TMax developer Vs ID11

[Keith Tapscott.]

Does anyone use TMax developer as an alternative to D76/ID11?

DEVELOPER TEST ON ILFORD ID-11 -v- KODAK TMAX

Test 0ne Ilford ID-11 against Kodak Tmax Developer Ilford ID-11ILFORD ID-11 is widely regarded as the industry standard powder developer. Catering for general, scientific and technical photography, this popular film developer produces excellent results with all black & white films. ID-11 gives...

www.snapsphotoservices.com

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Thank you for replying, that's good news that it lasts well.
From what I can see from the Kodak data sheet, 1 litre of working solution can develop up to 12 rolls of films before discarding. That makes it reasonably economical. I have seen some photos on this site by Andrew Moxom that look very good. Just wondering if there are regular TMax developer users here?

 

[TomR55]

Does anyone use TMax developer as an alternative to D76/ID11?

DEVELOPER TEST ON ILFORD ID-11 -v- KODAK TMAX

Test 0ne Ilford ID-11 against Kodak Tmax Developer Ilford ID-11ILFORD ID-11 is widely regarded as the industry standard powder developer. Catering for general, scientific and technical photography, this popular film developer produces excellent results with all black & white films. ID-11 gives...

www.snapsphotoservices.com

I have used the latest formulation of TMax developer .... mostly for Kodak T-grain films, but also on AgfaPhoto APX-100. By comparison, my "standard" developer is Claytons F76+. Frankly, I prefer the F76+ for several reasons:

F76+ works well at my processing temperatures (24 C or 75 F);
F76+ is more cost effective;
Negatives processed with TMAX developer (at 1 + 4) denser and of higher contrast than what I obtain with F76+.

Even Kodak's TMAX 100 and 400 (135), unless processed at temperatures lower than 24 C/75 F) give me negatives that are easier to scan with F76+.

Of course, your results may vary depending upon your working temperatures, agitation style, ... etc.

I am curious to hear other contributors' opinions as I'm open to trying this developer with Cubic as well as T grained (135) films.

 

[pentaxuser]

Not sure how good this "test" is in terms of genuinely distinguishing the pros and cons of each developer The negs were not of the same scene and maybe not even taken in the exact same lighting conditions

The author(s) seem to be concerned about extra contrast but I'd have settled for a bit of extra shadow detail

I think I'll stick to Andrew O'Neill's tests

pentaxuser

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Were you using the developer one -shot or reusing it? From somewhere else I read is that the developer gets better once it has been used with smoother tones and nicely tempered highlights.
I'm hoping that a regular user can confirm this.

 

[TomR55]

Not sure how good this "test" is in terms of genuinely distinguishing the pros and cons of each developer The negs were not of the same scene and maybe not even taken in the exact same lighting conditions

The author(s) seem to be concerned about extra contrast but I'd have settled for a bit of extra shadow detail

I think I'll stick to Andrew O'Neill's tests

pentaxuser

I certainly wasn't claiming that this "test" was scientific. My reply to the OP relate ONLY to my circumstances. I make photographs; I don't hold myself out as a chemist or analyst. My statements conclude with an invitation for others, who may have different experiences and knowledge, to contribute.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Tmax Developer diluted 1+7 and used one shot makes beautiful negatives. I have long recommended it to people who don't want to bother with mixing powdered chemicals. With most films, you can take the developing time used for the standard 1+4 dilution and multiply the time by 1.5 to get the time for the 1+7 dilution.

 

[TomR55]

Tmax Developer diluted 1+7 and used one shot makes beautiful negatives. I have long recommended it to people who don't want to bother with mixing powdered chemicals. With most films, you can take the developing time used for the standard 1+4 dilution and multiply the time by 1.5 to get the time for the 1+7 dilution.

You know ... I thought that I'd read this somewhere and now I know the source!

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Tmax Developer diluted 1+7 and used one shot makes beautiful negatives. I have long recommended it to people who don't want to bother with mixing powdered chemicals. With most films, you can take the developing time used for the standard 1+4 dilution and multiply the time by 1.5 to get the time for the 1+7 dilution.

Hello Chris,

Is this suitable for negatives for enlarging purposes in a darkroom or just scanning?
Hopefully both.

Thanks

Keith.

 

[Konical]

"You know ... I thought that I'd read this somewhere and now I know the source!"

Good Morning,
That "somewhere" might have been in a comparative test described in the late '80's (??) in one of the photo magazines. Maybe it was Darkroom Techniques or Creative Darkroom (sorry I may not remember the magazine titles exactly or which one it may have been), but it ended up recommending a 1:7 dilution for T-Max Developer with T-Max films. I've used that dilution with both T-Max 100 (10 minutes) and T-Max 400 (9 minutes) as my "normal" developer ever since with excellent results. Given the great increase in developer cost since the 1980's, the 1:7 dilution makes even more sense now than it did then compared to Kodak's 1:4 recommendation.

Konical

 

[Paul Howell]

Tmax and DDX were designed for T grained films, as t grain films have smaller grain Tmax and DDX are an acutance type developer. I have used Tmax and DDX at recommended 1:4 for Tmax 100 and 400 and liked the results. I also used Clayton F90 which was their developer for t gain films, worked petty well but did not have shelf life of Tmax developer, it is no longer on the market. ID11 and D76 would be my choice for traditional grain films, currently I am using HC110 usually dilution E.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Hello Chris,

Is this suitable for negatives for enlarging purposes in a darkroom or just scanning?
Hopefully both.

Thanks

Keith.

I used it for negs I printed in the darkroom before my health got bad enough that I had to switch to scanning, and I continued using it after I began scanning. Results were good both ways.

 

[pentaxuser]

I certainly wasn't claiming that this "test" was scientific. My reply to the OP relate ONLY to my circumstances. I make photographs; I don't hold myself out as a chemist or analyst. My statements conclude with an invitation for others, who may have different experiences and knowledge, to contribute.

Tom, I was really replying to Keith in the sense that it was he who started the thread. I have only become aware of your posts since returning to it late this afternoon.

I just didn't think the article did much for establishing what any real differences might be it. Yes it gave those such as you who have used both the chance to express their experiences and that's fine and useful

pentaxuser

 

[TomR55]

No worries. I am keen to learn of any uses for this particular developer (other than for T-grain emulsions). It's a good thing when knowledgeable members of these forums provide information not easily available to those not conversant in these areas.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

HandMade Photographic Images - Projects

Pentax user, I see what you mean about the scene differences in the link of my first post of this thread.

In the link above, the author reckons that TMax developer gives the best overall quality with the old Tri-X and Plus-X films, but no explanation as to why compared to other developers.

 

[Paul Howell]

As an acutance developer Tmax provides good sharpness but larger gain. With old Plus X or PF4 not that much of an issue even with 35MM, but TriX, it can be too grainy for some, just right for others.

 

[MattKing]

Tmax and DDX were designed for T grained films, as t grain films have smaller grain Tmax and DDX are an acutance type developer.

I think it may be more accurate to say that T-Max developer (and most likely DDX as well) were designed in the environment that existed when the T-grain films were introduced.
The new developers were designed with the new films in mind, but the older films were also in mind at the same time.
T-Max developer was intended to be used with all available films, and in some ways was intended more to be an advance over HC-110., than it was intended to be an advance over D-76/ID-11. That was because it was both a liquid developer, and unlike HC-110 it didn't compromise film speed. In edition, the no longer available T-Max RS version offered self-replenishment, also unlike HC-110.