What do you recommend to develop Tmax 100

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,761
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
The only time I developed B&W film was back in the late 70's when I had photography class. Since then I only develop and print color negative film. Now that I no longer have a darkroom but have a Jobo 1520 tank, a changing bag, beaker, graduated cylinders and a Kodak Process thermometer 3 so I think I have enough to develop B&W 35mm film. Back in the days I only used D76 but what would you recommend to use. I prefer fine grain.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
21,824
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
D76 is fine. TMX is fine-grained regardless of what developer you soup it in, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. In fact, I prefer a film like TMX to not become too grain-free as it tends to look a little soft that way. For more crispness, a developer like D76 or even rodinal (dare I say it...) works quite well with this film. A friend of mine uses FX39-II I think and seems to be very happy with the combination. His prints from 35mm TMX are excellent.

Of course, this is one of those questions that you ask 10 people and get 15 different answers. Which can be fun, so let's see what else comes up.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,502
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
I'll chime in and say Rodinal - 1:25. Although what I use is paRodinal. I used to use D76 and that was ok but I find Rodinal a bit more reliable. Tmax is hard on developers and fixer.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,582
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I use acquance type developers, Rodinal, Tmax, DDX, Acufine, D76 1:2 or Microdol X 1:3, although the developing times for Microdol X are so long that there is a risk of fog. Also remember that Tmax films require longer fixing times.
 

miha

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
2,934
Location
Slovenia
Format
Multi Format
T-MAX developer should work perfectly with T-MAX film, and you won’t have to deal with any powders either.
 

Milpool

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
669
Location
Canada
Format
4x5 Format
It’s hard to go wrong, really. Virtually any general purpose developer will work perfectly with the T-Max films (and most other films). Generally the less you deviate from the standard, venerable developers the more likely you are to get excellent, consistent results.
 

GregY

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
3,141
Location
Alberta
Format
Large Format
My go-to is Pyrocat HD in gylcol....does a great job on TMax films
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,514
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Tmax developer. Keeps a long time, us it one shot.
 

retina_restoration

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
1,036
Location
Wilammette Valley, Oregon
Format
35mm RF
If there are any complaints about TMX 100 to consider, it's that it doesn't have the same acutance as TMY 400, so many people are disappointed in the way it renders fine detail (sharpness, loosely speaking). To combat this perceived lack of sharpness, some people use a high acutance developer that boosts adjacency effects. My choice is PMK (Pyro), which is renowned for its ability to emphasize edge effects and thus improve the perception of sharpness. Potentially, a developer like Pyrocat HD might deliver even more of this adjacency effect, if this is what matters to you. (It's all a matter of taste, really)
 

GregY

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
3,141
Location
Alberta
Format
Large Format

Good point! I develop everything (except Adox CMS20) in Pyrocat HD.....
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,267
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
For fine grain and great tonality I recommend my go to developer if choice XTOL or better yet replenished XTOL.
​
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,446
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
XTOL, it's a 5 liter package, I love the stuff. Rodinal (I use the Adox stuff) is a great option, inexpensive, long lasting, easy to use and store.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,624
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format

I'd stick to D761+1. I never used anything else, and I like the grain just fine.
 

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,793
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
It's a very neutral film, so it will capture a lot of details, but then you have to figure out how to process it for your own style.

I've been quite pleased by TMAX 100 in Rodinal this summer.

I was shooting coastal scenes on 6x6, so I was dealing with a large brightness range, something TMX is quite good at. But I also wanted some brilliance in the highlights and sharp details, which I got with Rodinal.
 

dokko

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2023
Messages
344
Location
Berlin
Format
Medium Format
T-Max 100 will work well with a lot of developers.
I like it in both Xtol 1+2 and FX-39 II. Grain structure is fine with both but Xtol is a bit smoother (and quite a lot finer on Delta 100).

You would get even smoother grain in Xtol stock, but also loose some sharpness. Rodinal will be noticeable coarser.

I posted some high resolution scan examples in an earlier thread:

Scan of Grain Texture at 11'000ppi

I recently did a comparison of Kodak T-Max 100 vs Delta 100 developed in Adox FX-39II, Adox XT-3, and Spur HRX. Since the discussion involved scanning questions, it was suggested that I'd start a new thread in the scanning forum. The original discussion with the detailed info about the film...
www.photrio.com

I'm planning to run another test with some more developers the next days because I have 20 rolls to develop and want to take the oportunity to see what the new kids on the block can do
 

Sal Santamaura

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
7,528
Location
San Clemente, California
Format
Multi Format
dokko said:
...I like it in both Xtol 1+2 and FX-39 II. Grain structure is fine with both but Xtol is a bit smoother...
Click to expand...

The importance of graininess and acutance varies with printing magnification and format size. TMX acutance is much higher in FX-39II and characteristic curve shapes are very different. XTOL 1+2 results in a very S-shaped curve, while FX-39II provides an almost ruler-straight one. As always, balancing these considerations is a personal decision based upon print size and desired image appearance.
 

dokko

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2023
Messages
344
Location
Berlin
Format
Medium Format

this is an excellent point, thanks for bringing it up!
it's always about the whole imaging chain, like:
subject >> light >> camera lens >> film >> developer >> printing/scanning method

and of course personal preference

my personal focus atm is scanning for extremely large prints where resolution is very important, but for somebody printing optically on 8x10", the curve shape might be more important since it's harder to adjust in printing.
 

Henning Serger

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,188
Format
Multi Format
Chan Tran said:
Back in the days I only used D76 but what would you recommend to use. I prefer fine grain.
Click to expand...

You will get good results with D-76.
But if you want to exploit the full potential of TMX concerning detail rendition (fineness of grain, resolution, sharpness) - which is really a huge potential - then the old D-76 is simply outdated and cannot compete anymore with more recent, innovative and modern high-performance developers.
If you want to exploit the potentail fully I can recommend SPUR HRX, JOBO Alpha. And I would have a look to the just announced new SPUR Omega X, which has been designed to be even a bit better than the excellent HRX developer.

Besides the decision whether you want to exploit TMX' full detail rendition potential, you have to decide which curve shape of the characteristic curve you want to have.
TMX delivers in most developers a very straight linear characteristic curve. If you want that, perfect.
But the situation becomes a bit more challenging when you want to have a semi- or full compensating curve shape: To achieve that is more difficult with TMX, because even in several (semi)compensating developers, which deliver the compensating curves as intended with other films (e.g. Delta 100, which is very flexible in that regard), TMX keeps its straight linear CC.
You have to either use higher dilutions with these developers (and then often loose a bit effective film speed), or have change to a completely different developer.
So developer choice is a bit more difficult with TMX if you want a (semi)compensating curve. Less working choices.

Best regards,
Henning
 

jim appleyard

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
2,413
Format
Multi Format
I used to shoot a lot of this film, but over time I became unhappy with the tones and contrast I got with it. However, the best negs I got were with well-diluted Rodinal, 1+50 or more. The film has fine grain and isn't much of an issue with any developer, but Rodinal strips away the purple color (won't hurt anything, but I find it unappealing) and gives better contrast with this film than others I've tried.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,824
Format
8x10 Format
I resort to Perceptol 1:3 to increase the edge acutance of TMX100 by giving it just enough extra grain growth time. At 1:3, Perceptol behaves much differently than at the normal 1:1. Conventional development, whether in a common developer like 76 or a specialized pyro developer, will not do this. That's fine is you want a less crisp look, like for smooth complexion portraiture. TMX still holds tremendous detail. But for landscape and architectural subjects, I prefer a crisper edge rendition.

I use TMX for both general photography (in formats all the way from 4X5 to 8x10) and technical lab applications (like masking, color separations, and internegs etc). It's comfortable with many different developers; but I still need to select from among those in terms of specific application. I do have special low contrast dev tweaks for masking. But I avoid as much as possible any kind of heavy compensating or minus development in shooting situations; I'd rather add a supplemental contrast control mask than scrunch the microtonal life and sparkle out of an image via heavy-handed minus development.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,502
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
Just toss it in Dektol 1:2 and roll it around for a couple of minutes. It'll be fine....
 
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…