T-max400 with t-max developer

[MattKing]

FWIW, the 2002 Kodak datasheet for T-Max Developer also omits any reference to any dilution other than 1 + 4.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks koraks. If I have understood what you said correctly it indicates that a user of the current TMax developer who previously used the former TMax developer as in the case of the OP has to apply a DIY approach to discovering the time that give the same negative and neither that user or a brand new user of the new TMax developer has any information to rely on as there is no new information except , according to Matt's information what the MDC provides which as we know can vary from contributor to contributor

It would make me wary of Kodak chemicals in the future if I were a user of its chemicals in that an element of uncertainty is now there that wasn't before

pentaxuser

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Is the new Kodak T-Max developer the same old T-Max developer that was manufactured by Champion first and Tetenal after?
I mean, is the same the viscosity (due to diethanolammine)?
This is a previous version msds https://parallaxphotographic.coop/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/T-Max-Developer.pdf

 

[arnie k]

I just looked at the 2/16 tmax 400 data sheet and it does show the 1:7 and 1:9 dilutions. Oddly the data sheet from about the same time for tmax developer shows different development times for tmax 400 film. They are close but not the same. I must admit that Kodak, or it successors, are not as careful as they should be, particularly given how picky their target customer is. Not updating the data sheet when you change the formula is not acceptable. A few years ago, they produced 120 roll film where the paper backing bled onto the film and the negatives showed "Kodak" and the negative number on them. I had a pictures of a trip I took made unusable. They also produced a batch of Dektol that out of the box mixed up as dark brown. They said it was still good but did not pull the product off the shelves and continued to ship it. Conversely, I had a problem with Iford paper and they could not have been better. I found some odd problem in the paper emulsion, I contacted them and sent them a sample print. They researched the problem, noted the defect and sent me a new box of paper. Great customer service. When I had the problem with Kodak they were quite difficult to deal with. All that said, I am looking forward to using the PF developer and am confident it will be fine.

 

[koraks]

I mean, is the same the viscosity (due to diethanolammine)?

I don't think so: https://www.freestylephoto.com/stat...NAL_T-MAX_DEVELOPER-1058718_PSIv2_2-29-24.pdf
No DEA.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Apart from FX37, I am not aware of an open source formula designed for films such as Tmax Delta and Acros films.
It is unfortunate when a popular developer has changed formula for whatever reason.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I thought it was just HC110 that was reformulated..
According to John Sexton on his website, he mentioned that the latest reformulated version of Tmax developer works nicely with sheet films, where as the original version caused dichroic fog.
It seems that some adjustments to the development times may be required compared to the original developer to obtain the same results.

 

[MattKing]

I thought it was just HC110 that was reformulated..
According to John Sexton on his website, he mentioned that the latest reformulated version of Tmax developer works nicely with sheet films, where as the original version caused dichroic fog.
It seems that some adjustments to the development times may be required compared to the original developer to obtain the same results.

Even if not re-formulated, the change in production equipment and site (actually a change in continents!) along with incremental changes in the films since T-Max developer was introduced may be where some of the changes have arisen.
Particularly in respect to the early problems with dichroic fog with the sheet film.