T Max 3200 TMZ development goes wrong each time

[Photo Engineer]

It may very well be a typo or omission on the Kodak web site. But two things strike me!!!!

1. Kodak did specify dilutions everywhere in that document for every condition and film (but see below in my post here).

2. It is bromide drag plus something else.

And, since bromide drag is often caused by overdilution (or underfilling), that appears to be the case here. Now, I will admit that the viscosity may be at issue here, but then it must be that there are other dilutions. As dilution goes up, bromide drag goes up!

Of course, it looks like there is some fog as well if you look carefully and this is the other item I mentioned here. The fogged areas are light and the drag areas are dark. Of course this all could be an underfilled tank as the problem appears to be along one edge. So we appear to have several problems. It could also be an error in dilution.

Here is the Kodak massive chart: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e103cf/e103cf.pdf and from it, I suspect a misprint on page 21 of my original reference even though my comment #1 IS correct. They have specified it everywhere but that one item. In the massive chart, they show all dilutions.

PE

 

[clay]

I use this film all the time and the only time I have seen anything like this is on a few rolls that had to go through the x-ray scanner at CDG in Paris. A burly French policeman in a dark blue uniform assured me in no uncertain terms that it did not matter how fast the film was, it was going to go through the scanner. When I developed it, it had the same sort of lines on the film as you are seeing. I am wondering if it was x-rayed somehow when it was shipped. This is very fast film, and problems that are not observed on ISO 400 film will make themselves very evident on Tmax3200. My Tri-X from the same trip showed no problems.

FWIW, I always develop in stainless steel tanks with Hewes reels. And I use FX-37 diluted 1:3 and alkaline fixer from Photographers Formulary.

 

[rhmimac]

I couldn't believe the dilution to be wrong as I checked the concentrate's bottle and the datasheet:so 1:4 must be fine as a standard and I always doublecheck on the MDC online before I go ahead with a film+develeopment.
Re. underfilling I would be amazed the 60ml concentrate + 240ml demin.H2O = 300ml dilution could be a problem when Paterson puts 290ml content on the bottom of the tank for 1pc of 135 film.
Here's a theory I want to check with you:
1. as I'm spinning the reel with the central shaft (too hard/fast?)just after pooring in the developer, i could induce a form of draft upwards in the tank as the inner lit is a cone, lifting the bottom part of the dilution a bit and thus less dilution underneath than on the top part of the reel/film. I will no longer spin it after pooring in.
2. the dilution is made just before the starting of the development, aprox.10 mins, and then the mixing container is put in a big tank with hot water in order to become warm up till 20°C or sometimes 24°C.
Maybe the dillution has to be made longer in advance to have it's equallity.
Is there any advice on this? How long before are you making fresh one shot developer? I'm stirring it but not for minutes and minutes after pooring the water in the concentrate.

 

[dehk]

- rapid fix Iford or AGEFIX AGFA: little to none agitation : 10mins
Is why its purple.

 

[Ray Rogers]

the x-ray scanner at CDG in Paris. A burly French policeman in a dark blue uniform assured me in no uncertain terms that it did not matter how fast the film was, it was going to go through the scanner.

Met him! Must be the same guy that aided in the forceful examinion of my Kodak HIE (infrared) for signs of a weapon of mass destruction.
I hope he gets "examined".

 

[Ray Rogers]

I'm stirring it but not for minutes and minutes after pooring the water in the concentrate.

Should not make a difference, but are you mixing really well?
Solutions so different in viscosity are more difficult to mix well...
Why are you waiting so long anyway?

 

[rhmimac]

I'm going to mix more thoroughly for the next batch of development.

I'm a self-teaching guy. Trial & error are/were on my way. I've never gor any education in photography so I did learn it from what others(my wife who got some photoeducation in art school in the 90-ies for instance) and the internet -APUG,photonet,etc..- will be willing to learn me.

When I've done some more testing on the next TMZ I will certainly post the follow up here. I'm as curious as a rat to throw in the next roll..

 

[Ray Rogers]

Provisional Suggestions

Make sure your reel fits snugly on that center rod and does not travel up and out of the solution.
If there seems to be too much play, consider NOT inverting.

When you agitate by inversion, notice if there is any loss of solution.

In either of the above cases, you might increase the vol. of working solution you are using.

A 2 reel 135 paterson black plastic tank can hold two 35 mm reels; it is often best to use two reels even if you are only developing 1 roll... place the empty reel on the top... that keeps the emulsion in the soup, prohibiting "surfing".

Agitate in lots of fixer.

Get a good close up of the sprocket area we can examine.

let us know what you discover will avoid the problem in the future.

 

[rhmimac]

Thank you Ray, your sugestions are most helpfull to me.

I'll post follow up.

 

[pgomena]

My scientific wild-a** guess is that you don't have enough solution in the tank. 300ml of solution in a Paterson tank is close to barely enough to cover a single roll. I think you're seeing surge through the sprocket holes because the solution is sloshing through them. Put a reel in the tank and add 300ml of water and see where the level reaches. If your reel isn't submerged by at least a couple of centimeters, you're likely getting too much solution sloshing around the sprocket holes.

Peter Gomena

 

[rhmimac]

Thanks Peter, another test I will perform. Tested the tank today on leaks by filling up with H2O completely and let it stand for 2+hrs. No leaks visible, the tank is ok. It could be the closure still but that will be tested separately with another film. If that film is ok, I'm confident on the tank+closure.

The filling up will be next. Then some film tests and I hope to catch the beast by then. ;-)

Another thing thought over: problem is on one film at the top, on another on the bottom where the numbers are. It could point to the position placement of the reel in the tank and thus not related to the camera where the asymmerical 135 film is placed in the same way by camera design.

 

[rhmimac]

Tested filling up with 300ml H2O: reel just barely under water (see images attached)
Conclusion #1: I will top up for 350ml or more in future processing to get it really fully under.
Sounds cynical in times of flooded coastlines in the east.

Paterson has engraved on the bottom 290ml for 1 pc 135 film, very strange...

 

[vpwphoto]

I shot a lot of TMZ... it's an easy film to use.
That looks like a light leak.
Sometimes over-agitation can do stuff like that... but a agree about the light leak.

 

[hpulley]

Developer is cheap so overfilling is generally fine with plastic. I just used about 345mL (12oz if you wonder about the odd number in mL) myself today for a single 35mm roll (Delta 400) in Paterson Super System 4. For the additional mL of HC-110 it cost me I could be sure it would be covered. I'll usually put about 600mL of working solution in for a single 120 roll as well, just to be sure.

 

[pgomena]

Yep. Not enough solution in the tank. Another 50ml and you're in business.

Peter Gomena

 

[pentaxuser]

Have we now eliminated the 1+4 dilution as the problem? Isn't this the equivalent of stock in the same way that DDX is in effect, stock at 1+4. It seems strange that it suggests using it at bottle strength.

Secondly if dilution per se is a problem then why does it give times for 1+1 for Xtol or is Xtol a different kind of developer which can be diluted with Tmax 3200 but not Tmax developer?

I am confused but keen to know. Xtol is my dev of choice(cheaper by some margin than Harman DDX in the U.K.) and I bought some Tmax 3200 to try as it is now quite a lot cheaper than Harman D3200 in the U.K. Strange how two Kodak products can be exported to the U.K. but be cheaper than the home grown Harman products but that's another issue.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[rhmimac]

I consider Tmax developer to be used in 1:4 dilution as prescribed on the bottle and in the Kodak Datasheet -mistakenly?- put without "1:4" indication.
Mass.Dev.Chart doesn't give any info for non-diluted Tmax dev.

As for now I'm concluding:
- fill more than 300ml, preferably 345-350ml in my Paterson.
- change the agitation mode in my process

I hope to do some testing next week by putting a TMZ in testing mode after I shot my 36 frames Tri-X in my Nikon EM.
I will develop the Tri-X first in the same tank to have some cross reference.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have to agree that it was underfilling and that the Kodak data sheet is either in error or misleading.

I am still confused a bit about what appears to be fog in the samples in the OP though.

PE

 

[rhmimac]

it's not the camera

Two test have been done @ the same time: 350ml filling on my last developing with Tri-X@EI800 + shooting it with the "suspected" Nikon EM.

Both came out fine: camera has no leaks AFA I can detect and Tri-X came out fine, see examples attached.

Next test will be TMax 3200 TMZ in the Nikon EM and developed in 350ml instead of 300ml.

Fingers crossed.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Developer is cheap so overfilling is generally fine with plastic. I just used about 345mL (12oz if you wonder about the odd number in mL) myself today for a single 35mm roll (Delta 400) in Paterson Super System 4. For the additional mL of HC-110 it cost me I could be sure it would be covered. I'll usually put about 600mL of working solution in for a single 120 roll as well, just to be sure.

I like to err on the safe side too. If the film is not covered all the way then putting it in the tank to develop it is rather pointless.

I would like to add to this important point by recommending not to overfill the tank either. As a matter of fact, it makes sense to always use the same volume. With the tank empty, use empty reels and fill with water until you have enough to cover the reels, and then add some more, to measure how much liquid you need, and then use that same volume every time for consistency.
But don't fill it all the way up either, because the developer needs room to move around in your tank (but not too much either, if the liquid velocity is too high you will get surge marks). The idea with agitation is to make sure fresh developer gets in contact with all areas of the film that's in the tank. If the tank is too full, this can not take place.

Also, with Paterson tanks, the reels have a nasty habit of sliding up along the center column. Use a rubber band, twist it a few times around the plastic column, and slide it down to the reel and secure it so it holds the reel(s) perfectly in place without moving.

In my own case, I use stainless tanks, and every time I process film and I don't have enough film to fill the tank, I top it up with empty reels. This ensures that the reels have the same movement inside the tank every time I process film.
Then I have measured the exact volume I need to fill the tank so that there is developer to exactly half way between the top of the uppermost reel and the top of the tank. This allows for the liquids to move around properly, and also that the reels are always covered.

Good luck. By looking at your Tri-X scans, it appears you are on the right track.

- Thomas

 

[rhmimac]

I succeeded in developing a TMZ roll in 350ml Tmax dev 1:4 24°C without "the problem"; shot in the "suspected with light leaks" nikon EM too.


View attachment 35671

Hope to keep up errorless developing now as I bought more TMZ. It's such a wonderfull film and one of the last of the mohicans...

Thanks for all you kind input and advise in this thread.