T-max400 with t-max developer

arnie k

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2016
Messages
15
Location
Westchester, NY
Format
Med. Format RF
I have been developing t-max 400 in t-max developer with a 1:7 dilution for 7 minutes at 75 degrees in my Jobo for years and love it. Recently it seems like my negatives are denser and have more contrast. Have other had this experience? Any suggestions on developers for the t-max 400? Thanks.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,708
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I have not used Tmax in years, I develop Tmax 400 in HC 110, currently the new Kodak version, I also think Extol would work very well as would D76 or Clayton F76+. DDX is the Ilford version of Tmax, I have used it as well.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,982
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Yes there are other developers which will do a good job but I do wonder if simply changing your developer will alter the density and contrast of your negatives future negatives

Something has clearly changed if the effect you mention has arisen with what was an otherwise satisfactory developer, dilution and time

Could it be that recent exposure of recent films has changed. I'd try to find that change whatever it was

pentaxuser
 

laser

Advertiser
Advertiser
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
1,056
Format
4x5 Format
There is very little probability that the film has changed. If the results are dense and contrasty do a clip test (short length of film) and reduce the time by 15% and 25%. Bob Shanebrook
 

Keith Tapscott.

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
1,807
Location
Plymouth. UK
Format
Multi Format
Has any changes been made to Tmax developer?
If the film and developer combination is used with careful dilution, temperature and timing as before, there shouldn't be any problems.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,103
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Paul Howell said:
Who knows, so many changes in manufactures, is Sino Promise still making it?
Click to expand...

No.
I'm not sure they ever did.
The new holder of the license is Photo Systems Inc. , historically known for Unicolor products, who were previously doing some of the chemical manufacturing for Kodak Alaris - particularly after Tetenal went under for the first time.
Here is their Kodak chemicals product web link: https://kodak.photosys.com/
If I were the OP, I would reach out to them, because they would be very interested in an unwanted change in the product.
Although if there was intervening incremental changes in the product during the Sino Promise time, it could be that the Photo Systems product is actually a return to the historical.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,552
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format

1:7?? Is that a typo. It should be mixed 1:4
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,103
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
ic-racer said:
1:7?? Is that a typo. It should be mixed 1:4
Click to expand...

Thanks for noticing that.
Perhaps the latest version is designed to perform the same as older versions at the recommended dilution of 1+4, but performs differently at a non-standard and non-documented dilution of 1+7.
 

MarkS

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
503
TMax developer is a liquid concentrate. Did you recently open a new bottle?
If it's the same bottle of concentrate, your problem does not lie there- developers oxidize and only lose activity over time, resulting in thin, underdeveloped film.
Even if it's a new bottle (perhaps from a different supplier using the name) I'd be reluctant to look at that first.
Check your meter, review your darkroom practice (we've all made mistakes; I've made some them numerous times), shoot a test roll of a subject in full sunlight; all with the same exposure. Then follow laser's advice- but run 1/3 of that roll at your regular time. Make proper proofs and if nothing else. you'll confirm your proper development time (even if it's different than it used to be).
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,667
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
qqphot said:
I've had a digital thermometer go off fairly abruptly.
Click to expand...
+1. I thought I had the world by the tail when I bought a Paterson digital thermometer, but it turned out that the digital thermometer had me by the tail. I used it for about six or seven months and then I stated noticing slight changes in my negative densities. It seemed to drift both ways and I started checking my in-camera meters against my Luna Star F, which has never failed me, and all meters were within 1/3 to 1/2 stop. I mixed fresh developer/fixer and still had drifting. The last thing I thought about checking was my fancy new digital thermometer. Well, to make a long story short, I now only rely on my more expensive Kodak mercury lab thermometer. I gave my fancy new digital thermometer to the garbage man.
 

chriscrawfordphoto

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
1,893
Location
Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Format
Medium Format
ic-racer said:
1:7?? Is that a typo. It should be mixed 1:4
Click to expand...

Diluting Tmax Developer 1+7 is a common practice; I've been doing it for nearly 30 yrs. Kodak actually gives times for developing Tmax 400 and Tmax 100 in Tmax 1+7, but only at 75F/24C. In practice, I have found that taking the time for Tmax 1+4 and multiplying it by 1.5 gives a perfect time for most films and temperatures of Tmax Developer diluted 1+7.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,103
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

FWIW, that recommendation for 1 +7 is found in the 2016 film datasheet, but hasn't been included in the developer datasheet for some time.
 
OP
OP

arnie k

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2016
Messages
15
Location
Westchester, NY
Format
Med. Format RF
Thanks for the responses. A few reviews on B&H mentioned the same problem with the "new" Tmax developer. It seems like Kodak did change the formula a while ago. I get the problem on highlights and I really notice the problem with white on white images. After some searching, I found Photographer's Formulary BW 2 that they make for the Tmax film so I think I will give that a try.
 

TomR55

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2022
Messages
195
Location
Southwest Florida
Format
35mm RF
I’ve had results similar to what the OP posted using TMax developer to process TMY, per Kodak’s developing times. I get better results using Clayton’s F76, 1 + 9.

Clayton’s data sheet recommends 7 minutes at 75 degrees F (24 C), but I actually get acceptable results by developing at 6:15 (23.9 - 24.3 C), using continuous agitation for the first 30 seconds then 5 seconds every 30 seconds, per Kodak (small tank). [Note, I am scanning these negatives; depending upon your equipment, e.g., condenser, diffusion or cold-light, you will need to experiment.]

I don’t know, by the way, if Clayton’s data sheet for this developer is for continuous agitation (Jobo, etc) or tank development. (In the preamble they mention machine development, but never specify if the specs they provide are for a particular development mechanism.)
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,982
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Assuming that Kodak instructs the company making TMax developer about its manufacture it seems puzzling that it would have devised a new formula that makes poorer negatives. Presumably if it was trying to improve the developer then it tested its new formula first and would have discovered this issue and scrapped it?

"All bets are off" of course as the saying goes if Kodak had no control over how the developer was made by whoever makes it

Would this seem likely? I would not have thought so but presumably could have occurred had it sold the brand of Tmax developer and all its "rights" in that brand

pentaxuser
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,103
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Eastman Kodak is unlikely to have any say on manufacture of the current developer - just the use of the trademark.
However, I expect that there are constructive channels of communication between the quality control parts of the two entities.
One of the real challenges that Photo Systems Inc. has is the need to do the background work to create updated datasheets - there really hasn't been anyone with the resources to do that since before Kodak Alaris did some editing of the old ones back in 2016, and there have been a lot of changes in the manufacturing environment since then.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,982
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
koraks said:
Not an assumption I'd bet any money on, really.
Or, as you put it: all bets are off.
Click to expand...

Resorting to a certain parlance now : Gee tanx, koraks and Matt. Wow! It sounds like any wiseguy can monkey around with any of the Kodak juices for better or worse but maybe worse and pass it off as the same developer we all knew and loved

pentaxuser - a Goodfella

Seriously though, it does sound as if any former Kodak chemical might have changed for the worse in terms of qualities , even if by accident, as has been suggested in the case of TMax developer
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,109
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
pentaxuser said:
it does sound as if any former Kodak chemical might have changed for the worse in terms of qualities
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it like that, really.
Keep in mind that the chemistry business was sold off several years ago (ditched by Alaris to Sino Promise in 2019 off the top of my head), so it really isn't "Kodak" anymore except by name. Having said that, a change in quality is not necessarily a deterioration. Apparently in the case of Tmax developer, there's been a change in activity, at least at the 1+7 dilution. That's unfortunate, but doesn't mean that the developer as such is better or worse for it. Just that previously established development times will have to be adjusted.
Whether this change was accidental - I doubt it, really. It was likely a compromise with a known impact; Photosys must have done some testing before they released this newer version, so they were likely aware of it. As I implied, it's conceivable that the difference in activity applies in particular to the higher dilutions due to a change in the buffering system; i.e. a better/more stable buffer could be the cause of this effect.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,103
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Don't forget - it is only Kodak Alaris who has "custody" of and responsibility to maintain the film datasheets,.
Kodak Alaris no longer has any involvement with the chemical datasheets.
The 2016 T-Max developer datasheet does not include times for 1 + 7 and 1 + 9 dilutions.
It is only the 2016 vintage film datasheet that actually includes a time for dilutions other than 1 + 4.
My impression is that Kodak Alaris lacks or has not been able to devote resources to maintain the datasheets since they divested the chemical business.
The Photo Systems website does not link to the historical Kodak datasheet for T-Max developer. Instead, it says this:
"Normal and push/pull processing times available at The Massive Development Chart by Digital Truth."
In short, different entities now have different responsibilities for different products, which are (in the case of the chemicals) made by different people in different manufacturing lines. I would not expect there to be no changes, even if certain design parameters may have been used to ensure certain consistencies.
If the old and new 1 + 4 times match, and the most recent Kodak T-Max developer datasheet only dealt with 1 + 4 times, than that may mean Photo Systems' criteria was met.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…