T Max developer

Craig · Sep 9, 2005

One thing I've noticed here is that nobody seems to use T Max developer. Is there any particular reason for this? I just picked up a bottle of concentrate at a garage sale, and was wondering if I should even bother with it.

Any ideas what sort of developer it is close to? Is it like ID-11 or Rodinal in its characteristics, or more like HC-110? Can anyone give me some idea of what sort of negs I should expect?

modafoto · Sep 9, 2005

I know that Cheryl Jacobs has done a lot of her shots with Tri-X and T-max dev.

I, myself, haven't used it much...don't know why...I guess I just have great results with my main dev, Rodinal. But for T-Max films I have used it with T-Max 100 with good results.

Morten

Gerald Koch · Sep 9, 2005

Based on the MSDS given below and your list of developers it appears that Kodak's T-Max developer is closer to HC-110 than the others mentioned (ID-11 and Rodinal). It is less concentrated than HC-110 which contains no water.

Concentrate

45-50 Diethanolamine-sulfur dioxide complex 63149-47-3
40-45 Water
1-5 Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5
4 Hydroquinone 123-31-9
< 1 Pentetic acid, pentasodium salt 140-01-2
< 1 Dimezone-S 13047-13-7

Specific Gravity: 1.23
pH: 8.3

srs5694 · Sep 9, 2005

From that list of ingredients, T-Max is a phenidone/hydroquinone (PQ) developer. (Dimezone S is Kodak's phenidone variant with improved keeping qualities.) The other ingredients are activators, preservatives, etc. I'm not entirely sure about diethanolamine. A Web search reveals it's an anti-oxidant and wetting agent, but I don't know its precise function in T-Max developer.

In any event, other PQ developers include FX-37, ID-68, Microphen, and (according to this site HC-110. In fact, T-Max and HC-110 look very similar, although not quite 100% identical, in their ingredient lists. ID-11 (and its twin, D-76) are metol/hydroquinone (MQ) developers, while Rodinal is based on para-aminophenol hydrochloride, a metol precursor. Of course, a lot more than just the primary developing agents are important in determining a developer's character, so I wouldn't want to make strong predictions based on that alone.

As to why T-Max developer doesn't get mentioned here a lot, I don't really know. I've never used it myself, but that's more because I've only used a few developers so far, and T-Max just happens to be among the vast majority of developers I've not tried; I'm not deliberately avoiding it.

My recommendation is to go ahead and use the stuff, at first on a test roll or rolls with relatively unimportant shots, just so you can see what it does without risking anything critical. If you like it, keep using it. If not, either dump it or keep it for developing stuff that's unimportant (test rolls for new cameras, say).

Neal · Sep 9, 2005

Dear Craig,

You may find this worth looking at:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/chemistry/bwFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml

Neal Wydra

Gerald Koch · Sep 9, 2005

Diethanolamine - sulfur dioxide adduct is used in HC-110 as a source of sulfite. Since HC-110 contains no water, sodium sulfite cannot be used since it would be insoluble. I can only guess that it is used in the Tmax developer because it is more soluble than sodium sulfite and therefore allows a greater sulfite concentration.

Kodak recommends T-Max developer with non T-grain emulsions so I see no problem for you other than its cost. The British Journal formula FX-37 is designed for T-grain films and is economical if you wish to mix your own. I've never used it since I don't use T-grain emulsions and can't say just how good it is.

There have been several posts on the net discouraging the use of high sulfite formulas such as ID-11 with T-grain emulsions unless they are diluted 1+1 or more.

jim appleyard · Sep 9, 2005

The short answer to why nobody uses it is because they don't like it. At least that's the feeling I get from surfing photo sites. Lots of negative feelings out there about T-Max Dev.

I used to use nothing but T-Max 100 and T-Max developer for a few years. I never quite liked the results; flat, wimpy and lifeless negs. I dumped both of them and went back to trad films in Rodinal, HC-110, D-76 et al. It was like nioght and day when I switched back. I suspect it was more the film than the dev., but who knows.

A local college class uses the T-Max combo and the "grayness" of their work is very obvious.

André E.C. · Sep 9, 2005

jim appleyard said:
A local college class uses the T-Max combo and the "grayness" of their work is very obvious.

Depends of some factors, used film, format, dilution, agitation, temperature, to name a few.
I`ve used Tmax developer lately with a variety of films and I don`t dislike it.
Ilford FP4+ 120, 1:4, 6 minutes at 20C, looks fine for me.
I agitate constantly for the first 30 seconds, let it rest for 30 sec more and then agitate for 5 seconds for every 30 seconds up to the total development time.
The results are pleasing to my eyes.

Cheers

André

jim appleyard · Sep 9, 2005

Juba said:
Depends of some factors, used film, format, dilution, agitation, temperature, are some.
I`ve used Tmax developer lately with a variety of films and I don`t dislike it.
Ilford FP4+ 120, 1:4, 6 minutes at 20C, looks fine for me.
I agitate constantly for the first 30 seconds, let it rest for 30 sec more and then agitate for 5 seconds for every 30 seconds up to the total development time.
The results are pleasing to my eyes.

Cheers

André

I agree on the many factors and if it works for you, that's all that matters.

haziz · Sep 9, 2005

John Sexton uses it with apparently good results.

Craig said:
One thing I've noticed here is that nobody seems to use T Max developer. Is there any particular reason for this? I just picked up a bottle of concentrate at a garage sale, and was wondering if I should even bother with it.

John Sexton uses it (in the form of Tmax RS since he does sheet film) though at a 1:9 dilution for 11:30 to 12 minutes (approximately) in a JOBO at 70F. He uses Tmax 100 film. His results speak for themselves. This info is a few years old but I believe is still the case, though I am not positive. He also mostly used Kodak paper and was clearly pissed (though diplomatic) by their recent abandonment of the B&W paper market.

Sincerely,

Hany.

Terrance Hounsell · Sep 9, 2005

I used t-max developer (non-RS) for many years mostly with 4x5 TMX and TMY without a single problem even though this is not recommended by Kodak. One thing I would like to add to this discussion is that T-Max developer seems to be very stable and long lived, much more so than nearly all other developers I've used.

Paul_Baker · Sep 9, 2005

I haven't been doing the developing thing long, but I use TMY in 120 and 135 with TMax developer. So far it's the only thing I've tried. I've done twenty some rolls and I've noticed that sometimes I get very flat (or gray) looking rolls and others that are really great looking. I think that it is very temperamental when it comes to temperatures and times. I found that it works better at 68F than at 72F, most probably because the development time is longer and therefore slightly more accuracy in timing can be achieved. Also, I was having trouble with getting the right amount of liquid in the tank and not leaving enough room for the inversion part to be really effective. I also have not seen too many people talking about it and was wondering the same thing.

Paul B.

Konical · Sep 9, 2005

Good Evening, Craig,

I certainly would not agree that "nobody seems to use T-Max developer." I argee with the comment by Terrance (above). T-Max and T-100 is my favorite combination as I've indicated in various earlier posts. The only drawback to T-Max developer which I've enountered is, as others have noted, the cost.

Konical

fschifano · Sep 9, 2005

I can't speak about TMax developer for anyone else except myself. I used it a few times, but never really warmed up to the stuff. To me it offered no advantages over D-76 or XTOL, and comes at a higher cost. My main developers are D-76/ID-11, XTOL, and once in a while Rodinal. I'm very happy with the results I'm getting with TMax films in XTOL and see no reason to change.

removed account4 · Sep 9, 2005

i stopped using tmax developer after xtol was introduced in the mid 1990s. i had bad experiences after usning non-rs tmax developer with sheet films (as was suggested by the folks at kodak) which caused dichrillic fog on all my film. when that happened, i contacted kodak (again), they said that happens with non-rs developer and sheet film said they would never have suggested such a thing in the first place ... then i was told to throw away all my film because it was destroyed. i removed the greenish metalic stain with the help of paul krot of sprint systems of photography ( local ri photo chemical company ) who had me strip the film with kodak's farmer's reducer (and sprint's fixer).

go figure ...

i later only used the rs flavor, but not as much as i used sprint film developer ( like d76 ). i stopped using tmax developer altogether when they introduced xtol.

thefizz · Sep 10, 2005

I was told Tmax developer is like DDX but I have not yet tried DDX so I could be wrong. I use a lot of Tmax dev and have no problems. As already said, it is expensive but lasts for ages.

Peter

Craig · Sep 12, 2005

Thanks for all the input. It sounds like I have some testing and comparison to do!

I'm not worried about cost, as I picked up a bottle of concentrate to make a gallon of developer for a dollar, however, the comments about sheet film are worrying as that is what I was planning to use it with.

Konical · Sep 12, 2005

Good Afternoon, Craig,

While Kodak specifically recommends against using the regular T-Max Developer with sheet film, I have always used it (never, in fact, even tried the RS version) without any difficulty whatsoever (usually 1:7 directly from the concentrate). Perhaps some have problems because of the particular characteristics of the water in their local supply systems.

Konical

John Sparks · Sep 13, 2005

I've used just about every developer on the market it seems. These days, the only film developer I use is Tmax (or Tmax RS). I don't get in the darkroom as often as I used to and really like that the concentrate seems to last forever. It's not too expensive if you dilute it to 1:7 or 1:9. I don't have to mix up a powder and then watch it go bad before I use it up. It is also a single developer that I can use for everything. I used to regularly use 2 (or more) developers. One for medium and slow films (typically D-76) and a different one (Microphen or DD-X) for high speed films. I kept some Tmax RS for large format stuff because that's what John Sexton recommended at his workshop so that's what I did my film tests with and I didn't want to do them over again (but rarely use sheet film anymore). Anyway, one day I tried some Delta 3200 in the Tmax RS and finally found a developer that made Delta 3200 look the way I wanted, low grain, good film speed and some snap to the highlights! At that point, I started trying Tmax and Tmax RS with every film I shot. I liked the results I was getting (I can't tell any difference in my negatives with Tmax vs Tmax RS except the development times are slightly different). Most films I could see little difference between Tmax and what I used before. A few films picked up about 1/2 stop of real film speed (always useful to me). No film I've tried looks worse in Tmax and as I wrote before, it's the only developer I've found that makes Delta 3200 usable for me. For the last year, it's been the only developer I use. I've used it for a few films since the Sexton workshop in 1992. I wouldn't say there is no one on the net that likes it.

John

Joseph · Sep 13, 2005

T-Max developer

I have used T-Max developer, 1+7 with 35mm T-Max films for seven years. This developer povided very fine grain,with a delightful luminoisity in highlights and mid-tones, and also good shadow detail. Ten times enlargements work fine.

T Max developer

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency