tmax 400 and xtol

david b · Oct 25, 2004

I was in chicago this weekend and I shot some tmax 400.

I exposed it at 400 and when I got home, I developed it in xtol 1+1 at 68 for 8 minutes.

It is super grainy. What happened? Is this normal?

Examples to come soon.

Jim Moore · Oct 25, 2004

david b said:
I was in chicago this weekend and I shot some tmax 400.

I exposed it at 400 and when I got home, I developed it in xtol 1+1 at 68 for 8 minutes.

It is super grainy. What happened? Is this normal?

Examples to come soon.

David,

I shoot this combination all the time and love it. Never had any problems with it being "Super Grainy".

I'm not sure what caused it.

Both my 120 & 35mm are developed 1:1 @ 75d for 5:30 in a SuperSidekick (Like Jobo) processor.

I DO NOT "Pre Wet" the film using TMAX 400 @ XTOL. I read on Jobo's web site that you should not do so.

Those who have seen my prints from the exchanges can tell you they exibit virtually no grain.

Jim

david b · Oct 25, 2004

are you using xtol 1+1 ? great shot, btw.

also, i shot 6x7.

david b · Oct 25, 2004

Jim, I did pre-wet. I did use a jobo 1540 tank. I did 2 rolls at the same time.

500 ml xtol + 500 ml water.

I wonder if my thermometer died?

Jim Moore · Oct 25, 2004

david b said:
Jim, I did pre-wet. I did use a jobo 1540 tank. I did 2 rolls at the same time.

500 ml xtol + 500 ml water.

I wonder if my thermometer died?

David,

Here's a link to the JOBO web site information.

It does say "A prewet is NOT RECOMMENDED with Xtol Developer."

http://www.jobo-usa.com/bulletins/xtol.htm

I'm not sure if that would have caused your problems though.

Jim

david b · Oct 25, 2004

Well, I have been pre-wetting all along but will try it without it next time.

Also, I shot some very expired TMY at 1600 and developed 1+1 and those negs have finer grain than what I just developed.

I don't get it.

Thanks for all the consideration.

Helen B · Oct 25, 2004

How careful are you about the temperature of the subsequent stages? Could there have been a dramatic temperature change during washing, for example?

Best,
Helen

david b · Oct 25, 2004

I am very careful with the process. Does the final wash have anything to do with grain? The water is coming out of my tap at 60 degrees now.

Helen B · Oct 25, 2004

I've found that the temperature of the water has an effect on the graininess (appearance of grain), most definitely. Washing in untempered water can cause problems - if not obvious, classic reticulation then mealy graininess.

Do you use running water? If so, you might consider switching to five or six changes of tempered water.

Best,
Helen

VoidoidRamone · Oct 25, 2004

If your stop bath, assuming you use stop, was too hot it might have caused reticulation...? Sounds like an awkward problem. -Grant

david b · Oct 25, 2004

Reticulation from water at 60 degrees?

The next few rolls will be done with bottled distilled water to see what happens. I will make sure it is all at 68 degrees.

VoidoidRamone · Oct 25, 2004

david b said:
Reticulation from water at 60 degrees?

The next few rolls will be done with bottled distilled water to see what happens. I will make sure it is all at 68 degrees.

good point, I missed that you said it was at 60 degrees. I have no clue then... -Grant

david b · Oct 25, 2004

Grant,
I have no clue either.

jp80874 · Oct 26, 2004

I had been using Xtol in a hand tank with 120 size T Max 400. In June I bought a used Jobo CPP-2 and read the Xtol link. I needed to call about other service issues so I asked about the Xtol link.

If you go beyond the Jobo link and talk to the people at Jobo Service about Xtol you get a different message by innuendo. They don't want to bad mouth the Kodak product for use with the Jobo, but they say they have seen it break down erratically and give "bad" results. They weren't willing to be too specific. I have since talked to several people who have changed from Xtol in a Jobo.

I switched to TMax RS and got good consistent results. Then I took an introductory five day platinum printing course in August using T Max 400 4x5 film, an Expert drum and tried Bostick & Sullivan's Rollo Pyro. I liked it much better for platinum and silver. B&S say the staining makes it much more forgiving. For a novice making errors at a fast pace that has covered a lot of the errors I later recognized.

Just bought an 8x10 camera and Expert tank. At age 64 I got a lot of catching up to do.

John Powers
Downtown Bath, Ohio.

Peter De Smidt · Oct 26, 2004

I've used Xtol in a Jobo processor since the year it came out. I've never had any problems. The reason that Jobo doesn't recommend a pre-wet with Xtol has nothing to do with quality issues. Jobo found that the manufacturer's times for inversion processing would be pretty close to what you should use with a rotary processor if you ad a 5 minute pre-wet when you develop in a Jobo. The pre-wet is nothing more than a technique to simplify finding out the correct development time. In the case of Xtol, Kodak did publish times for rotary development, and so Jobo says that there's no reason to use the pre-wet. That's what they say on their site, and that's what Ken Owen (former Jobo technical rep) told be a few years ago when I discussed it with him.

Regarding TMY, Photo Techniques recently ran an article that claimed that tri-x made at the new plant is finer grained than TMY.

-Peter

JohnArs · Oct 26, 2004

Hi

If fine gray is your mean purpose then take Xtol at 1:3 should then get finer anyway but I never had your problem at 1:1!

Peter De Smidt · Oct 26, 2004

JohnArs said:
Hi

If fine gray is your mean purpose then take Xtol at 1:3 should then get finer anyway but I never had your problem at 1:1!

Actually, my personal experience correlates with Kodak's prediction. Namely, diluting Xtol leads to _slightly_ larger grain, higher accutence and greater film speed. I routinely use Xtol in my Jobo at both 1+1, 1+2, and 1+3, depending on the film and format. I'd use it straight to get the finest grain possible with Xtol.

-Peter

Ian Grant · Oct 26, 2004

david b said:
Reticulation from water at 60 degrees?

It is usually recommended that all stages of B&W processing should be within 2° C (3°F). The differance between working at 20°C (68°F) and 60°F is too large.

While conventional reticulation won't occur easily with most modern films a more subtle clumping of the silver grains takes place if the surface of the emulsion layer contracts or expands rapidly with a sudden temperature change. This is often the extra apparent grain.

I remember testing Tmax 400 in an old Pentax just after it was released and being amazed at the quality. Tend to use it ocassionally in my 645, and it's a superb film.

But I have seen the grain you describe - was from my film batch, my usual developer (I replenish on a strict basis), only differance was the photographer (he processed the films as well). As he used my dev time, I'd done the light meter readings & told him what exposure, all that differed was the temperature of the processing solutions which he controlled. His 6x7 negs were perfectly exposed and correct density but extremely grainy. (I should add I was the subject - and was being photographed making LF images in the landscape, hence the accurate exposures).

So it does happen. It's easy to assume it's the film developer combination but it seems to be worse with higher speed films

david b · Oct 26, 2004

I just did another roll at 1+3 for 15 minutes and the grain appears smaller under my 8x loupe but it looks like it is a bit over-developed. I might cut back 10% next time.

Any additional thoughts?

oboeaaron · Oct 27, 2004

david b said:
Also, I shot some very expired TMY at 1600 and developed 1+1 and those negs have finer grain than what I just developed.

Aha. Kodak went to a new manufacturing process/facility a couple of years ago (concurrent with the release of "New Improved" Tri-X) and the net result (as reported by former Kodak researchers, including the woman who developed XTOL) was that Tri-X got slightly finer grain, but TMY got slightly larger grain. In fact, current Tri-X is supposed to have finer grain than TMY at this point. I am late for work so I don't have time at the moment but later I will try to dig up the article where I read this.
Regards,
Aaron

Helen B · Oct 27, 2004

Here's the article.

Best,
Helen
PS I'll stick with the temperature change theory - it causes lateral stress, and thus lateral movement, in the emulsion. The effects are often subtle.

Peter De Smidt · Oct 27, 2004

oboeaaron said:
Aha. Kodak went to a new manufacturing process/facility a couple of years ago (concurrent with the release of "New Improved" Tri-X) and the net result (as reported by former Kodak researchers, including the woman who developed XTOL) was that Tri-X got slightly finer grain, but TMY got slightly larger grain. In fact, current Tri-X is supposed to have finer grain than TMY at this point. I am late for work so I don't have time at the moment but later I will try to dig up the article where I read this.
Regards,
Aaron

Silvia Zawadzki was the product tester for Xtol, and Dick Dickerson was the project director. It my understanding that TMY had been made at the new plant for years, whereas tri-x was just recently moved there. In any case you're right about their conclusion, namely that tri-x now has finer grain than TMY. (I'm unclear if both films have changed characteristics, or if only Tri-x did.)

Ed Sukach · Oct 27, 2004

Reticulation IS caused by a sudden temperature change between solutions in processing. It has the appearance of "alligator skin", or a dry, cracked, lake bed.

It may happen between any two solutions ... the last I've seen was with *cold* fixer (approximately 5 degrees C below the developer). The greater the difference, either way, the more pronounced the effect.

oboeaaron · Oct 27, 2004

Peter De Smidt said:
Silvia Zawadzki was the product tester for Xtol, and Dick Dickerson was the project director. It my understanding that TMY had been made at the new plant for years, whereas tri-x was just recently moved there. In any case you're right about their conclusion, namely that tri-x now has finer grain than TMY. (I'm unclear if both films have changed characteristics, or if only Tri-x did.)

Thanks for providing the names, Peter. I did manage to dig up the article where I read this:

http://www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/2003/ma-dikerson/dickerson.html

Surprisingly, they found that the new TMY is not only grainier than old TMY and new Tri-X, it is grainier than old Tri-X! Still, it's a lovely film in XTOL.

Cheers,
Aaron

Helen B · Oct 27, 2004

Where do I go wrong? Are my posts too short? (maybe rhetorical, maybe serious, but it's made me think).

Best,
Helen

tmax 400 and xtol

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency