T Max Developer

[DSLR]

I bought a dusty bottle of T Max developer at my local camera shop today and when I got back home I noticed there was no seal on it. Is there suppose to be one? Does it expire if opened? I also bought stop bath and there is no seal on it either. I spent $30 there so I'm not too happy.

 

[MattKing]

The US packaged HC-110 had no seal.

Polymax-T developer has no seal.

I've had my bottle of Kodak Stop bath open so long I cannot remember if it had a seal.

The ONLY thing I don't like about Ilford liquid chemistry is how it is just about impossible to get the seal opened and totally removed from the bottles.

The T-Max developer bottle should have an expiry date on it.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I cannot seem to remember either....I just looked at some T-Max developer at Calumet and there was no expiration date on it so I passed it up.

 

[selmslie]

T-Max and especially HC-110 keep very nicely at normal temperatures. Neither comes with a seal other than the top being screwed on tightly.

Nothing seems to keep as long as Rodinal, but maybe that is because we don't use it up regularly.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Tmax Developer isn't sealed in the USA. Many years ago, when it came in the original square bottle, it did have a seal, but the current round bottles never had one.

 

[cliveh]

I know this is a bit off OP, but can someone explain to me why T Max requires it's own developer and how this is advantageous to any standard PQ developer?

 

[DSLR]

Thanks. I could have sworn that the bottle of HC-110 had a seal on it, that's why I was wondering.

I know this is a bit off OP, but can someone explain to me why T Max requires it's own developer and how this is advantageous to any standard PQ developer?

Actually, from what I've been reading, T Max developer seems to be a bit unpopular. T Max film doesn't require its own developer though.

 

[DSLR]

Another question: I have a bottle of Kodafix thats been open for 5 or 6 months. There's some funky brown stuff inside of the bottle...will it still work? I only used it once so it's mostly filled.

 

[selmslie]

I know this is a bit off OP, but can someone explain to me why T Max requires it's own developer and how this is advantageous to any standard PQ developer?

Tmax films do not really require their own developer. It's just that Kodak marketed them that way and designed the developer to work well with those films, especially for push processing and higher temperatures (25C rather than 20C).

The films work well with other developers like Xtol, D76/ID11, Rodinal, etc. and the developer works well with other 35mm and medium format films. Unless you use the replenished version, the developer is a little costly for large format.

 

[Hatchetman]

I love TMax developer. Works well with all kinds of film. Never had a problem. Not sure what people complain about.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I know this is a bit off OP, but can someone explain to me why T Max requires it's own developer and how this is advantageous to any standard PQ developer?

It doesn't require Tmax developer. Tmax 100 and Tmax 400 both work beautifully in D-76 1+1. Both also look great in PMK, and Tmax 100 is beautiful in Rodinal 1+50.

Tmax Developer was originally designed for pushing Tmax 400 and later for Tmax 3200. I don't think Tmax 3200 looks good in any other developer; Tmax Developer is perfect for it. I also preer Tmax Developer over all others for Ilford's Delta 3200 film. It is a good general purpose developer for most films if you want a liquid developer. I've used it for Tri-X when I was too lazy to dissolve powder for D-76.

 

[DSLR]

I just got done developing some t max 400 and they look good. I guess the Kodafix was OK even though it had been opened for 7 months.