Tri-X developed in TMax Dev or alternatives (no Rodinal)

[InExperience]

Good morning,

I have always used the combination Kodak TMax 400 with its TMax Dev with excellent results.
I intend to create a new project by Tri-X 400. Years ago I used the D76 to develop it, but I would avoid the powdered ones.

I have noticed that TMax development involves Tri-X film. Should I trust it? I mean in terms of film rendering, such as low grain, medium gray reading, etc.
Would avoid Rodinal for the explosion of the grain, some valid alternative with concentrated development? Or is it always better to use the classic D76?

Thank you.

 

[NB23]

I’d use D76 because that’s the Legendary combo.

 

[M-88]

As far as I know, TMax developers were specifically made to get the most out of TMax films, above all else. I think it gives around 1/2-2/3 boost in film speed as well (and more shadow details). That said, it will work with Tri-X, with times given in the datasheet, but I doubt it will yield miraculous results, because Tri-X is a traditional grain film, not tabular. Maybe someone who actually tried this combination, will chime in.

D-76 is sort of a benchmark developer, used for everything. It's compensating and it lets you get away with some mistakes. It's not "better" to use it, but rather it's "optimal" to use it for its versatility. Need finer grain? Perceptol is your friend (at a cost of loss of speed), don't want to fiddle with agitation and don't mind extra grain? Rodinal is the guy. And so on.

 

[jimjm]

I've used D-76 for years, but HC110 is my standard developer for most B/W films now. Just a matter of convenience for the most part, but I like the results just as well.
This is a scan of a fiber print, but it doesn't do the original print any justice. My scanner's really old

 

[InExperience]

Thank you mates for your posts.

As result I understood I have to avoid TMax Developer. BTW nice pic @jimjm

 

[M-88]

Thank you mates for your posts.

As result I understood I have to avoid TMax Developer. BTW nice pic @jimjm

Oh no, God forbid us from convincing you to avoid something. A fair part of darkroom work involves experimenting and finding what's best personally for you. Although it's better to use a roll with unimportant test shots for any sort of experiments.

 

[InExperience]

Oh no, God forbid us from convincing you to avoid something. A fair part of darkroom work involves experimenting and finding what's best personally for you. Although it's better to use a roll with unimportant test shots for any sort of experiments.

But...
It is recognised by the world that the combo D76-TMAX is a classic. Avoiding having poorly printable negatives, it is better not to risk experimenting.
At the end I think the changes between one choose or another are very slightly, not so evident, hopefully.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Good morning,

I have always used the combination Kodak TMax 400 with its TMax Dev with excellent results.
I intend to create a new project by Tri-X 400. Years ago I used the D76 to develop it, but I would avoid the powdered ones.

I have noticed that TMax development involves Tri-X film. Should I trust it? I mean in terms of film rendering, such as low grain, medium gray reading, etc.
Would avoid Rodinal for the explosion of the grain, some valid alternative with concentrated development? Or is it always better to use the classic D76?

Thank you.

I'd stay with D76 1+1. I usually mix up a liter and use 150 ml plus the same amount of water per roll as a one-time developer for consistency.

 

[InExperience]

I'd stay with D76 1+1. I usually mix up a liter and use 150 ml plus the same amount of water per roll as a one-time developer for consistency.

Thank you very much for your fundamental contribution.
Appreciated that.

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot Tmax 400 and have use both Tmax and DDX with good results. Tmax developer is an acutance type developer which works well with Tmax films that have much finer grain. Lately I have been given a few rolls of TriX which I've developed in Clayton F76+ which is similar to D76 and HC 110 in terms of results, balance of grain, speed, and acutance. You can also use ILford's version of HC 110 ILford Ilfotec HC, I have not used as it is really expensive here in the U.S.

 

[ic-racer]

I found Tmax developer to be a great all-around developer. I use it for everything since about 1986. Foma, Agfa, Kodak, Shanghai, Arista, Ilford, etc. You can see in the chart how it compares to Kodak's other offerings. If you get different results with Tmax vs D76, there is some processing, mixing or storage problem. Powder vs Liquid; your choice.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Good morning,

I have always used the combination Kodak TMax 400 with its TMax Dev with excellent results.
I intend to create a new project by Tri-X 400. Years ago I used the D76 to develop it, but I would avoid the powdered ones.

I have noticed that TMax development involves Tri-X film. Should I trust it? I mean in terms of film rendering, such as low grain, medium gray reading, etc.
Would avoid Rodinal for the explosion of the grain, some valid alternative with concentrated development? Or is it always better to use the classic D76?

Thank you.

Hello Jim,
As you say, TmaxDev is impressive with the three TMax films.
When I tried it for current Tri-X, results were not horrible, but clearly inferior than results in D-76. I haven't found a better developer for Tri-X than D-76. By the way, I use it stock, 1+1 and 1+2, using 240ml of stock D-76: I like that better than using less developer and extending times.
When I saw how great HP5+ is in HC-110, I tried to make Tri-X work equally well in HC-110... Again, not horrible, but D-76 works better for Tri-X.
Have a good Sunday!

 

[InExperience]

I found Tmax developer to be a great all-around developer. I use it for everything since about 1986. Foma, Agfa, Kodak, Shanghai, Arista, Ilford, etc. You can see in the chart how it compares to Kodak's other offerings. If you get different results with Tmax vs D76, there is some processing, mixing or storage problem. Powder vs Liquid; your choice.

View attachment 318498

The problem is Kodak Tri-X has been changed respect the past, for this reason a lot of developers suggest D-76.

Hello Jim,
As you say, TmaxDev is impressive with the three TMax films.
When I tried it for current Tri-X, results were not horrible, but clearly inferior than results in D-76. I haven't found a better developer for Tri-X than D-76. By the way, I use it stock, 1+1 and 1+2, using 240ml of stock D-76: I like that better than using less developer and extending times.
When I saw how great HP5+ is in HC-110, I tried to make Tri-X work equally well in HC-110... Again, not horrible, but D-76 works better for Tri-X.
Have a good Sunday!

Thank you, happy Sunday to you as well!

 

[Paul Howell]

I just checked the data listed in my Kodak Professional Black and White Films, dated sometime in the mid 90. Looking at the contrast curve TriX has a steeper curve in Tmax Developer than in D76 or HC 110 dilution B. My copy came out prior to Xtol, but as Xtol is close to D76 may be an option, of course need to mix 5 liters of the stuff which why I have not used in a long time.

 

[pentaxuser]

But...
It is recognised by the world that the combo D76-TMAX is a classic. Avoiding having poorly printable negatives, it is better not to risk experimenting.
At the end I think the changes between one choose or another are very slightly, not so evident, hopefully.

If that's your decision then fine but No, there are plenty of developers that will do a fine job with Tri-X I cannot work out what any of us has said that convinces you that Tri-X and TMAX developer is a bad or risky combination

pentaxuser

 

[madNbad]

Watch David Hancocks’ video about Tri-X. He has many examples of results using different developers.

 

[MattKing]

Tri-X + T-Max developer is not bad, it is just slightly different. It may very well give you better, more printable negatives than D-76 - it depends on the conditions you photograph under, and the subjects you photograph.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

With TMY, I've always used Pyrocat-HD, Xtol 1+1, or Xtol-R. D-76 1+1 is quite nice, too. Been playing around with 510-Pyro for the past month or so, but that has mainly been with HP5, and FP4. Will eventually seen what TMY looks like in it...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Watch David Hancocks’ video about Tri-X. He has many examples of results using different developers.

I watched the whole video. Please don't take this personally: that video shows a huge amount of wrongly exposed and wrongly developed frames.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

To OP: why don't you do a couple of scenes, an overcast one and a sunny one, each with TMaxDev and with D-76?
Then you will see the character of Tri-X in both types of light using both developers.
Enjoy your Tri-X !

 

[madNbad]

I watched the whole video. Please don't take this personally: that video shows a huge amount of wrongly exposed and wrongly developed frames.

I hadn't watched it in a few years but after a recent viewing, I have to agree. He spends far too much time pushing and pulling to the extremes and not enough on standard development.

 

[miha]

How different is the latest T-MAX developer in comparison to the previous, German-made one?

 

[Paul Howell]

That's a good question, although I assume that it is the same formula even small changes might make a difference.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I tried a number of developers when I came back to shooting black & white and doing my own development. I found that XTOL was the most forgiving with fine grain and good tonality. I prefer to use it replenished.

 

[gone]

Even though Tri-X has changed over the years it's still Tri-X. The grain is a little tighter than before, but it's Tri-X grain, not T Max grain. Being Tri-X, you can make the grain do anything you want w/ the right developer and developing protocols.

It looks great in just about anything. I usually go w/ D76 stock or F76 Plus 1 to 7. Rodinal gives a totally different look at 1:25 to 1:50, and things tighten back up at weaker dilutions.