TMAX 400 in R09, how do you do it?

[Oscar Carlsson]

Hi there!

I'm interested to know how you expose and develop TMAX 400 in R09. I've previously used D76 1:1 and TMAX and have been quite happy with the results, but R09 is so much easier to handle, dilute and get to the right temperature, so I wouldn't like to go back to D76 if I really don't have to.

However, my negatives (this far) have been quite contrasty, which means I'm underexposing and/or overdeveloping. The last roll (inspired by the 'way beyond monochrome'-book) I overexposed by 2/3 (ISO 250) and underdeveloped by 15%, but the negatives still looks a bit contrasty. It was given 8,5 minutes in 1:40 R09, agitation as recommended by Kodak (5 s every 30 s).

So how do you do it? Should I go back to D76 or go for HC110?

 

[mablo]

Rodinal (R09 One Shot) doesn't like too much agitation. I use prolonged time but at the same time cut down agitation. TMY2 @ 250 in Rodinal 1:50, 12mins. Slow initial agitation for the first 30secs and then only three inserts every three minutes. This is not my recipe but it works beautifully (Thanks, Charjohncarter)

 

[wietsedejong]

T-max developer

If you like easy you might concider the T-max developer its not that cheap but easy to handel and great for small batches.
Results are greath. I like it.

gr Wietse

 

[Christopher Colley]

when i am testing for n- or n+ development i use 30% increments to get where i need to be..

parhaps 15% isnt enough.


also, theres 1million different ways to develop/agitate film (and rodinal probably accounts for 900,000 of those ways) but ive always found that agitation every 30 seconds is too much no matter what developer/film i used..

at some point my standard became: agitate every minute

 

[GeorgK]

IMHO, Tmax400 in Rodinal is just a waste of a very good film in an unsuitable developer.
I also do not understand what makes R09 "easier to handle" than Tmax. Both are very stable concentrates (Tmax is also quite stable as a working solution) and have to be dilued with water. So, where is the difference? Anyway, "ease of use" should not be your major guideline if you want good negatives.
In reality, I guess, most people are only motivated to use a Rodinal-type developer by the (mostly unjustified) cult following in the web.

D-76 is a very good match for Tmax400, and so are Xtol and Tmax.

Georg

 

[Roger Cole]

If you like easy you might concider the T-max developer its not that cheap but easy to handel and great for small batches.
Results are greath. I like it.

gr Wietse

Concur, but I prefer T-Max RS. I use the 1+7 dilution, which makes it less expensive if that's a concern. I just use it to lengthen the times to something a bit more controllable. I've tried the 1+9 that lots of folks like but didn't care for the midtone separation as much. Not bad, just not as good as at 1+7 (or I sometimes use 1+6 with a slight tweak to the times for 1+7.)

Just dump the little bottle of second ingredient into the large bottle, mix, and then dilute when ready for use.

It doesn't last for a hundred years in the bottle like Rodinal, but it lasts a long time (at least six months after opening and almost certainly longer) is just as easy to use and is a perfect match for T-Max films.

 

[agfarapid]

IMHO, Tmax400 in Rodinal is just a waste of a very good film in an unsuitable developer.

I have to agree with GeorgK on this one. Many years ago I tried Rodinal with Tri-X and wound up with contrasty, grainy negatives when exposed at box speed. I don't want to start a war on this issue but from my experience, Rodinal (which I do use for some applications) is not the panacea that some make it to be. For ease of use, I have been personally satisfied with HC-110 dil B (1:31). Temperature control is easy and have been using it for TMY, TMX, Across and sometimes even the Foma films. It's also very cheap as well. My runner-up developer is Xtol. It's bit more costly and I use it 1:1 dilution (which I gather the OP wanted to escape from since he's using D-76 1:1). My advice--either change films (Across is OK with Rodinal) or switch developers.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hi there!

I'm interested to know how you expose and develop TMAX 400 in R09. I've previously used D76 1:1 and TMAX and have been quite happy with the results, but R09 is so much easier to handle, dilute and get to the right temperature, so I wouldn't like to go back to D76 if I really don't have to.

However, my negatives (this far) have been quite contrasty, which means I'm underexposing and/or overdeveloping. The last roll (inspired by the 'way beyond monochrome'-book) I overexposed by 2/3 (ISO 250) and underdeveloped by 15%, but the negatives still looks a bit contrasty. It was given 8,5 minutes in 1:40 R09, agitation as recommended by Kodak (5 s every 30 s).

So how do you do it? Should I go back to D76 or go for HC110?

If your negatives have too much contrast, develop for less time until it's just right for you. That is all there is to it. Promise.

TMY and R09 (Rodinal) is a wonderful combination and gives fantastic texture in your prints.

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

I have to agree with GeorgK on this one. Many years ago I tried Rodinal with Tri-X and wound up with contrasty, grainy negatives when exposed at box speed. I don't want to start a war on this issue but from my experience, Rodinal (which I do use for some applications) is not the panacea that some make it to be. For ease of use, I have been personally satisfied with HC-110 dil B (1:31). Temperature control is easy and have been using it for TMY, TMX, Across and sometimes even the Foma films. It's also very cheap as well. My runner-up developer is Xtol. It's bit more costly and I use it 1:1 dilution (which I gather the OP wanted to escape from since he's using D-76 1:1). My advice--either change films (Across is OK with Rodinal) or switch developers.

I guess I loose a lot of film speed while using Rodinal, but that's actually fine with me (low-light is when I use my DSLR and/or a tripod). But what I like the most with Rodinal is how easy it is to mix the chemicals and get them to the right temperature (it takes 2 minutes to fix the water, then I only have to add rodinal + water in a vial) compared to D76 (more liquids and a lot trickier if I'm off after mixing them both).

After reading The Negative and The Print I was tempted to start using HC110 but couldn't find any good times for my Foma films I used earlier, so I decided to stick with R09. But now I'm not so sure, however...

Anyways, I guess I have to scan and/or make a few pritns from my last roll and see how it actually behaves. But the negatives looked pretty dense...

 

[cmo]

Oscar, as long as you did not try Tmax 400 in XTol you don't know how good that film is. That combo outclasses most 100 ASA films.

 

[Rick A]

I rate it at 200 then develope it in RO9 1+50, normal agitation. Works really well for 4x5 sheets and 120, haven't tried it with 35mm though. I don't shoot anything faster than iso 100 usually, but it shows to be a great combo this way.

 

[doughowk]

I made the mistake of developing T-Max 400 in Rodinal at 1:25 and was surprised how grainy it was. Unfortunately, it was 120mm for enlarging. For my LF negs (4X5 & 8X10) I dev at 1:50 in Unicolor drum & base so getting constant agitation. For 120mm I now do 1:80 for 16 mins with agitation every 60 seconds.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't know why folks think it's such a grainy combination. Even with 35mm I get prints that aren't terribly grainy at 9x12" size. You must be doing something wicked to your film. And with good 120 negs I'm frankly disappointed by the lack of grain.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

TMY-2 in Xtol does beat most 100 films but it lacks bite and character, instead having a very typical modern straight line look that I find soulless. I am interested in rodinal simply to kick some character and bite into this technically astonishing film. I might also try FX-39.

... So I say try R09 and TMY-2. The film has next to no grain and it is very smooth (smoother than D100) so ....

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

Well, I've made a few test prints from that test roll, the negatives were slightly contrasty but the shadow rendition was...woa. Nice. I'll probably reduce my agitation (back to my normal routine, 10 s agitation each minute) and/or go for 8 minutes. Maybe go for 1:50 instead of 1:40, but now I'm juggling quite a few variables here. Hopefully I'll settle for just one variable.

As for the grain...what grain? Sure, last film I used was Foma 100 in R09 (which a lot of people thinks is quite grainy for an ISO100 film) but the grain on my 24x30 cm (9x12 inches for you yankees) print was...very discrete. The highlights (mostly snow) were a bit dense, but that will probably be fixed by reducing agitation and/or development.