What's the deal with TMAX film?

[Ara Ghajanian]

I always heard that TMAX films needed to be developed with TMAX developer in order to take advantage of the grainless qualities of the film. I'm reading about a lot of people on the forum who use other developers with TMAX films. What are some people's recommendations and what are the advantages image-wise? What do you like about TMAX films?

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I always heard that TMAX films needed to be developed with TMAX developer in order to take advantage of the grainless qualities of the film. I'm reading about a lot of people on the forum who use other developers with TMAX films. What are some people's recommendations and what are the advantages image-wise? What do you like about TMAX films?

Image-wise, you either like the "look" of a particular TMAX film or you don't. I don't like the UV characteristics of TMAX-100 for example since I contact print on Azo. I do like the look of TMAX-400 (TMY) for some subjects.

In my experience, the Kodak TMAX films work very well in a large variety of developers, including Kodak's TMAX.

 

[titrisol]

You can use almost any developer to get good images with TMAX

IIRC Xtol calims to be the best developer for Tmax

 

[fhovie]

I think the big difference is not "TMAX" but tabular grain vs traditional grain films. (Tab films include Delta & TMAX) The tabular grain films usually are finer and fussier than traditional films. Finer grain due to the shape of the silver crystals and fussier in that changes in development cause greater contrast swings. (Usually) - I find TMY to be very tolerant to changes in development where I understand that TMX is fussy. On the whole - Traditional films seem to have greater dynamic range and are not as sharp unless developed in an accutance enhancing developer (one that builds ridges) Tab films do well in developers that have little or no sulfites (they erode the edges of the grain) - XTOL and TMAX developers are preferred. XTOL uses a chemical cousin of viamin C. Tab films do very well in vitamin C. I bought mine at Trader Joes. Ascorbic Acid - $10 a pound. Mix this with a little Phenidone (Very Little) and Triethanolamine (TEA - like very thick alcohol - it is used in cosmetics as a ph stabalizer) and you have a developer that is cheap - lasts on the shelf forever and is similar to XTOL. I think XTOL is a little finer but not much.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Xtol was developed with T Max in mind and T Max was developed with D76. I use it with undiluted D76 for 6.5 min at 68, agitation 5/30. Works for a condenser enlarger.

Don`t be fooled into thinking this will come out too soft. It will be OK. 1:1 is a tad sharper but grainier, and 1:3 sharper and grainier still.

HC 110 is ok, but it does not show the nice tonality of D76. You will think it is ok, until you do the same shot side by side. Then it shows if your process is under control for both. 110 is not a primary recommended developer even on the Kodak wadsite.

 

[BradS]

What do I like about Tmax?

Tmax 400 (A.K.A. 400TMY) is great stuff. It is certainly not grainless however. I tried it because I ran out of Tri-X and the local purveyor had an ample supply of TMY at a nice price. I now prefer TMY over Tri-X for most purposes.

I have a love / hate relationship going with Tmax 100. When it's good, Tmax 100 is really good. My problem is that I just can't seem to coax the really good out of it with high probability.

Is it necessary to process Tmax film in Tmax developer?

Certainly not. The Kodak data sheet also recommends D-76 and X-tol as well as Duraflo RT. Microdol and HC-110 are also listed but, apparently, Kodak thinks these inferior to the others.

 

[Jose A Martinez]

Ara, I love TMY and ID11 1:1, now that Ilford is out of Mexico I'm back to D76 1:1

 

[matt miller]

I use TMY in 8x10 primarily because of it's great reciprocity characteristics & it's seemingly endless expansion & contraction capabilities. Plus, the emulsion is tough & doesn't scratch as easily as my 2nd favorite film, Efke100. I develop TMY in Pyrocat with great results.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I also use TMY in 8x10 and develop in Pyrocat-HD with great results.

 

[Ian Grant]

Tmax 100 is amazing I've used it in 35mm 120 & 5x4 since its release, the only film to come close well actually a bit better is Agfa's APX 100, as it is inherently a full stop faster tone for tone. You must forget the far superior AP25 & APX25 (35mm & 120) as they are no longer manufactured.

Ian

What do I like about Tmax?

Tmax 400 (A.K.A. 400TMY) is great stuff. It is certainly not grainless however. I tried it because I ran out of Tri-X and the local purveyor had an ample supply of TMY at a nice price. I now prefer TMY over Tri-X for most purposes.

I have a love / hate relationship going with Tmax 100. When it's good, Tmax 100 is really good. My problem is that I just can't seem to coax the really good out of it with high probability.

 

[Bighead]

I did a film test with TMY400... Shot the same things, under the exact conditions and developed using D76 1:1 and TMAX dev.... I noticed a slight less grain with the TMAX but not enough.

I've since gone to the Delta line....

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Last time I checked Delta 400 was not available in sheet film sizes. Have things changed?

 

[removed account4]

hi ara

i've used a lot of tmax 100 + 400 in both 35mm & 4x5 sizes. i used to shoot a lot of stuff for a newspaper abot 10 years ago before they all switched over to the .. the ... D-word. i ended up getting 2 bricks of the film from "ann + hope" for a little less than 1.50 a roll ( prices like that is why they went out of business! ) .. anyhow i processed it all in sprint ( d76 clone ) then tmax rs and then xtol. of all the developers i liked xtol the best. highlights tended to get blocked up with the other 2 --- but with the xtol i never had a problem and i would over develop everything by a minute or 2 easy. i found the 400 speed to be more difficult with flash but that was about it ... i was using it ( and still use it ) for architectural stuff and portraits ...

i don't process 35mm tmax ( send it to a lab ) but process 4x5, and while i have a gallon or so of xtol lying around, i tend to develop the sheets in ansco 130 ...

- - john

 

[kjsphoto]

I used to only shoot TMAX but I have switched to HP5 and would never go back. Just love the stuff!

When I was using TMAX HC110 and TMAX Developer did great.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I don't know if they're still in business, but back in the day, I really loved Edwal TG-7 for use with Tmax films (both TMX and TMY). Supposedly, there was no difference other than dilution between TG-7 and FG-7, but I saw a marked difference in grain (heavily favoring TG-7) and smoothness. The TMX would still block up in the highlights very easily. Now that I've switched to Pyro developers, I don't use TMX anymore - the TMX and TMY films don't take stain as well as FP4+, so that's what I've standardized on.

 

[dphphoto]

I've always thought the primary problem with HC110 is that Kodak always published times with dilution B.
I've used dilution E with both TMX and TMY and gotten good results. I never noticed any great advantage to using the TMax developer.
To my mind, both TMX and TMY have gotten to be WAY too expensive. JandC sells their Classic films (Efke) at much more reasonable prices. Dean

 

[jim appleyard]

I really don't like t-grain films, but the best I ever got was using T-max 100 at EI 64 and souping in Rodinal 1+50. I think it was about 17 min. I was almost impressed.

 

[nworth]

D-76 1:1 gives outstanding results with T-Max. Some find it avoids some of the contrast problems they have had with TMY. I have also used FX-37, and it may be even a bit better. The problem with FX-37 is the lack of information about it. You have to mix it yourself, and few development charts list it, so you may need to calibrate your process.

 

[df cardwell]

When the TMAX films were introduced, a lot of "expert photo writers" claimed they were to replace Plus X and Tri X, and that's where the troubles began.

I was fortunate to have some unmarked yellow boxes to play with at the beginning, and my Kodak contact told me to think of TMX as the replacement for Panatomic X ( which had been gone for a little while ) and TMY as a faster version of Plus X, or a replacement for Royal Pan, Kodak's majestic ISO 400 sheet film. With that in mind, I never had a lick of trouble. Both have always been easy to manage, very versatile, and beautiful films.

Developer choice, with TMX, can give either a shoulder in the highlights, or a long straight line. TMY can either give a long straight line, or an upswept curve through the highlights. Here, two films can fill the need of four films. Wonderful.

For me, they've always outperformed Ilford in every way.

.

 

[jperkinson]

I like Clayton F76+ for films like TMX and Delta. I ordered a bottle on a whim and shot some TMX 100 and Delta 100, and I was very impressed with the results. It's now my developer of choice for those films, and I think I'm going to test it with Acros next...

http://www.digitaltruth.com/store/clayton.html

 

[Daniel Lawton]

Aside from the tendency for highlights to go "bullet proof", I've always been turned off by the tonality of TMX 100. I stopped using it because it always seemed to have a murky/ overly gray look to it. I thought it was just my inexperience, but when seeing photos by other people who used the film I noticed similar qualities. I suspect that in order to try and prevent this films contrast and highlight problems, you have to produce an excessively flat negative which in turn makes it difficult to produce prints that have a sort of "sparkle" that can be achieved with traditional films. Just my theory of course but I've never found that I could produce better prints with this film so I gave it up rather quickly

 

[Brac]

Last time I checked Delta 400 was not available in sheet film sizes. Have things changed?

The last catalogue I've seen (July 05) only listed Delta 100 in sheet film sizes (4x5;5x7;8x10;8x12cm;13x18cm)

 

[Gerald Koch]

By their very nature T-grain films have less latitude than conventional films. This is due to the fact that the grain size is more uniform in the T-grain films. In a conventional film the larger grains with their larger cross sections are more sensitive than the smaller ones. The smaller the size spread the less latitude.

The only advantage to the TMax films seems to be for Kodak who can sell films that contain less silver for a higher price.

 

[fhovie]

I kind of like TMY - There are a few things it does really well - It has more contrast than TRI-X, it pushes very well with fine grain (XTOL) and for Pinhole it is king. - With pinhole, it is not the films speed but the reciprocity that determines exposure time. APX100 is actually faster than TRI-X in a pinhole camera because of reciprocity. TMY is hands down the fastest I have used. Easily half the exposure times of other similar films.

 

[df cardwell]

Aside from the tendency for highlights to go "bullet proof"... I suspect that in order to try and prevent this films contrast and highlight problems, you have to produce an excessively flat negative ..

I'm only quoting to establish a reference point. I've heard this often, and I don't really understand it. Published curves don't reflect this at all.

We use terms like ' blocked highlights' in contradictory ways. Adams used it to describe a film's shoulder: the point where added exposure no longer produces proportional increases in density. Other people use it to describe a long straight line, with proportional increases in highlight density, but the scene had a longer scale than: a) the photographer accounted for, or b) would fit on the paper.

TMX responds predictably to its exposure and development. It's response is a product of it's nature AND the developer. It may be MORE responsive than some films, but it is predictable and consistent.

Here are representative curves with 4 developers ( the graphs are taken from the fotoimport website, which are similar to Kodak's, and are much prettier than my own ! ).

#4, XTOL 1+2: a shoulder which begins at Zone VII. It can be raised or lowered by agitation.

#2, FX-39" a long straight line, and a shoulder at Zone X.

#1, Rodinal 1+24, a long straight line beyond Zone XIV. The 'lumpy midtones' can be smoothed out with less agitation.

#3, TMAX 1+9: a straight line to Zone VI, and a slight upsweep to Zone XIV.

#4 could fit Adam's description of blocked highlights if the photographer's visualisation placed clouds and sky at Zones VIII - X. More agitation or less dilution will remedy this.

Or, the photographer could use #2, FX-39, and have a perfect negative.

Likewise, if a contrasty scene with shadow and midtone interest was developed to the FX39 curve, the highlights would run off the film. But in XTOL, the picture couldn't be easier to print.

The problem with TMX, in other words, is that it does exactly what the photographer asks it to do. Like a Porsche whose driver repeatedly drives it into a tree, it might not understand why its driver WANTS to do it, but it will do it every time it is asked.

( sorry about the odd number sequence: the attachments shifted position when they uploaded )

.