Testing and evaluating KODAK T-MAX P3200 and Ilford Delta 3200

[MattKing]

I jury rigged a largish tupperware type storage jug - with a grip - by cutting a hole in the lower section for the spigot and duct taping a flap to hold it in place.
Something similar to this:

 

[markjwyatt]

Ever considered develping TMAX P3200 in ADOX FX-39 II? FX-39 was developed by Crawley for T-grain type films, and there is some reference to P3200 in this post: https://www.iconpublications.com/photon/darkroom/fx39.html

On the other hand FX-39 was recommended for slow/medium speed films. I developed one roll of P3200, and considered using ADOX FX-39 II, but in the end just went with HC110. https://emulsive.org/articles/5-fra...-carl-zeiss-50mm-f-1-8-ultron-by-mark-j-wyatt

 

[Helge]

The purpose of running the initial several films through the developer first, without replenishing, is to speed up the build-up of development byproducts.
Can you remind us what the size of your working solution container is?

Is there any literature or sites describing the mechanism, effects and use of “development byproducts”?
It’s a term I encountered a few times.

In a broad sense it’s my understanding that they work as compensating agents. In that they lower contrast, and thereby raise speed.

Would be interesting to know if the mechanism is somewhat the same as with other compensating developers?
And if it’s an effect someone has tried emulating with additives?

 

[Craig]

What do you guys think of this kind of dispenser for wine bags? It's $100 in the US. Worth it for XTOL? I am afraid the cheap cardboard boxes will get wet and rot.
Ebay link.

I'm much simpler. The wine bags I get are usually 7.5 L ( that's what the store carries) and I keep them sitting in the bottom of a bucket for storage. When I want to dispense the developer I take the bag out of the bucket. I use erlenmeyer flasks with a funnel in the top to measure my developer. I just hold the wine bag over the funnel and open the tap with my other hand.

Some photos of my wine bag and dispensing the developer.

 

[Moose22]

What do you guys think of this kind of dispenser for wine bags? It's $100 in the US. Worth it for XTOL? I am afraid the cheap cardboard boxes will get wet and rot.
Ebay link.

I got this guy: Amazon link to the Astropouch Wine Bag in a Box kit

I don't know about getting the box wet, though. My boxes haven't gotten wet. I haven't had ANY leaking issues with the bags or the spout, either. Pretty happy with them so far, though I'm really only 7 rolls into the replenishing part.

 

[bernard_L]

I am afraid the cheap cardboard boxes will get wet and rot.

Not my experience. BUT

• the cardboard will weaken following repeated opening of the top and re-insertion of the spout in the hole of the box
• some spouts (all I've used in the last 5 years) are a bit difficult to extract for filling. It helps a lot to have a tool made of a steel plate (about the thickness of a knife blade) with a half-circle cutout, to wedge between the spout and the body of the pouch.

What do you guys think of this kind of dispenser for wine bags? It's $100 in the US. Worth it for XTOL?

Sounds like a lot of money for a box that can be made of PVC (bougt at a shop that makes commercial signs). You can buy a pretty decent Chinese lens for that kind of money.

 

[bernard_L]

What do you guys think of this kind of dispenser for wine bags? It's $100 in the US. Worth it for XTOL? I am afraid the cheap cardboard boxes will get wet and rot.
Ebay link.

Maybe wine bags should not be trusted blindly. Some are (used to be?) laminated with a thin layer of Aluminium (aluminized Mylar??) Other might be multi-layer, with a PolyVinylAlcool layer, orders of magnitude better than HDPE, and much better than PolyPropylene. But recently I bought wine in a box, that was quite deteriorated after 6 months storage; making me wonder if economical pressure resulted in HDPE-only bags being sold.
Caveat emptor.

 

[aparat]

@bernard_L Thank you for that! I guess it can never be that simple. I'll have to keep looking for the best solution.

@Stephen Benskin Thank you so much for the demo! It's very clearly presented and is very helpful.

@MattKing @Moose22 @Craig Thanks! These solutions look really simple and effective.

@markjwyatt I am not familiar with the FX-39. Is it similar to FX-37? I think I have all the ingredients for FX-37, so I could make a liter and try it.

​

 

[aparat]

First of all, I ask you, please do not shoot the messenger

I have finished running a test of KODAK T-MAX P3200 and Ilford Delta 3200, exposed at around EI 3200 and developed in stock XTOL. I ran this entire test twice, so that's two series of four trials, each, because I wanted to be sure I was getting accurate results. I first developed for the Kodak recommended 13.5 minutes, but I was getting lower contrast than I did in my test of XTOL-R, so I increased the time to 15 minutes at 20C in Jobo (1510 tank). I was aiming at the CI of approx. 0.75 for T-MAX P3200, and 0.65 for Delta 3200, so that the two results (i.e., XTOL and XTOL-R) are easier to compare.

It turns out, stock XTOL gets a little more speed (approx. a 1/4 of a stop) out of both Delta 3200 and T-MAX P3200, compared to XTOL-R. Is it enough to be meaningful in everyday use? Probably not. However, T-MAX P3200 approaches ISO 1600 in stock XTOL, so it's very close to the advertised speed of ISO 3200. If pushed a little further, it might get maybe a 1/3 of a stop more speed. Maybe.

Stock XTOL produced an interesting side effect, compared to XTOL-R, namely slightly, but significantly higher B+F density, from around 0.31 to 0.34. I even mixed up a fresh batch of stop and fixer for the second series to be sure the increase wasn't caused by exhausted chemistry. Again, probably not something to worry about in everyday photography, but it is a real effect (samples came from two different rolls). Ilford Delta is less susceptible to this, with only a 0.01 increase, which is meaningless, as my densitometer is accurate only down to 0.01, anyway.

As far as tonality is concerned, the results are similar, with stock XTOL producing a tiny bit more linearity, but probably not enough to make a difference in normal photography.

Here are the plots. First the curve families, then the detail. I have a lot more data available, so do not hesitate to ask.


And here are some details:

 

[markjwyatt]

...

@markjwyatt I am not familiar with the FX-39. Is it similar to FX-37? I think I have all the ingredients for FX-37, so I could make a liter and try it.

​

According to this thread, FX-37 might not be a good choice for P3200.

 

[Radost]

Kodak tmax 3200 IMHO a lot better than Ilford 3200

Tried a few developers. It seams like Kodak has more .....emultion.

Only ilford makes 120..I wish Kodak did made 120

 

[markjwyatt]

Kodak tmax 3200 IMHO a lot better than Ilford 3200...Only ilford makes 120..I wish Kodak did made 120

For this reason, I will try some Ilford some day.

 

[aparat]

Kodak tmax 3200 IMHO a lot better than Ilford 3200

Tried a few developers. It seams like Kodak has more .....emultion.

Only ilford makes 120..I wish Kodak did made 120

When you say it's better, do you mean in terms of speed, tonality, resolving power, grain, something else? If I had to choose a winner, I'd probably make this a tie. Each film has its own pros and cons.

 

[Helge]

When you say it's better, do you mean in terms of speed, tonality, resolving power, grain, something else? If I had to choose a winner, I'd probably make this a tie. Each film has its own pros and cons.

What are the pros of Delta 3200?

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Here are the reproduction curves from the three examples: Normal exposure, Under-exposure, and Underexposure with increased processing.

The straight-line is a guide curve representing a perfect 1:1 match between the original subject and print. An idea reproduction curve should be lighter and have a mid-tone gradient higher than 1.07 or so. The prints were keyed to the highlight.

The normal exposure is fine with the shadows appearing slightly darker than on average. The underexposure curve shows how the loss of NDR from underexposure will produce a print that will lack a complete tonal range. While the curve that shows the results of underexposure with is able to produce a print with a full tonal range, the lighter tones are slightly darker than with the normal exposure. The mid-tones have increased contrast and are also darker in comparison. The darker tones are darker than the original and lose separation at one point.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

It turns out, stock XTOL gets a little more speed (approx. a 1/4 of a stop) out of both Delta 3200 and T-MAX P3200, compared to XTOL-R. Is it enough to be meaningful in everyday use? Probably not. However, T-MAX P3200 approaches ISO 1600 in stock XTOL, so it's very close to the advertised speed of ISO 3200. If pushed a little further, it might get maybe a 1/3 of a stop more speed. Maybe.

Fresh will always produce better speeds than seasoned and most likely a slightly higher film base plus fog as it is more active. But that's a side note. What I believe is important to point out is the use of ISO in cases of "pushing for speed" can be misleading. ISO can rightfully only be used when adhering to the criteria of the standard. Kodak never claims P3200 has an ISO of 3200 so there isn't an advertised speed of ISO 3200. The "P" stands for processing. Kodak's data sheet says the nominal speed has been rounded to EI 800 or in other words, it would have an ISO 800 if they did the necessary testing. The three quadrant example I recently posted illustrates how "pushing for speed" works.

Determining the film speed increase with increased development also can be problematic depending on the speed method used. Shadow density will increase slightly with extended development, but this is not how film speed is measured. There is an inverse relationship between the overall film gradient and the relationship between the fixed density of 0.10 and the Delta-X speed point. Actual film speed doesn't change much with increased development, however; the increased shadow density does play a roll in the degree of processing necessary to compensate for the loss of NDR with underexposure. On average one stop underexposure only requires 2/3 stop extended development as compared to compensating for scenes with shorter luminance ranges. Hypothetically, if it was possible to increase the effective film speed to the higher EI camera setting, then there wouldn't be a loss in shadow exposure which will result in a higher NDR than is desired for a given LER. The ideal film / developer combination is one that has a low development rate so that the shadows are given time to gain density without producing high average gradients.

 

[Moose22]

What are the pros of Delta 3200?

It comes in 120 format.

 

[John Wiegerink]

According to this thread, FX-37 might not be a good choice for P3200.

Why would FX-37 not be a good combination for P3200? I have used FX-37 for Delta 100 and also Delta 400, but not much of the latter. It works excellent with Delta 100. I've also used FX-39II with Fuji Acros II and Delta 100. I thought it was a very good combination for both, but I think if I were to have to choose between the two, I would go for my home-brewed FX-37. I have never used it on P3200 or Kodak's brand, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work just fine. Kodak's DK-50 should give similar results, although it might not give the slight speed increase you should get with FX-39II or FX-37.

 

[markjwyatt]

Why would FX-37 not be a good combination for P3200? I have used FX-37 for Delta 100 and also Delta 400, but not much of the latter. It works excellent with Delta 100. I've also used FX-39II with Fuji Acros II and Delta 100. I thought it was a very good combination for both, but I think if I were to have to choose between the two, I would go for my home-brewed FX-37. I have never used it on P3200 or Kodak's brand, but I see no reason why it wouldn't work just fine. Kodak's DK-50 should give similar results, although it might not give the slight speed increase you should get with FX-39II or FX-37.

I thought had an older Photrio thread linked, and it had some comments about FX-37 that I thought were relevant.

"FX-37 is not a fine grain developer, i have used it for 35mm TMY but that is not a good choice. For LF where grain is not an issue it is hard to beat the increased speed you can get from this developer."


I see some other threads that see the opposite (more what you are saying), for instance: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/best-developer-for-kodak-tmy2.143995/page-2

 

[John Wiegerink]

I will be honest and say that Delta 100 was my most used film with FX-37. I did try it with Shanghai GP# film and it wasn't bad, but I got better results with Delta 100 and that was in 35mm. I'm not one of those grain worshipers and found the grain wasn't bad. I would much rather have medium, well-defined grain than small, mushy-smeared grain anytime. I find Xtol-R does a good job with both Delta 100 and 400, so I've kind of forgot about FX-37. Still, I'd like to see what FX-37 would do with P3200 just out of curiosity.

 

[Morgenland]

Spur Speed Major is another option for TMAX 3200.
According to the datasheet, tmax 3200 can be optimised for EI 3200 with proper development time/dilution.