T-Max 100 TMX in Dilute D-76

[Paul Verizzo]

I want to use the above combo in a perhaps 1+3 dilution so that the D-76 is a one shot and get diluted developer benefits.

Looking at the Kodak literature, they only go 1+1 at 9.5 minutes. The massive development chart has the Kodak info, although not ID'd as such. Then someone has added, for instance, 9 minutes instead of the Kodak 6.5 for stock, and 12 minutes for the 1+1. That source then adds 16 minutes for 1+3. He also says ISO 100-200 which is pretty much what Kodak says is OK to do w/o additional development.

Anyone with real world experience on this out there?

Please don't advise different developers or films. I have what I can mix and what's in my bulk loader.

Thanks!

 

[Jim Noel]

The only good answer to your question will be provided by your own testing for EI and then development time. Anything else will just be a shot in the dark. 2 or 3 rolls of film and a couple of days time will provide the answers.

 

[nworth]

Jim is right: the only real way to find out is to run a test or two. Bracket some exposures and develop for the estimated time. If the exposure for your rated EI has the right contrast and density, the time is correct. If not, try again with an adjusted developing time. From the fundamentals, I would guess that about 14 minutes would be right for 1 + 3 at EI 100, but that is a guess. 16 minutes is certainly in the ballpark.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

The only good answer to your question will be provided by your own testing for EI and then development time. Anything else will just be a shot in the dark. 2 or 3 rolls of film and a couple of days time will provide the answers.

I choose to not re-invent the wheel, Jim, if the answer is already out there.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I choose to not re-invent the wheel, Jim, if the answer is already out there.

By testing for your needs you will not be reinventing the wheel.

 

[Paul Howell]

The massive development chart has a time for D76 1:3

 

[BradS]

There are so many variables involved that doing your own film-developer testing is never re-inventing the wheel.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

There are so many variables involved that doing your own film-developer testing is never re-inventing the wheel.

I"m after "good enough", just like one would start with from a film company's developing chart.

Not perfect.

 

[Ian Grant]

Paul, you're in luck I have at last brought my notebook to the Aegean, and have my data for ID-11 (Which is identical to D76).

BTW Kodak said 50 EI for tonality no mention of 200 !!!!!, but that was the older emulsion, personally I treat it no differently.

If 9.5 mins at 1+1 then 15 mins at 1+3, but I found that 1+2 was the optimum and never published by Kodak or Ilford. So approx 11.5 mins at 1+2.

Ian

 

[dynachrome]

TMX In Dilute D-76

I think you will have better luck using the D-76 undiluted. TMX is a very fine grained film so developing it in diluted D-76 will not cause much of a problem there but I find that straight D-76 controls the contrast better and makes the film easier to use. By now you may have heard that all published developing times are starting points. This is true. Even if someone gave you a time for D-76 at 1:3 you would have to test it before shooting anything important.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Thanks all and especially Ian...

Been off for a weekend vacation at Homosassa Springs, FL for relaxation. And shooting, of course. Ran a roll of pushed TMX, Fortepan 400, and still in the camera, Efke 25.

I bought the Efke before getting more info. I.e., figitaltruth's comparitive test shots, and other sources, and a bit of Efke info. Not the sharpest knife/film in the drawer, even Efke says 110 lpm. RMS grain, unknown.

A good friend of mine attended Brooks back when T-Max was a "secret" film and Kodak gave a bunch to the school to putz with. IIRC, they like TMX pulled to around 60 the best, great tonality and of course, super fine grain. (8 on the RMS granularity scale.)

Maybe a whole 'nudder direction to try out.

 

[dynachrome]

TMX In Dilute D-76

110 lpm is not bad at all. It's true that a film like Technical Pan or Imagalink HQ, with the right contrast, is capable of much higher resolution. The problem is that finding a taking lens and the right subject and technique and a good enough enlarging lens to translate the extra resolution into somethng practical is much more difficult than you might think. It's still easier to ger better image quality by going to a larger format.

 

[dynachrome]

Make that Imagelink and get.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

110 lpm is not bad at all. It's true that a film like Technical Pan or Imagalink HQ, with the right contrast, is capable of much higher resolution. The problem is that finding a taking lens and the right subject and technique and a good enough enlarging lens to translate the extra resolution into somethng practical is much more difficult than you might think. It's still easier to ger better image quality by going to a larger format.

I certainly suspect that higher lpm is harder to benefit from and confess that I'm relatively ignorant in that area.

Does it mean that going from 110 best to 200 best will not show in a typical 35mm environment?

But even Plux-X has ratings of 10 on RMS granularity (like TMY-2) and 1000:1 lpm of 125. Better sharpness than the much, much slower Efke and I suspect not much, if any, difference in the grain. After all, it is a fifty year old recipe. (Funny how Plus-X is called archaic but Efke is called "silver rich old style.")

Working all this backwards (my usual modus operandi in life!) How good do we need if an 11x14 is the biggest print we'll ever make? How many Pop Photo articles have we all scrutinized and analyzed the extreme blowups of a tiny fraction of the negative? But do we ever make full size prints like that? No.

As to LF, there are several issues. The most obvious is $$$$$$. Sorry, no can do. I do have a Rolleiflex, but obviously it is very limited in having just one focal length lens. I'm going to bring on my next expedition, though. And with zoom lenses and autometering if I choose, 35mm is obviously the less burdensome and flexible system.

And like the old saying goes, "Dance with what ya brung."

 

[Paul Verizzo]

From my Brooks friend mentioned previously

"By the way, my experience is that the 1-3 is a great dilution. Every dilution had a philosophy behind it. We were either looking for economy, grain structure, contrast, or density knowing that dilution, temperature and agitation would affect every factor. he 1-3 dilution became the default dilution because our goal was fine grain structure and resolution and 1-3 gave s that with about 15 minutes and normal agitation at around 70 degrees. Cooler temps needed longer times. That was only a problem when we had tough deadlines. But even then, not much. What's a minute or two? We found that the longer and gentler and softer dilutions gave us extremely wide contrast ratios and finer grain. T-Max was less susceptible to such changes as was Plus-X. Also, we used that dilution to determine actual exposure index. T-Max 100 never tested to be any faster than EI 50. At that EI and 1-3 dilution at 68 degrees for 15 - 17 minutes using unsoftened water would produce amazing prints up to 11X14 and even some good 16X20's."

 

[PVia]

I know this thread is a few months old, but in the past few days I rated TMX @ 64 and shot a series of still-lifes in natural window light, with my Mamiya RZ (8 sec exposures, f16 2/3, accounting for bellows extension and reciprocity). I used D76 at 1:1, 9.5 minutes @ 68 degrees.

This resulted in beautiful negatives which print easily at Grade 2.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Sounds about right to me

I know this thread is a few months old, but in the past few days I rated TMX @ 64 and shot a series of still-lifes in natural window light, with my Mamiya RZ (8 sec exposures, f16 2/3, accounting for bellows extension and reciprocity). I used D76 at 1:1, 9.5 minutes @ 68 degrees.

This resulted in beautiful negatives which print easily at Grade 2.

I've used 9 minutes at EI 100 and got great results.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I choose to not re-invent the wheel.

I found testing isn't re-inventing the wheel, but learning how to make a wheel.

Testing to find some number other than that supplied by Kodak & Co. is taking a test of how far off I am in my technique. The number supplied by Kodak is invariably correct.

The better I get with technique - the more printable the negatives, the less futzing around with anything, the more it works like it is supposed to - the closer I come to shooting ASA 100 film at, gasp, ASA 100.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the data sheet,
But in ourselves, that we can't expose film."
​

Willy the Shake, with liberties.​

 

[Bruce Osgood]

It's interesting to see how threads come around again.

I've decided that messers Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and Agfa are smarter than me when they discuss their products. I've been shooting the new Tmax 100 at EI-80 knowing I will get just a bit more shadow detail than shooting at the 100. I didn't test this. Today I have given up on that idea. After two days shooting one tree I have failed yet again to capture the seperation in the shadows that is their even to the eye. It is all just a blank blob on the neg.

Tomorrow I will try EI 100 as Mr. Kodak suggests. I will keep my D-76 1:1 at a Jobo 9:20 and see.