2, Beutler's (surface and extremely surface respectively) and Pyrocat-HD (surprisingly "depth" for such a dilute developer), I have learned.

One advantage to glass plates is their weight - or rather density: They sink! That makes stand development a lot easier than with sheet film, which has a nasty habit of drying out after only an hour or so. If you put a glass plate in a tray of developer, it's going to stay below the surface! And that's my "n-x" method: About 90 minutes in half-strength FX-2 will tame contrast without losing local contrast. The rest of the time I try to keep developing until slightly past the "panic point" where I'm sure it's all gone black. If I pull it then, I get what I would call N-1. So I try to wait... My main failure is underdevelopment.

 

[juan]

I'm coming to this thread late - Ole, did you try these TMX plates? I have access to some old TMX film and tried development by inspection. I couldn't see a thing because of the dyes in the emulsion.

I'm still trying to figure out how to develop this stuff - as has been said, the mid-tones are just dead. Maybe I'll try some minimal agitation scheme in Rodinal. Rodinal is supposed to clear the dye better.
juan

 

[Donald Miller]

I'll tack on to the end of this thread with a related question:

I have been avoiding T-max for years because my very limited experience with it didn't give me the results I like (I like FP4+ in Ilfosol-S, APX100 in pyrocat-HD, and EFKE in Neofin Blau). But now I've got a chance to buy some relatively cheap outdated 13x18cm T-max 100 glass plates, and the oppurtunity is just too rare to pass up.

So I need help: How do I get the contrast I like without blowing out the highlights? Mind that these plates will most likely be printed on alternative processes - but maybe not all on POP...

Excuse me for asking, but TMax glass plates?...when did Kodak make those available? Are you sure that this is Tmax emulsion? Tmax came out in the mid 1980's as I recall and I have never seen anyone mention Tmax glass plates.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Kodak made TMX glass plates, 4x5 size only, from shortly after the introduction of the T-Max 100 emulsion until discontinuing glass plate production (TMX was the last emulsion they coated on glass) in 2002. The main market was astronomers, who preferred glass for its dimensional stability and exceptional flatness compared to film; it dried up when astronomy switched to digital capture (and those astronomers who couldn't afford $50k for a chilled digital sensor camera were forced to switch to sheet film, or will be when they run out of plates).

Ole, there is no way those TMX plates can be old enough to be seriously compromised; it may take you processing a dozen or so to completely nail the process, but if the price is good, go for it! I know you have holders they'll fit...

BTW, for those trying to develop T-Max films by inspection, a presoak in 2% sodium sulfite solution with 1 tsp. per quart of sodium carbonate (and possibly 2-3 changes of this solution -- in daylight, I've had to use 2 changes for a roll of 120 with a large amount of dye left in) should remove the dye(s) in the film to allow you to see the image under the inspection light; I've been using this bath for a while to remove residual dye after developing in tubes with the base side of the film in contact with the tube bore. Pre-alkalizing the film will defeat divided developers, of course, but you wouldn't be using those for DBI anyway; it will also pre-swell the gelatine, and may require a small change to your developing time, but that's why you're inspecting to begin with, right?

 

[Donald Miller]

Kodak made TMX glass plates, 4x5 size only, from shortly after the introduction of the T-Max 100 emulsion until discontinuing glass plate production (TMX was the last emulsion they coated on glass) in 2002. The main market was astronomers, who preferred glass for its dimensional stability and exceptional flatness compared to film; it dried up when astronomy switched to digital capture (and those astronomers who couldn't afford $50k for a chilled digital sensor camera were forced to switch to sheet film, or will be when they run out of plates).

Ole, there is no way those TMX plates can be old enough to be seriously compromised; it may take you processing a dozen or so to completely nail the process, but if the price is good, go for it! I know you have holders they'll fit...

Excuse me for asking...but am I understanding you to say that 13X18 cm glass plates were or were not TMax? I have difficulty in reconciling your statements.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Sorry -- they likely did make T-Max plates available in other sizes, especially in metric sizes for European sale, at some point during their tenure. Clearly did, if Ole has plates that are in original packaging and so marked. They were available only in 4x5 just before they were discontinued in 2002, and the astronomy market was the reason 4x5 survived as long as it did.

Ole's 13x18 cm plates were most likely originally sold to astronomers, but there are very, very few astrocameras that use plates larger than 4x5 inches -- I'd have said none, but glass plates in the 1980s and 1990s had effectively no other market; I just can't picture enough pictorial photographers buying them (at plural dollars per plate, even 25 years ago) to justify Kodak cutting them in those sizes unless there was a scientific market that would consume them in some volume. Can't have been more than a dozen places on Earth, by then, that would have used 13x18 cm glass plates, so they might well have been a special cutting, where one customer bought the whole lot.

 

[Ole]

There is a long tradition for 13x18cm in Europe; even longer than for 4x5" in the USA. Looking at very old camera gear it is evident that 13x18 was the most common size before WWII, and was dominant even after until slowly being forced out - not by 5x7", but by 4x5".

So "can't have been more than a dozen places on Earth, by then, that would have used 13x18 cm glass plates" could be taken to mean "Would have been about a dozen places in Germany still using 13x18cm glass plates".

The plates are certainly "newish" - they're newer than most of my stock of film. Thanks to a particularly dreadful summer I haven't tried them yet, but I hope for some nice weather this fall.

And yes, I have holders: Old wooden book type, as well as Linhof Universal holders.