TMAX3200/ACLUX3 devlopement postmortem

I am testing a new camera and generally getting used to developing my films again for the first time in years.

I had found a half-used roll of TMAX3200 in a box. I think it could be 5 years old. I thought I'd try it as atest. I shot the rest of the film (in a different camera) and dev'd in AcuLux3 1+9 for 16 mins as per instructs.

I haven't mucked up a film so badly before (may once!) but then I've never used TMAX style films. Completely thin. It does not look like camera exposure problem as both sections are similar. I'm assuming that my cameras (GR1s and newly aquired GR1v) set the ISO correctly with DX.

The tell-tale sign for me is the thinness of the edge lettering which i would have normally put down to under-development except that I have new Acu3 and followed the instructions. I used to develop all my BW films so am familiar with process.

Is the age of the film to blame? Any comments, please? I also have a suspicious roll of TMAX400 and wonder whether to throw it away and use the new films I have (safely in the fridge).

Thank-you

Old TMZ gains lots of fog and loses about a stop or so of speed.

Either the developer has gone off or the development time wasn't long enough.

Nicholas Lindan said:

Old TMZ gains lots of fog and loses about a stop or so of speed.

Either the developer has gone off or the development time wasn't long enough.

Click to expand...

Thanks. So I would have had to increase the dev time with that loss of speed. I think I'll just sling the can of TMY.

it it is very old film (which loses speed) and you rated the film at 3200 (which it it does not make) and used Aculux (which in my experience offers a lot less speed than Xtol/DDX/Tmax) you will have three factors that resulted in thin lifeless negs.

Try fresh film, rated at 1000-1200 for your first try (note that this is about the natural speed of the film)
Try a developer more suited to high speed film uses, like Xtol, Tmax or DDX.
Then experiment. I guarantee you that if you can get decent negs with other films the above will give you super negs.

I have little experience with this film after using Delta 3200 exclusively, but was astonished by the results recently with Tmax 3200 at 1000-1200 with Xtol 1+1. I know others who swear by DDX or Tmax. If you want to use your aculux 3 I would suggest rating it more like 800 to start with. Anything above this will be a push (or above 1000 or so with faster devs).

Good luck.

Thanks for the advice, Tom. I used the aculux without thinking too much. I knew that it was meant to be suited to 'modern films'. But I bought the aculux as that it was I used to use (although that was version 1, I think) and I will be using it with conventional films. I had R09 and thought that that would be to harsh.

To be honest I'm not a fan of the TMAX style of films and will be concentrating on traditional films that I have a feel for. Tri-X (TX400), HP5 and I'm trying out the Rollei Agfa 400S. I will also look for a medium film like Plus-X but that is no longer made in 120. I'm going to use Aculux and am also trying R09. My first job is to try a small range of films and find one medium and one fast film that i want to use then work on the dev until I get the look I want. I suspect that the fast one will be TX400 unless it has changed a lot since Tri-X. I like grain texture but need it to be tight and well-defined. I seemed to remember that Aculux was like that. But I thought I'd try the R09 too in the hope of getting a sharp, clear open-grained image.

The landscape has changed a lot and I've got to adapt to the current materials. It really seems that there are more films and developers available than I was ever aware of before and yet the ones I trust are gone or have been modified.

Yes, use fresh film. TMax 3200 drops off in speed and gives increased base fog with age, and very rapidly too. Tom's advice about using TMax developer, or Xtol or Ilford DD-X is spot on. You can easily use fresh TMax 3200 at 3200 (even 6400) with these developers, and get very good results. I do it with Delta 3200 and Xtol, but any of the above would be perfect.

Regarding traditional grain films and fabricated grain films - Have you ever made prints from something like Kodak TMax 400 and Tri-X, laid them side by side and really looked at them? I'm not saying that one is better than the other, only that I have real trouble knowing which is which.

- Thomas

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Regarding traditional grain films and fabricated grain films - Have you ever made prints from something like Kodak TMax 400 and Tri-X, laid them side by side and really looked at them? I'm not saying that one is better than the other, only that I have real trouble knowing which is which.

- Thomas

Click to expand...

Thomas. I haven't. It's just a gut instinct from looking at examples on the internet which is no real way to evaluate film, I know. I'm not saying I won't try it one day though – and at the rate Kodak are killing their old style films that day could be soon.

Fair enough. There is no other way to truly judge other than trying for yourself. Online examples are misleading at best.

Either way - good luck with your film endeavor.

mr.datsun said:

Thomas. I haven't. It's just a gut instinct from looking at examples on the internet which is no real way to evaluate film, I know. I'm not saying I won't try it one day though – and at the rate Kodak are killing their old style films that day could be soon.

Click to expand...

Indeed fair enough. However I would try this comparison sooner rather than later. It's pretty telling.

Tom Stanworth said:

I have little experience with this film after using Delta 3200 exclusively, but was astonished by the results recently with Tmax 3200 at 1000-1200 with Xtol 1+1. ).

Good luck.

Click to expand...

Tom, I don't want to hijack this thread but as it looks as if the OP may have to ditch his film and/or go with a different developer I'd be interested in your findings with Tmax 3200 and Xtol compared to D3200as others here including the OP might.

Tmax is now cheaper than D3200 and I have bought some and I am a user of Xtol as well( also much chepear than DDX). So it would be helpful to hear what I might expect with TMax 3200 and Xtol.

Thanks

pentaxuser

mr.datsun, I too prefer traditional films but find Tmax 3200 nice to print. Its not like printing Tmax 100 at all (which I loath). If you need the speed, there is no alternative to D3200 or the Tmax. Pushed 400 speed films offer nothing like the shadow speed.

pentaxuser, I found that the Tmax resolved a great deal more and had more uniform tighter grain for a loss of about 1/3 stop in speed. As for the tonality, it is somehow 'colder' than D3200. I know its an odd thing to say, but the results are perhaps harder looking. The most glaring difference is that where I had Tmax 3200 in the camera and shot normal subjects in good light, the resolution and performance IMHO was far better than D3200. Much less grain, more detail and more sparkle. I find D3200 a real SOB in the highlights. V hard to get clean separation and sparkle. Not so the Tmax. I shot varied scenes and all printed like a breeze. D3200 is more 'romantic' and atmospheric in some ways, but at the cost of an awful lot of detail. I actually think D3200 resolves at least as well as TriX, but with coarser grain. New TriX (OK, so the reformulation was years ago) resolves poorly, but has finer grain than the old. the Tmax 3200 seems to have the same resolution in a more crisp and visible grain structure. I really like it....

Thanks for that Tom. I think it was Roger Hicks who said that Tmax 3200 had finer grain and who hinted that the natural speed of it was slightly slower than D3200 but it is always valuable to hear someone actually say that the differences are noticeable.

I recently developed a 35mm D3200 shot at 1600 in Xtol 1+1 and printed at 5x7 and the grain was very noticeable i.e. no better but no worse than DDX. If I use D3200 in 35mm ever again and this is looking unlikely both at the price and with your comments on quality then maybe it needs Xtol stock.

pentaxuser