Tmax and Tmax-RS -- same thing?

I was probably too tired to be doing this last night, but I wound two rolls of 120 onto spools and put them into the tank, then as I was throwing the backing paper into the trash noticed that I had inadvertantly put in one roll of Tmax 100 and one roll of Tmax 400 (the older stuff.) I have no idea which roll in the tank is which.

Looking at my documentation, I see that at 72 degrees one of those films wants 7 minutes, the other 7 1/2 in Tmax developer. Aha, I thought: I have a bottle of that, unopened, from back before I returned to D-76. I'll just develop for 7 1/4 minutes and all should be well.

As it turns out, my developer isn't Tmax, it's Tmax-RS. I don't suppose that if I omit adding the Part B (using just the Part A) that it would be the same as Tmax developer? (Kodak's documentation says not to use Tmax-RS to replenish TMax developer.)

No? I didn't think so...

Rats. No one around here carries exotic stuff, like Diafine. *Grumble* Grumble* Fine: I'll fish one roll out and process it in a single tank, then see what I've got. At least one roll should be ok. Or, how about an overnight stand development in D-76 in the tank? Won't that self-mask... nah: grasping a straws. Maybe I need a nap...

Mike

Can you get HC-110............. I think the times for TMAX 100 & 400 is the same in HC-110.

A quick check for normally exposed 100 or 400 Tmax on the MDC shows 8' and 7' respectively. I would be thinking about the lighting conditions for each roll and if one or both are exposed in bright sunny conditions, use the lower number and you should be able to print normally.

I do all my film in Tmax RS and I use 6-7', depending on how I feel about the exposures but I also print on a condenser machine. Typically, there is a margin of latitude, we as photographers tend to fudge the numbers a bit either intentionally or unintentionally.

-Fred

mjs said:

I noticed that I had inadvertantly put in one roll of Tmax 100 and one roll of Tmax 400 (the older stuff.) I have no idea which roll in the tank is which.

Looking at my documentation, I see that at 72 degrees one of those films wants 7 minutes, the other 7 1/2 in Tmax developer. Aha, I thought: I have a bottle of that, unopened, from back before I returned to D-76. I'll just develop for 7 1/4 minutes and all should be well.

As it turns out, my developer isn't Tmax, it's Tmax-RS. I don't suppose that if I omit adding the Part B (using just the Part A) that it would be the same as Tmax developer? (Kodak's documentation says not to use Tmax-RS to replenish TMax developer.)



Mike

Click to expand...

You`re on the right track by taking a mean average of the times for both films. The one requiring the shorter time might require a slightly softer paper grade and the one requiring the longer time might need slightly harder grade when you enlarge the negatives which is when you will find out for sure.
All is not lost, just one of those errors to remember next time.

mjs said:

As it turns out, my developer isn't Tmax, it's Tmax-RS. I don't suppose that if I omit adding the Part B (using just the Part A) that it would be the same as Tmax developer? (Kodak's documentation says not to use Tmax-RS to replenish TMax developer.)


Mike

Click to expand...

T-MAX and T-MAX RS are two very different developers! T-MAX 100 (TMX) can be developed in both with fine results, but T-MAX 400 (TMY) should never be developed in T-MAX RS - the contrast is terrible and the negatives are impossible to print. When it comes to ISO 400 films, the T-MAX RS is even worse than HC-110. Kodak, as usual, is pretending not to know.

j-fr

www.j-fr.dk

Kodak's literature says that T-Max dev is for roll films only and T-Max RS can be used for both roll films and sheet films. I do not know why this should be so, and I haven't experimented with it. As far as what films you develop in it, I think it still is a matter of preference and you need to test for yourself and see what you like and what you don't.

Bob

j-fr said:

T-MAX and T-MAX RS are two very different developers! T-MAX 100 (TMX) can be developed in both with fine results, but T-MAX 400 (TMY) should never be developed in T-MAX RS - the contrast is terrible and the negatives are impossible to print. When it comes to ISO 400 films, the T-MAX RS is even worse than HC-110. Kodak, as usual, is pretending not to know.

j-fr

www.j-fr.dk

Click to expand...

TMAX-RS can be used just fine with TMAX 400 - dilute 1:9.

Don

This has come up before. A good reference is from John Sexton in a post on Large Format Photography as follows:

"Some photographers have encountered dichroic fog (an ugly brown metallic stain) on sheet film processed in T-MAX developer. The new T-MAX RS developer-replenisher should eliminate this problem with sheet film. If you encounter dichroic fog, one method of removing it is to immerse the wet negative into normal strength Farmer's Reducer for about 30 seconds with continuous agitation. This will have no effect on the density of T-Max emulsions, but will completely eliminate the Dichroic Fog. Wash the film after reduction. "

Just to finish this thread, I finally bought some Kodak T-max developer and mixed it up last weekend. I split the 30 second difference in developing times and both rolls turned out just fine -- this worked quite well. I had forgotten how well Tmax developer works with roll film (to be honest, I haven't shot much roll film in the past few years. Wrapped up in 4x5 and 8x10, perhaps too much.) I stopped using Tmax developer when I started using much more sheet film than roll film -- I never saw the dichroic fog John Sexton mentioned but I also could never get "normal" contrast out of Tmax sheet film with the Tmax developer, either. Sheet film always came out quite soft, so I tried HC100 and D-76 and decided that I liked D-76 better. I still do, but Tmax developer does have its place, I suppose. I don't think that it oxidizes as quickly as D-76 does, for one thing. D-76 is cheaper, too, and when all you get is 16 8x10 negatives per gallon, the cost adds up.

Thanks to everyone for their suggestions.

Mike