Tmax Developer

[thefizz]

I have been using Tmax developer as my fine grain dev for the past few years but I do not seem to hear many APUG members recommending it. Why is this so? My supplier highly recommends it but does agree it is expensive.

I know Xtol seems to be widely used and recommended but I am too lazy to mix and use power developers.

So regarding liquid developers, how do you rate Tmax?

Peter

 

[alien]

I have been using Tmax developer for years. My standard film is Tmax 400, usually rated with 250 ASA. I am very happy with the combination, as it gives me great tonal range.

And the best thing for me: it is easy and quick to use!

 

[AndrewH]

Alien:

I just developed about 5 rolls of 400TMY in this stuff and got back really dense negatives. How long do you develop for?

 

[alien]

Andrew,
I get dense negatives too, but they have all the information on them that I want.

I develop for 5min 30 sec in 26 degrees, agitate every minute.

 

[Neal]

Dear Peter,

T-Max is not really a fine grain developer. The grain is a bit larger than I would like for 35mm but it works great with 4x5.

Neal Wydra

 

[alien]

Neal is right, you will get finer grain with other developer.

It all depends what you are after.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

TMAX is by all accounts good for Tmax films and other modern emulsions but not perhaps the best for traditional emulsions. I have used the stuff and had no real feelings either way, apart from it being too expensive. At 1+4 is is silly! I am keeping Ilford DDX to one side for when I need more speed, but use that at 1+9 for economy. Theres nothing wrong with it, but I just cannot see a good reason to use ot unless using TMAX film and even so many would suggest cheaper alternatives. There are IMHO better alternatives out there for acutance (pyro devs/Acutol/FX39/Rodinal etc) fine grain (ID11/Perceptol/Xtol/Aculux/Xtol) economy (HC110/Ilfotec HC/Pyrocat HD/Rodinal & pretty well anything)) or for a general all round characteristics incl economy (ID11/D76/Aculux 2).

Theres nothing wrong with it! Just I wont pay £13 for 5 L of working dev when I can get most of the others at well under half this price (Aculux 2/FX-39 is £6.50 for 15L for example and both are superb! FX39 is aimed at emulsions such as the Deltas and Tmax and has an outstanding reputation at at 1/6th the price!.

 

[AndrewH]

My aim in 35mm is always the thinnest negative will detail in the shadows where I want it. This leads to sharper, and less grainy photos. I took 10% off of the Kodak recommended time and they are still WAY to thick. I will probably go back to Xtol anyway.

 

[Konical]

Good Afternoon,

T-Max developer is what I have used for the T-Max films for as long as it has been available. Notwithstanding the "for roll films only" warning on the standard T-Max, I use the same stuff for 35mm, 120, and 4 x 5, usually in a 1:7 dilution from concentrate. I'm entirely satisfied with this developer and have never experienced any problems with it, although I could easily live with HC-110 for T-Max films should I happen to run out of T-Max. I can't comment on the RS version, since I've never used it.

Konical

 

[thefizz]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

What do you recommend for a fine grain liquid developer to use with both modern and
traditional films.

 

[AndrewH]

What times have you used for the 1:7 dilution?

 

[alien]

I get good results with Paterson FX 50, with all sorts of film.

 

[Konical]

Good Evening, Andrew,

I assume the question above is directed to me, since I mentioned the 1:7 dilution.

For T-100 (35mm and 120) my basic time is 10 minutes, although I'll back off a minute or so when I shoot flash shots. I give a hair more exposure (1/2 stop or so) then and use about 9 minutes. For sheet film, I use a Chomega drum on a motor base (continuous agitation) and usually go with 9 or 9 1/2 minutes for "normal" negatives, with adjustment up or down depending on the scene contrast. This is with the regular, not the RS, T-Max.

Konical

 

[Konical]

Oops! Forgot to add: for T-400, my times are about a minute less in each situation.

Konical

 

[Tom Stanworth]

thefizz,

I like paterson Aculux 2 for fine grain and wonderful tonality and am experimenting with FX-39 as an acutance dev when I dont want to use pyro. The answer depends upon balance. DDX is an excellent balance of speed, grain and is prob one of the best all rounders out there but I think even at 1+9, it is too expensive really. I cannot recomment paterson devs enought and think they are hugely under rated. Aculux gives tonality that made my jaw drop when I deved my first negs (and that was a mixture of emulsioms from HP5 to Pan F to Delta 100, as I was clearing up lose rolls. FX 39 gives oads of acutance, esp to bring bite to modern emulsions. It also gived very good speed. I think using both Aculux and FX39 gives 2 very convnenient options.....and DIRT CHEAP esp at 1+14.

 

[thefizz]

Thanks for the info Tom.