TMY pushed to 1600...D76?

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by BetterSense, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. BetterSense

    BetterSense Member

    Messages:
    3,169
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    North Caroli
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I was going through a recent estate-sale buyout, and found an exposed roll of tmax400 marked "'pushed to 1600, '91". I wanted to develop it just to see what is on it, but all I have is D76. The massive dev chart says to give it 18.5 minutes at 20.5C in 1+1. I remember reading that D76 isn't the best developer for tmax, plus I was wondering if there was a further speed decrease or other phenomenon to look out for in exposed film that is so old. What do you think?
     
  2. OP
    OP
    BetterSense

    BetterSense Member

    Messages:
    3,169
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    North Caroli
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I went ahead and developed it in D76 stock solution for 9 minutes. It's hanging up now. It seems rather heavily fogged.
     
  3. Matthew Gorringe

    Matthew Gorringe Member

    Messages:
    461
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Location:
    Sydney, Aust
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Wow, that was impatient! Apart from being fogged what does it look like, are there images there?

    I guess being fogged may actually have helped the latent image a little, and at least this way you can possibly bleach it back to help with the fog.
     
  4. OP
    OP
    BetterSense

    BetterSense Member

    Messages:
    3,169
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    North Caroli
    Shooter:
    35mm
    It's a whole roll of what looks like a highschool football game. I'm not too interested in the images except I would like to contact the estate-sale buyer-outer, and see if she remembers what family the estate sale was from, since they might be interested in the images. It seems like there's a very small chance of that going through, though.

    I used my new single-roll stainless tank to develop it. I got it because I liked how it used so little chemicals compared to my plastic tank. But I was reading the Kodak D76 datasheet, and it said that when processing a single roll in a 8-ounce tank, to extend development time by 10%. I didn't do that for this roll. Do you think I should follow that recommendation to start with, with other films? I usually develop 9 minutes in my plastic tank, do you think I should try 10 minutes with this little stainless tank when I start developing my own film?
     
  5. Matthew Gorringe

    Matthew Gorringe Member

    Messages:
    461
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Location:
    Sydney, Aust
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Are you able to scan and/or print them? I mean, are the negatives produced of sufficient quality to get a print from them? Is there much shadow detail visible above the fog?

    As for the times you'll need to experiement, I'd stick with the same times to start with but be aware of the minimum amount of stock solution needed per roll of film.
     
  6. fschifano

    fschifano Member

    Messages:
    3,216
    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Valley Strea
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If you are using about 125 ml. of stock solution, yes you should extend development time a little bit. At least, that advice has served me well. Normal timings work out ok for me with a minimum of 150 ml of D-76.

    And who said D-76 is no good for TMax films? Fact is, it is pretty darned good with TMax 100 and 400. You can say that XTOL is better, but only by a little bit. It is not something you'd notice unless you can compare two identical in every way photographs. Want to squeeze a tiny bit more speed out of TMax and get a tiny bit less apparent grain? Use XTOL. If it doesn't matter, D-76 is fine.
     
  7. OP
    OP
    BetterSense

    BetterSense Member

    Messages:
    3,169
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    North Caroli
    Shooter:
    35mm
    The negatives are entirely printable. I'm just not sure I'm going to bother though because i have nothing invested in the subject matter. In fact I think the roll is lying on the ground in my lab right now. I suppose it could be an experiment on what TMY looks like when shot at 1600, but it'd really be an experiment in what TMY looks like at when shot at 1600 and then left in a box in a trailer in an estate-sale dealer's back yard for 18 years.
     
  8. Matthew Gorringe

    Matthew Gorringe Member

    Messages:
    461
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Location:
    Sydney, Aust
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    That's why I'm interested in a more complete description of the negatives. I guess if you think they're printable they can't be that bad.
     
  9. Graham.b

    Graham.b Member

    Messages:
    197
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Location:
    Swindon,,,,,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    So, let me see if I have the story straight. The roll was found. A developing time was found for it. Then, the developing time was ignored. Thus the low-contrast results that can be expected from a roll underexposed by two stops, and then which sat for 18 years, were exacerbated. You thought the estate owner may be interested in the pix, yet they were developed with blatant disregard for a published developing time, and then left to fall onto the floor of the darkroom (you "think").


    Well right to heart of the matter.
     
  10. 2F/2F

    2F/2F Member

    Messages:
    8,079
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Just to clarify, those are not Graham's words. They are from my deleted post. I deleted it because I sounded like an ass. Sorry.