TMax Sheet Film Developers

OP
OP

Chuck_P

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
2,369
Location
Kentucky
Format
4x5 Format
Andrew O'Neill said:
When I shot TMY 4x5 and 8x10, I developed it mainly in Xtol 1+1. I also developed them in Pyrocat-HD. TMY took on a very special look/feel in semi-stand, slightly more dilute Pyrocat-HD.
Click to expand...

How does PyrocatHD act on the emulsion, is it more of a developer for special circumstances......sounds like some use as general purpose.
 
Last edited:

Neal

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
2,020
Location
Chicago, West Suburbs
Format
Multi Format
First, I missed the warning and tried T-Max with sheet film one time without issues. After seeing the warning I have used Xtol 1+1 and occasionally Rodinal for TMX.
 

GregY

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
3,503
Location
Alberta
Format
Large Format
Chuck_P said:
Well I think


How does PyrocatHD act on the emulsion, is it more of a developer for special circumstances......sounds like some use as general purpose.
Click to expand...

Chuck..... There has been a lot written about staining developers. My journey began by seeing some incredible prints...then my friend processed some film for me.... then reading "The Book of Pyro"... It's been my standard developer for over 20 yrs now.

 

Ian C

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
1,258
Format
Large Format
This echoes posts #4 and #12.

I developed T-Max sheet films in the standard version of T-Max Developer for several years before I learned of Kodak’s warning to instead use T-Max RS or some other developer to avoid the POSSIBILITY of dichroic fog.

By that time, I had successfully processed a significant number of T-Max sheet films with no hint of dichroic fog (or any other problems). Is it possible, that Kodak altered the emulsion at some point so that it’s no longer particularly susceptible to dichroic fog when developed with T-Max Developer? I don’t know.

I continue to use T-Max Developer with 4” x 5” and 8” x 10” T-Max sheet films without any discernible problems. I use the ASA 100 version of the film exclusively, so I don’t know if the problem might be more likely with faster speed film.
 

aparat

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
1,177
Location
Saint Paul,
Format
35mm
Though I am fairly new to replenished XTOL, I have found it to be very stable, once it's been seasoned. Here are the results of four subsequent seventeen-minute developments of KODAK T-MAX P3200 and ILFORD Delta 3200 in XTOL-R. As you can see, the developer is very consistent. It produces well-formed curves, which can be simply interpreted as very nice tonality. It is also clean-working and produces very fine grain with respectable sharpness. I am currently testing T-MAX 100 in XTOL-R and, so far, I am finding it to be a great pairing.

 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,072
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
GregY said:
Like Andrew O, I use Pyrocat and have used that and PMK before for over 20yrs. Super economical and great results. I buy the 50 litre kits from Photo Formulary. 5ml@/500ml for roll film. 10ml@/1 litre for sheet film in trays.
Click to expand...

Pyrocat-HD is a fantastic developer, and Xtol-R is next. Sadly, my bottle of Xtol-R tipped over in the sink, emptying out half its contents. With all these developer testing I've been doing, I haven't gotten around to replenishing it...
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,072
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
Chuck_P said:
Well I think


How does PyrocatHD act on the emulsion, is it more of a developer for special circumstances......sounds like some use as general purpose.
Click to expand...

It's a staining developer.
 

eli griggs

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
3,856
Location
NC
Format
Multi Format
I see the stock Kodak D-76 is used in the chart but no mention of D-76 1:1, which is more often than no, no?
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,411
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

Replenished XTOL gives better tonality and even finer grain.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,273
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
eli griggs said:
I see the stock Kodak D-76 is used in the chart but no mention of D-76 1:1, which is more often than no, no?
Click to expand...

D76 was designed and formulated to be replenished, it gives the best results replenished, however its sales are too low as is ID-11, to warrant either company manufacturing a replenisher. Dilute use was quite late, it wasn't mentioned when I started, then amateurs began using them dilute and both Kodak and Ilford gave times for 1+1 and 1+3. In practice 1+2 is a far better option.

Unlike D76/ID-11 Xtol is self repleninishing and a far better developer anyway, and that hastened the withdrawal of D76.ID-11 Replenishers. At the same time the use of deep tanks for professional work almost completely died out, with the switch to Digital.

Ian
 

mrosenlof

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
621
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
I've developed a lot of TMAX-100 in Rodinal 1:50 over the years. Including 4x5 with continuous rotary agitation. Developing times are long, but it has been very reliable for me. I haven't shot TMX 4x5 in quite a while though.

I have recently been developing TMAX-400 in E-76, but only 35mm, using the recommended times from the film datasheet at stock strength. This is quite recent for me, I've scanned some and they scanned very nicely, have not made SG prints yet.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,411
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

I am looking forward to see your Sirius Glass prints soon.
 
OP
OP

Chuck_P

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
2,369
Location
Kentucky
Format
4x5 Format

Do you have a curve for Tmax 100 in XTOL (not replenished)
 
OP
OP

Chuck_P

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
2,369
Location
Kentucky
Format
4x5 Format
Well, my prior experience with developing 4x5 Tmax 100 is just with HC110. I really like the comparison graph put up by SG in post #6 as compared to HC110 and I think I'd like to go with XTOL this time. I'm hoping my personal EI will be in line with the box speed as well.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,252
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
FWIW, it wouldn't surprise me if the dichroic fog issues with T-Max developer were at least somewhat film dependent - i.e. of more concern with some films than others.
They may have also been affected by the method of agitation - tray developing vs. deep tank vs. inversion vs. continuous rotary.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,273
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format

Ron Mowrey (PE) mentioned Kodak's issues with Dichroic fogging after the numerous US atmospheric nuclear tests, this caused issues with first DK20 (Kodatol), and then Microdol with US made Kodak emulsions. This resulted in Eastman Kodak releasing Microdol-X. They also stopped using Active Gelatins with natural sulphur spots, instead they de-activated the gelatins and used Thiosuphate to increase sensitisation.

Here in the UK Microdol stayed in production much longer as the Kodak Ltd emulsions didn't have the same issues. When I first used Tri-X Kodak developers had recommended EI's and development times for Tri-X US, Tri-X Canada, and Tri-X UK, that was a long time ago . . . .

The upside of Rochester's issues was far greater control of emulsion manufacture, so films made outside the US matched those made in Rochester, and at the peak that included Kodacrome 25 & 64.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…