What's your preferred EI for TMax100 in D-76?

[Bill Burk]

And that's how we finally discover Bill has a new ultracold light secret enlarger.

Haaa! It is just an Omega D2 with teal colored Aristo grid and a Zone VI cold light stabilizer.

If I think about it I would use 64 but I know I have always just used it at 100.

Except that one time I tried to push it and got such terrible results that I can no longer look Maria Muldaur in the eye.

200 tops! Don’t try 400, it just can’t do it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Bill several of us are wondering about the 48 mins you mention in #17. Can you help us on this time and how it was arrived at?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

The problem with 76 1:1 and TMax is that it produces a sag in the middle of the curve, and hence a relatively longer upswept toe instead of the intended steep toe. So to get better deep shadow gradation, you either need to get the exposure higher up the curve with a bit more exposure via lower ASA rating, or switch to a more compatible developer. The original version of TMax could be finicky about overexposure, however, and the curve could shoulder off prematurely. Staining pyro developers helped that. Subsequent tweaks to the emulsion, along with today's excellent VC papers, have made life easier.

Plus X was engineered for the studio portrait trade, and was classified as an "all toe" film with a very long upswept curve favoring highlight reproduction at the expense of shadows. Developers like D23 went along well with that kind of application. Kodak, introducing TMax, planned it as a silver bullet film due to its versatility under different kinds of development - replacing Super-XX for long straight line applications like color separations using certain developers, replacing Plus X Pan using a different development style, replacing Tri-X for photojournalistic purposes in a middle of the road sense. But it was hard to teach old dogs new tricks, and the very versatility of TMax equated to greater fussiness if you weren't aware of the necessity for quite specific development recommendations which many weren't accustomed to. That's still the case.

 

[Bill Burk]

Bill several of us are wondering about the 48 mins you mention in #17. Can you help us on this time and how it was arrived at?

Thanks

pentaxuser

That’s a great question. I developed for a variety of times between 4 minutes 1:1 and 48 minutes stock. 48 minutes was the longest I ever tried and it results in a 200 speed ( by looking at where the curve crosses 0.10 above base+fog. )

Now I just looked at it under a Delta-X template and the speed by Delta-X is only 125 at 48 minutes.

And the real useful data is the Time-CI curve, here showing the development time in D-76 stock and D-76 1:1 .. and the expected contrast you will get.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The problem with 76 1:1 and TMax is that it produces a sag in the middle of the curve, and hence a relatively longer upswept toe instead of the intended steep toe. So to get better deep shadow gradation, you either need to get the exposure higher up the curve with a bit more exposure via lower ASA rating, or switch to a more compatible developer. The original version of TMax could be finicky about overexposure, however, and the curve could shoulder off prematurely. Staining pyro developers helped that. Subsequent tweaks to the emulsion, along with today's excellent VC papers, have made life easier.

Plus X was engineered for the studio portrait trade, and was classified as an "all toe" film with a very long upswept curve favoring highlight reproduction at the expense of shadows. Developers like D23 went along well with that kind of application. Kodak, introducing TMax, planned it as a silver bullet film due to its versatility under different kinds of development - replacing Super-XX for long straight line applications like color separations using certain developers, replacing Plus X Pan using a different development style, replacing Tri-X for photojournalistic purposes in a middle of the road sense. But it was hard to teach old dogs new tricks, and the very versatility of TMax equated to greater fussiness if you weren't aware of the necessity for quite specific development recommendations which many weren't accustomed to. That's still the case.

Hello Drew,
I read your sag explanation (a toe not as steep as it should be for better shadows separation) in the past (other threads), and I liked it very much: those were the days when I saw I preferred TMX @64 for D-76 1+1...
Do you consider, once we've exposed TMX at 64, D-76 stock can be better for that film in any way, compared to 1+1 ? I'm thinking mostly about soft light, not about direct sunlight...
I know TMaxDev and Xtol produce a cleaner look at box speed...
Thanks.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Bill I admit I didn't fully understand some of what you said but clearly the dev time of 48 mins was correct. In layman's terms as that is about all I understand, can you say how different the 48 mins negs were compared to the 4 mins. If a newcomer had said he had developed TMax 100 at 48 mins and the negs looked funny I suspect he'd have been met with cries of astonishment and comments like" no wonder they were strange" what made you do this when Kodak suggests 6.5 mins etc and yet I assume these were usable negs?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, Juan, softer light is less of a logistical issue. I think a Tmax neg under such lower scene contrast circumstances might benefit from exposure at 100 and just a little longer development time at your conventional 76 1:1 dilution more than at full strength, just as long as everything in the scene isn't at extremes of the scale. But you could try it both ways to see what you like best. I've switched over to Perceptol 1:3 for TMax 100 to get better edge acutance out it. For TMY400 I'm still using PMK pyro. For technical lab applications, I mostly use various dilutions of HC-110. I still have some unopened TMax RS developer on hand, but it's no longer made, and was pricey to use at the ideal full strength anyway - but that's what gave the straightest line. 76 is sorta the familiar middle-of-the-road Ford/Chevy option, and popular for a reason.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Wow Drew, your comment about Perceptol 1+3 for TMX is great help, thank you!
I wouldn't have imagined that!
Have you liked that for overcast light too?
I just saw Ilford recommend not downrating TMX for Perceptol in their Powder Film Developers data sheet... That's interesting...
Do you expose TMX at box speed for Perceptol?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah. All kinds of lighting. I used Perceptol 1:1 long ago, and loved the tonality range and high detail of TMax100, but hated its poor edge acutance. Used mostly other flms. But everything was LF sheet film. But as I got older and needed to use medium format roll film more, where a greater degree of enlargement is inevitable, I took a second look at 100 speed TMax, and finally found out how to get the most out of it using the 1:3 Perceptol dilution. It behaves quite differently at 1:3 than 1:1.
But I don't like what 1:3 does with any other film than TMX100. At 1:1 it's quite versatile with respect to other films. I never dilute the mixed stock solution until the time of usage anyway. It keeps just as well as 76. But after mixing the stock solution, I split it up into four full 250 ml amber glass bottles for optimal shelf life.

Exposure for Perceptol (either dilution) - standard box speed of 100. But I carefully spot meter shadow values.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Great!
No problem I guess with 24C to reduce times?

 

[Bill Burk]

pentaxuser ,

These are all test negatives and they show what the film can do. I didn’t mean “hey develop 48 minutes to get 200”. I meant “200 is all you can get out of this film even if you develop for 48 minutes”.

Anything under the great triangle made by the curves is possible to get with this film.

To the left there is blackness in the print. You have to hit this film with enough light to make it up onto one of the lines. In the long run you want some part of the picture to get up around 1.2 in the density scale.

With 48 minutes in D-76 stock, you can take a light meter reading and set the camera off a piece of paper with meter set at 100. Then pull the paper and make a portrait of a friend. Then your friend will look great but the rest of the picture will fall off to black like a Hurrell portrait.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

[QUOTE="DREW WILEY, post: 2517631, member: 51437"I took a second look at 100 speed TMax, and finally found out how to get the most out of it using the 1:3 Perceptol dilution. It behaves quite differently at 1:3 than 1:1.
But I don't like what 1:3 does with any other film than TMX100.
[/QUOTE]
I didn't like TMY in Perceptol, and that's why I didn't test TMX in it... Photography is tricky.
I think for condenser I'll start with 12m at 24C, 4 inversions in the beginning and 4 every minute.
Thanks again, Drew.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Bill So what you did was an experiment to test the limits of TMax 100 in D76 and one of those limits was 200 no matter what you did even with 48 mins

What I think "by the rules" users like me can take out of it is that provided we use the Kodak time as the safe lower limit then even if we over develop by a minute or two the neg remains perfectly printable and probably to the extent of most viewers of the resulting print no even noticing

I may be showing my concern here that newcomers to developing who ask about how disastrous a careless over development of say 1-2 mins will often find themselves being led down a path that then homes in on such over development being the "road to hell"

Any way that's just me

pentaxuser

 

[Bill Burk]

pentaxuser,

Right, it’s a study of possibilities and shows flexibility.

Anywhere between 10 and 12 minutes in D-76 1:1 at 20-degrees C will give good negatives with a real speed of 100.

 

[NB23]

Supposedly iso 80 in D76.

I have found total happiness with TMX only in Ilfosol-3. The only developer giving it enough grit.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My standard time for TMX 100 in Perceptol 1:3 in hand inversion roll film tanks at 68F is 16 minutes, Kodak-style inversion method every 30 seconds. But as I already stated, I myself don't like 1:3 for the faster TMY400. Nor do I like it for the roughly analogous Delta 100 Ilford product. But with 100 speed TMax, the 1:3 dilution brings significantly better acutance than D76.

I have zero experience with Ilfosol 3. But it appears to be largely high-energy mix of sodium carbonate and hydroquinone.
I'm not seeking "grit", whatever that means, but just enough grain growth to deliver a distinct improvement in TMX edge acutance, which perceptol 1:3 gives me, along with a bit of taming of the highlights. Pyro is a better in the latter category.
But I suppose I should try Ilfosol 3 sometime just out of curiosity. I prefer powders due to better storage life, though traditional old HC-110 stored well seemingly forever in syrup concentrate fashion; I don't know about the newer version of it.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Supposedly iso 80 in D76.

I have found total happiness with TMX only in Ilfosol-3. The only developer giving it enough grit.

That mix sure sounds right...
Another option in the grit vein is Microphen, the preferred option by photo.net's Lex Jenkins for TMX at box speed.
He used to say tonality was great, and grain well controlled too.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

My standard time for TMX 100 in Perceptol 1:3 in hand inversion roll film tanks at 68F is 16 minutes, Kodak-style inversion method every 30 seconds. But as I already stated, I myself don't like 1:3 for the faster TMY400. Nor do I like it for the roughly analogous Delta 100 Ilford product. But with 100 speed TMax, the 1:3 dilution brings significantly better acutance than D76.

I have zero experience with Ilfosol 3. But it appears to be largely high-energy mix of sodium carbonate and hydroquinone.
I'm not seeking "grit", whatever that means, but just enough grain growth to deliver a distinct improvement in TMX edge acutance, which perceptol 1:3 gives me, along with a bit of taming of the highlights. Pyro is a better in the latter category.
But I suppose I should try Ilfosol 3 sometime just out of curiosity. I prefer powders due to better storage life, though traditional old HC-110 stored well seemingly forever in syrup concentrate fashion; I don't know about the newer version of it.

I guess you use 16 minutes for diffusion or cold light enlargers... Maybe 13 will be better in my case...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Ooops, I did not read well: now I see you prefer 20C/68F. Thanks!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I guess the Kodak agitation you use is a relevant part of the tone you get... I'll do my tests with slightly shorter times than those recommended by Ilford, to agitate the Kodak way.

 

[NB23]

I have zero experience with Ilfosol 3. But it appears to be largely high-energy mix of sodium carbonate and hydroquinone.
I'm not seeking "grit", whatever that means, but just enough grain growth to deliver a distinct improvement in TMX edge acutance

Seems to me that you are indeed seeking for more “grit”.
Grit, as in sandpaper grit.
Sand as in grain.
More grit = more grain.
Acutance.
More grit= More acutance.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Enlargers : yes, all of mine are colorhead diffusion, except for my cold light one. Temp-wise, I don't like anything above 75F because it risks edge-frilling TMax, with the risk of little bits of gelatin getting stuck to the image area itself. So 20C/68F works best.

NB23 - next time I'm at the local camera store I'll see if they stock Ilfosol 3. But don't expect me to try it anytime soon. I'm currently in the mood for shooting 8x10 format, so at that level of expense, can't gamble with anything new. But I'm willing to risk a roll of 120 film out of curiosity. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

OK Drew, wonderful help!
I'll use 68F for 13 minutes with Kodak agitation.
I owe you a big one!
Happy weekend!

 

[Kilgallb]

I develop TMX100-4x5 in a rotary tube for 7min with D76 stock. I shoot at EI 50. I came to this after a film test with a stauffer wedge. For N-1 I develop for 5:30.
I print on Kentmere VC fine lustre.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I develop TMX100-4x5 in a rotary tube for 7min with D76 stock. I shoot at EI 50. I came to this after a film test with a stauffer wedge. For N-1 I develop for 5:30.
I print on Kentmere VC fine lustre.

Makes sense: I got 64 for 1+1, so with a bit more sulfite 50 seems right.
I'm very attracted to the EI100 option in Perceptol because for handheld portraiture in MF, precisely that stop less light (EI50) is a real pain when light is not strong...
Other options are fine, like HP5+ and Tri-X and Delta400 at 200, or TMY, but even being all of them great films, they just can't replace TMX.