Why is KODAK T-Max Developer seldom mentioned on Photrio.com ?

[DREW WILEY]

TMax isn't any harder to develop than other films, but is less forgiving of exposure carelessness due to its steeper characteristic curve. I see no difference in fixing at all, but don't re-use fixer either.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Our aim was to make a liquid D-76.

What would be interesting to know is what drove the move back to aqueous, sulphite containing developers (i.e. Xtol) from the diethanolamine adducts used in HC-110 & TMax (before they were reformulated a few years ago)? I've found some hints in Ilford patents around the period they were working on DD-X, but I'd like to know what motivated Kodak to make the move to Xtol (especially if it was more than simply considerations in terms of package size/ environmental concerns).

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Always found this article very interesting: T-grain: a problem

Talks about T-Max developer, and how Kodak eventually backed-off saying it was the best developer for T-grain films, favoring Xtol instead.

Article also states that the most efficient developer for T-grain films in terms of sharpness is Crawley's FX-37. I never tried it, so don't know how true that is.

 

[Craig]

I think I only used T Max developer once soon after it was introduced. Cost per roll is quite a bit more than D76/ID-11, and I didn't see enough difference to make the price differential worth while. I might if I looked at the negatives now, but with the equipment and skills I had 35 years ago there wasn't a difference.

Probably the other thing that made a much bigger difference was Xtol. That did make a noticeable difference to me, and it works very well with Delta 100. The ability to almost indefinitely replenish makes the cost per roll very low too.

Personally, I find it easier to mix a powder developer to a stock solution and dilute that, than to mix from a liquid. I used one bottle of Ilfotec HC and never liked mixing the small amounts of syrup. For that reason I have never used HC-110.

A further consideration is in Canada Ilford's availability has been very reliable, it's always on the shelf at my local store. Kodak has been hit or miss, plus much more expensive.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I used Tmax developer once for developing Delta 3200 and the results were very good. It seemed to get better with reuse for some reason.
Kodak claim that twelve rolls of film can be processed in each litre of working strength solution, but I didn't exceed eight rolls. I liked the results and would be happy to use Tmax developer again for Delta 3200 or P3200 TMZ.
For other films I use D76.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Always found this article very interesting: T-grain: a problem

Article also states that the most efficient developer for T-grain films in terms of sharpness is Crawley's FX-37. I never tried it, so don't know how true that is.

I would have liked to have seen some comparison examples from the author of that article.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Old version of T-Max developer with diethanolamine-sulfur dioxide:

https://parallaxphotographic.coop/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/T-Max-Developer.pdf

New version with potassium sulfite:

https://www.freestylephoto.com/static/pdf/msds/kodak/Kodak_Alaris_SDS_US_English_-_KODAK_T-MAX_Developer_1058718.pdf

There was much discussion of old and new HC-110 but this passed relatively unnoticed.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I would have liked to have seen some comparison examples from the author of that article.

Same here. The article opens some intriguing perspectives, but lacks in details.

There are more about this in this old APUG thread:

Crawley's FX-37 Developer for T-Max/Delta Films

Gerald Koch submitted a new resource: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) - Crawley's FX-37 Developer for T-Max/Delta Films This developer is intended for use with T-Max and Delta films, although it will produce excellent results with traditional emulsions. FX-37 is designed to...

www.photrio.com

photographicanalysis has a bit more details in this post:

What is FX37?

In a previous post I explained the importance of FX37 as a developer for T-grain emulsions. Currently, FX37 is the only developer I would recommend with T-grain emulsions, so for those of you who …

photographicanalysis.wordpress.com

Also noticed you had a short discussion about FX-37 on the Digitaltruth forum back in 2013

FX37 activity - Digitaltruth Photo

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Both speeds of TMax deliver exceptionally fine grain in most developers - too fine for some applications. The early version of TMax 400 had a bit of clumpy grain; but that was improved long ago. And TMZ 3200 has always been an outlier - why even expect it to need fine grain? Delta 100 is somewhere in between the TMX and TMY in grain characteristics - perhaps closer to TMY, and no problem either.

I'm admittedly not a Minox type, but I do shoot both speeds of TMax in formats all the way from 35mm to 8x10, and certainly understand what the enlargements look like. The whole reasoning behind a special TMax developer was really more related to optimizing the curve shape - plus perhaps a cross-marketing opportunity, which never really caught on.
Early on, they promoted TMax 100 with D76 instead.

 

[retina_restoration]

Same here. The article opens some intriguing perspectives, but lacks in details.

There are more about this in this old APUG thread:

Crawley's FX-37 Developer for T-Max/Delta Films

Gerald Koch submitted a new resource: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) - Crawley's FX-37 Developer for T-Max/Delta Films This developer is intended for use with T-Max and Delta films, although it will produce excellent results with traditional emulsions. FX-37 is designed to...

www.photrio.com

photographicanalysis has a bit more details in this post:

What is FX37?

In a previous post I explained the importance of FX37 as a developer for T-grain emulsions. Currently, FX37 is the only developer I would recommend with T-grain emulsions, so for those of you who …

photographicanalysis.wordpress.com

Also noticed you had a short discussion about FX-37 on the Digitaltruth forum back in 2013

FX37 activity - Digitaltruth Photo

I have worked with FX-37 quite a bit in the past 3 years, and given up on it. It does some of the things ascribed to it, but it is also brutal on grain (exaggerated, clumpy) and tends to give a very harsh separation of the more delicate values, leading to a very brutal tonal scale. Yes, it does give about 1/2 stop of a speed boost, but you're paying for it in the degradation of the tonality of the image.

My experience with FX-37 did not demonstrate that the developer was in any way "superior", nor did it deliver "better" results with T-grain type modern films. Other than the speed boost, I didn't see any compelling reason to use it.

Worth noting is that the times published on the Web for FX-37 are significantly longer than they should be! (although I see that Massive Dev Chart has some reasonable times listed for the likes of FP4) The development times I found originally suggested something like 7 or 8 minutes in FX-37, 1:3 which gave fried images with unusable dense highlights. At the 1:3 dilution, five minutes is about as long as you'd want to do with most traditional emulsions, and maybe 6 or 6.5 minutes for Tmax/Delta films. It doesn't take more than a minute too long in FX-37 to turn a good negative into a barely usable one.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I keep (forlornly) hoping that it should have long been obvious that the relatively anonymous scientists working in research for the big manufacturers (like 'SCH' referred to by Bob Shanebrook upthread) were considerably more knowledgeable about B&W processing (and how to improve the speed/ grain/ sharpness trade-off) - and had access to far more powerful image/ data analytics than someone like Crawley did. Crawley might have had some relevance 1955-65, declining thereafter, until the internet decided that his formulae needed to be turned into some sort of irrational fandom, like that around staining developers.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Staining pyro gave a significant improvement for me back in graded paper days, and plenty of other folks too. There's no myth involved. But that's a different topic.

 

[retina_restoration]

I keep (forlornly) hoping that it should have long been obvious that the relatively anonymous scientists working in research for the big manufacturers (like 'SCH' referred to by Bob Shanebrook upthread) were considerably more knowledgeable about B&W processing (and how to improve the speed/ grain/ sharpness trade-off) - and had access to far more powerful image/ data analytics than someone like Crawley did. Crawley might have had some relevance 1955-65, declining thereafter, until the internet decided that his formulae needed to be turned into some sort of irrational fandom, like that around staining developers.

I have zero interest in arguing about such matters, but a developer like PMK is invaluable to me for making optimal negatives for Salted Paper and Kallitype prints. No, it has no "magical" properties - as some would have us believe - but it's ideal for making negatives suite to alt print techniques.

 

[Bill Burk]

I appreciate the feedback. In the early 1980s T-Max developer was statistically designed using soon to be introduced T- the popular films of the time: TX, TXP, PX, PXP and VP as well as a few Ilford films that were available at retail. The metrics were speed, curve shape (toe, mid-scale, and shoulder), contrast( CI .42 to .56), fog, MTF, RMS granularity, pushing/pulling etc. Several chemicals were considered, traditional and the latest and greatest, (developing agents, buffers, antifoggants, stabilizers) were tried. Carefully processing was done aimed at small tank processing (20c to 30C?). Several iterations of regression analysis was run and the formula was refined. Various levels were used to make sure the process and storage of the chemicals would be stable. Our aim was to make a liquid D-76. Most of the hard work was done by a talented man with the initials SCH.

My recollection is that T-Max Developer was better than D-76 and HC-110 for all image structure criteria and at least as good as D-76 for all other criteria. Toward the end of the design of T-Max a small modification was made that resulted in T-Max RS for replenished processing for larger volume labs. Duraflo for roller transport processing used the same design protocol.

Robert Shanebrook (RS)

You mean TMAX-RS was yours?

If I had read this when I got that first bottle I might have adopted it. I wasn’t “looking” for a different developer because D-76 worked for me. But if I had known it was designed to be a lot like D-76 I may have liked it.


I think I really am looking at a later bottle it’s clear plastic and the developer looks clear. I recall the original bottle was silver and I could swear it had just a quarter left and was brown.

 

[Steven Lee]

I keep (forlornly) hoping that it should have long been obvious that the relatively anonymous scientists working in research for the big manufacturers (like 'SCH' referred to by Bob Shanebrook upthread) were considerably more knowledgeable about B&W processing (and how to improve the speed/ grain/ sharpness trade-off) - and had access to far more powerful image/ data analytics than someone like Crawley did. Crawley might have had some relevance 1955-65, declining thereafter, until the internet decided that his formulae needed to be turned into some sort of irrational fandom, like that around staining developers.

Lachlan, I am not arguing but let me play a devil's advocate for a moment. Don't you think that Kodak's design criteria was not the same as smaller chemistry R&D labs? Kodak was a huge business back then and they couldn't afford to be distracted with niche products. Therefore, some of their product requirements had nothing to do with imaging and set by the finance and operations: manufacturing volume, margins, supply chain, environmental concerns, etc. At least this is how it works in a couple of industries I work in.

In other words, it should be quite possible for a global company like Kodak to knowingly have product gaps in their chemistry lineup to be filled with smaller players.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Don't you think that Kodak's design criteria was not the same as smaller chemistry R&D labs? Kodak was a huge business back then and they couldn't afford to be distracted with niche products.

If you consider very high quality performance across 2-20x (even 40x) enlargement as opposed to 3x off a 5x7 to be a limitation, then yes, Kodak et al had design limitations. The very small (hobby, really) players had nothing of the extent of the image structure analysis/ knowledge - nor seemingly the blind print comparisons, or the tight control of variables. And as Bob implied, if a custom component had had to be made (because it made a meaningful difference), it would have been - and the scale would have been there to make it worthwhile. What is worth noting too, is that a number of the amateur chemists came up with things that are maybe 60-80% good, but never made the key steps to understanding that they were often making alterations in the wrong direction (in part, it must be said, because of the extreme secrecy of the big players' research outcomes).

 

[Steven Lee]

Staining pyro gave a significant improvement for me back in graded paper days, and plenty of other folks too. There's no myth involved.

TBH it seems like it's clearly involved. Because what you described is literally the definition of a myth: "I see things and hear voices". "Plenty of other folks saw them too".

 

[TomR55]

Tmax and DDX were developed for use with tgain film, as was Clayton F90. Tmax was made in 2 versions, Rs (?) which was aimed at labs and I think is no longer being made. As gain is smaller in Tgain film as recall reading at the time Tmax developer is more acutance type. I liked all 3 when shooting Tmax or Delta, but I as shoot Foma and other traditional films as my walk abouts films I have bought DDX or Tmax developer in well over 10 years.

I have used both Claytons and TMax developers on traditional as well as TMX and TMY 135 films. Honestly, in all respects I found that Clayton’s is easier to use, easier on the pocketbook and more versatile. For me, TMax developer produced contrasty and dense negatives—especially if I followed Kodak’s agitation instructions. Switched to Claytons, perform 30 seconds initial agitation, then 10 seconds every minute thereafter. I keep all working solutions between 23.4 and 24 degrees C and have had no wasted film since.

Someone claimed that TMax developer had a longer shelf life than Claytons, but I use a liter of developer every two to three months so I couldn’t say.

 

[Paul Howell]

I quite liked F90, used for MF as well, sorry that is off the market. I used a lot of Clayton F76+ and if I shot more than a roll a week I would switch back to Clayton from HC 110.

 

[john_s]

I have worked with FX-37 quite a bit in the past 3 years, and given up on it. It does some of the things ascribed to it, but it is also brutal on grain (exaggerated, clumpy) and tends to give a very harsh separation of the more delicate values, leading to a very brutal tonal scale. Yes, it does give about 1/2 stop of a speed boost, but you're paying for it in the degradation of the tonality of the image.

My experience with FX-37 did not demonstrate that the developer was in any way "superior", nor did it deliver "better" results with T-grain type modern films. Other than the speed boost, I didn't see any compelling reason to use it.

Worth noting is that the times published on the Web for FX-37 are significantly longer than they should be! (although I see that Massive Dev Chart has some reasonable times listed for the likes of FP4) The development times I found originally suggested something like 7 or 8 minutes in FX-37, 1:3 which gave fried images with unusable dense highlights. At the 1:3 dilution, five minutes is about as long as you'd want to do with most traditional emulsions, and maybe 6 or 6.5 minutes for Tmax/Delta films. It doesn't take more than a minute too long in FX-37 to turn a good negative into a barely usable one.

Just curious, when you used FX-37 did you use rotary or inversion agitation?

 

[retina_restoration]

Just curious, when you used FX-37 did you use rotary or inversion agitation?

Inversion for 120 roll films, and standard tray agitation for sheet films. I don't have/use any "rotary" equipment.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'll keep it short for Lachlan - there have no doubt been highly competent photo chemists who were lousy photographers. I've met some of them. The proof is in the pudding, even if an alchemist cooks it up, using actual lawn moles instead of mathematical ones.

Back on topic : Per TMax RS and it achieving the best linearity with TMax 100 at high contrast : Keep in mind that the dye transfer process was still alive when all this happened, and how TMax was going to be the silver bullet film replacing Super XX for sake of making high contrast color separation negatives. It made perfect sense, especially since early TMax 100 tended to shoulder off prematurely. I tested all that for myself. But general black and white photography is something different, and I find no real advantage to TMax developer in that case.

 

[Lachlan Young]

TBH it seems like it's clearly involved. Because what you described is literally the definition of a myth: "I see things and hear voices". "Plenty of other folks saw them too".

The components that do the heavy lifting in those developers (either a Beutler derivative or a set of subs on a common PQ film developer ratio) rather than the stain/ coupler do have specific effects that are potentially useful - it's just that the major manufacturers had discovered this long before, studied it properly and completely outflanked those formulae (and even published the MTF/ RMSg data) and evidently incorporated the knowledge into products like Tmax, Xtol etc, but with real understanding of where the trade-offs are (and why solvency matters) for results that people would buy in preference to D-76. I think that many of the stain adherents are in denial about the direct relationship between their choice of developer and it compensating for their (lack of) basic process control, whereas more mainstream developers are largely designed to offer a much more flexible range of contrasts (and better granularity).

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've used compensating and semi-compensating developers too, and sometimes still do. It's good to have a full arsenal at your disposal. But the effect differs from what pyro stain does; and there are numerous flavors of that too. Pyrogallol never was "mainstream" except at tanneries; you really don't want it in any stream, or your hands dipped in it either. But in terms of sheer contrast flexibility, we pyro addicts know perfectly well that these options can be highly malleable to contrast control. And granuarity? - all depends on the specifics - the same pyro formula might accentuate it in one kind of emulsion, or mask it in another. And many really good printmakers fly with pyro of one kind or another. There must be a reason.

In terms of TMax, I routinely develop TMY400 in PMK pyro, all film sizes. With TMX100, I only use PMK when I want gentle edges combined with excellent internal contrast, like for smooth complexion portraiture in long subject contrast ranges, for example, a groom in a dark black suit, and the bride in bright white. But for things like landscape work where I want higher edge acutance, I go with Perceptol 1:3, which, like Microphen, grows grain a little at this higher dilution, while also providing a semi-compensating effect.

You should realize by now that I'm no proponent of the traditional Zone Mantra of smashing the bookends of high scene contrast via heavy handed compensating or minus development, which smashes much of the upper midtone and highlight sparkle too. There are other ways to do it, including better film choice, supplemental unsharp masking, and yes, the highlight control offered by pyro stain. Now we have really good VC papers too, and can differently use it even in the same image, unlike back in AA's own days when VC was more like soggy toast.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

The components that do the heavy lifting in those developers (either a Beutler derivative or a set of subs on a common PQ film developer ratio) rather than the stain/ coupler do have specific effects that are potentially useful - it's just that the major manufacturers had discovered this long before, studied it properly and completely outflanked those formulae (and even published the MTF/ RMSg data) and evidently incorporated the knowledge into products like Tmax, Xtol etc, but with real understanding of where the trade-offs are (and why solvency matters) for results that people would buy in preference to D-76. I think that many of the stain adherents are in denial about the direct relationship between their choice of developer and it compensating for their (lack of) basic process control, whereas more mainstream developers are largely designed to offer a much more flexible range of contrasts (and better granularity).

In my testing, I have found nothing as good as Crawley's formulas, though I have not tried X-tol or T-Max developer.