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

[qqphot]

I use it daily for 35mm Delta 100. The primary reasons are that with minimal adjustment I can use a liter of it for multiple rolls of film over weeks without replenishment, it gives me negatives I can work with easily at the speed I prefer, and there aren't any real surprises. If I need anything special or unusual I'll make it myself.

I'm sure I could do a little better by trying obscure or different developers and I don't fault people who prefer to strive for developer perfection, but it's not for me. Also, I feel like some people sometimes attribute features to developers which maybe mostly in their imagination.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

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.

The times given for 1+3 appears to be too short for comfort.
I have seen that one particular photographer who regularly posts his photos on Flickr uses it diluted 1+9 and they look very good.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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).

I never saw a good reason to switch from D76

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I never saw a good reason to switch from D76

Neither have I, but I still find alternative formulas interesting even if I don't use them.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Based on the technical publications for Tmax developer (regular, not RS) you can add 500ml of the concentrate to 2 litres of water to make a working solution and use it as follows. (Based on 35 mm and 120 roll films)

Films 1 to 10 normal development time.

Films 11 to 20 normal development time+ 1 minute.

Films 21 to 30 normal development time + 2 minutes.

This makes Tmax quite economical.
I believe Andrew Moxam who used to post here used the regular version replenished even though you're not supposed to. His print scans look good.

Have a search on this site for his posts and photos.

 

[koraks]

You wanted to have the same system like your friends/neighbours to change casettes. I doubt anybody exchanges developers.

Network externalities played a role in VHS/Betamax. Besides, publishers adopted VHS more readily than Betamax, which influenced the experienced value of both systems.
On the other hand, while we don't exchange developers (much), we do exchange information about developers. A lot of published know-how on a developer creates positive externalities. Part of the network effect thus goes for developers as well, and that's what I was getting it. The comparison doesn't limp as badly as you might think.

 

[markbau]

I have tried several developers and found that XTOL or its equivalents is very forgiving, has better tonality, finer grain, and sharper than most other developers as well as provide a small ISO boost. I also like PyroCat HD with Glycerin.

That's an interesting chart. Many years ago the Kodak rep for the Rocky Mountain region told me that HC 110 was a poor selling developer until Saint Ansel used it for his developer recommendations in "The Negative" after which sales skyrocketed. I used it a bit a long time ago and never fell in love with it. You have to wonder if people use HC 110 just because of AA's recommendation or if they find it gives them results that are unobtainable with other developers. It would also be interesting to know if the current HC 110 is very different to the old version.

 

[MattKing]

That's an interesting chart. Many years ago the Kodak rep for the Rocky Mountain region told me that HC 110 was a poor selling developer until Saint Ansel used it for his developer recommendations in "The Negative" after which sales skyrocketed. I used it a bit a long time ago and never fell in love with it. You have to wonder if people use HC 110 just because of AA's recommendation or if they find it gives them results that are unobtainable with other developers. It would also be interesting to know if the current HC 110 is very different to the old version.

That must have been particular to the Australian marketplace, because HC-110 had a very substantial portion of the commercial market.
The small hobbyist market - that might have been influenced by Ansel Adams, but that market was relatively tiny even back then.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ditto. HC-110 had a big commercial presence. But DK-50 was the poor man's version of HC-110 for some applications.
D76 reigned in the amateur world; you could buy packs of it at any camera store. Lots of commercial operations, both labs and studios of that era, turned their nose up at Ansel's methodology anyway. Contrast was controlled by the studio lighting itself, and all the film processing was standardized.

 

[Steven Lee]

I am too young to remember those peak heyday times well, but I do remember how the emphasis in the photography magazines had always been on maximum image quality. Specifically, on getting as close as possible to life-like results: finest grain, straightest curves, maximum sharpness, etc.

Today the enthusiast market is quite different. Those who want a perfect 100% accurate scan of reality have a plethora of digital equipment to choose from. Film is appreciated for its imperfections. I recently saw a thread on Reddit about aging film on purpose. Like wine. Apparently expired film is getting harder to find, and the visual effect of expired film is apparently desirable? That is also why we have Lomo purple, Metropolis, Harman Phoenix, Bubblefilm, cross-processing cine film in C41 and "scanning" with an iPhone. Image quality simply doesn't matter anymore, in fact people are after weird looking results.

This should also be reflected in popularity of developers resurrecting old & inferior formulas. Just thinking out loud.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you really need to be creative, why not just place your prints in a cattle pasture and let them stomp and poop on it? If you want Bubble film, why not a chewable film like real bubble gum? Gosh, stuff can get idiotic! But digital mania is even worse. I mostly ignore all of it. I have a pretty deluxe personal darkroom complex, but frankly don't even know how to take a cell phone picture. I guess I could figure it out awful fast if a burglar was prowling around; but otherwise, I don't even want to learn.

But in terms of commercial photo lab objectives, either in past decades or today, there had to be real cost and time efficiency protocols to it, not necessarily the "best" results. Everyone re-posts Kodaks little "best developer" for this or that chart, but then they don't notice that it shows Xytol at full strength, or mention the fact that, for the best results, TMax RS developer had to be used full strength too. That gets pretty expensive. But the same chart shows HC-110 at significant dilution. Go figure.

 

[laser]

Thanks for the opinion and information. T-Max is a very carefully designed, high performance, and robust developer. Prior to the 1980s Kodak folklore is Kodak developers were designed based on adding a little-of-this-and-a little-of-that and trial-and-error. Because of the skill and experience of the formulators they were quite successful. T-Max was formulated by SH using regression analysis, other statistical techniques, and sophisticated image analysis. In today's jargon I think it would be called "artificial intelligence".

 

[Mick Fagan]

Thanks for the opinion and information. T-Max is a very carefully designed, high performance, and robust developer. Prior to the 1980s Kodak folklore is Kodak developers were designed based on adding a little-of-this-and-a little-of-that and trial-and-error. Because of the skill and experience of the formulators they were quite successful. T-Max was formulated by SH using regression analysis, other statistical techniques, and sophisticated image analysis. In today's jargon I think it would be called "artificial intelligence".

Very interesting, but, could you please tell me what or who is, "SH"?

 

[Craig]

T-Max is a very carefully designed, high performance, and robust developer.

How would you compare it to Xtol? What would you consider T Max's greatest strengths, and were they bettered by Xtol? Or do the developers each have a different area that they excel in?

I'm assuming ( perhaps incorrectly?) that T-Max developer is optimized for T-Max film; what about with conventional technology films - would you use T-Max developer or something else as your first choice?

 

[reddesert]

I thought the branding of T-Max developer along with T-Max film led to a little confusion, which seems to be persistent.

My perspective as an amateur on a student budget in the 1980s and 90s: I started with typical use of Tri-X, maybe Plus-X, and D-76 (and then a steel tank and Kodak Darkroom Photoguide donated by a generous uncle). When T-Max 100 and 400 came out, I don't remember how I heard about them but perhaps a magazine or a friend, I relatively quickly started using T-Max 400. I don't recall ever considering using T-Max developer. I think I had an idea (perhaps wrong) that it could be less forgiving than D-76, for someone like me who was going to shoot at box speed (or 1/3 stop under) and develop for the recommended time, and not do a bunch of film tests. It was also more expensive, especially if you weren't doing high volume and might be concerned about the liquid stock going bad.

When Xtol developer came out it got the reputation of "as easy to use as D-76 but better," I tried it and started using that. Looking up the dates, I forgot that there was 10 years between the introduction of T-max film and Xtol developer. I had remembered it as being shorter.

 

[koraks]

In today's jargon I think it would be called "artificial intelligence".

No, that's something else entirely. Let's not muddy the waters unnecessarily.

 

[miha]

Thanks for the opinion and information. T-Max is a very carefully designed, high performance, and robust developer. Prior to the 1980s Kodak folklore is Kodak developers were designed based on adding a little-of-this-and-a little-of-that and trial-and-error. Because of the skill and experience of the formulators they were quite successful. T-Max was formulated by SH using regression analysis, other statistical techniques, and sophisticated image analysis. In today's jargon I think it would be called "artificial intelligence".

However what is available now under the T-MAX developer branding is something completely different, most probably inferior, and yet the discussion here is about the original. Diethanolamine has bee replaced by something more common as noted by@Lachlan Young making it a different developer.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

However what is available now under the T-MAX developer branding is something completely different, most probably inferior, and yet the discussion here is about the original. Diethanolamine has bee replaced by something more common as noted by@Lachlan Young making it a different developer.

I've not used Tmax developer for a few years now and that was for Delta 3200 roll films. Very nice combination too.
These days I just use D76 1+1 for every thing.

 

[Lachlan Young]

However what is available now under the T-MAX developer branding is something completely different, most probably inferior, and yet the discussion here is about the original. Diethanolamine has bee replaced by something more common as noted by@Lachlan Young making it a different developer.

The irony is that a shift to an aqueous formulation might actually improve on certain problems that Ilford identified with non-aqueous adduct-based developers. The trade-off is between longevity and more optimal image quality, albeit that this possibly applies in a more clear-cut way to HC-110/HC than to Tmax.

The problem that Kodak (with Tmax developer) and Ilford (with DD/DD-X) will have faced is how to get enough sulphite into solution to enable a reasonable level of solvency in a developer that can be concentrated enough to dilute 1+4.

 

[markbau]

That must have been particular to the Australian marketplace, because HC-110 had a very substantial portion of the commercial market.
The small hobbyist market - that might have been influenced by Ansel Adams, but that market was relatively tiny even back then.

This was when I lived in Denver and worked at a photo lab there. We ran a nitrogen burst line for B&W film development but I can't recall what developer we used but I'm certain it wasn't HC 110.

 

[Sirius Glass]

How would you compare it to Xtol? What would you consider T Max's greatest strengths, and were they bettered by Xtol? Or do the developers each have a different area that they excel in?

I'm assuming ( perhaps incorrectly?) that T-Max developer is optimized for T-Max film; what about with conventional technology films - would you use T-Max developer or something else as your first choice?

Here is a comparison:

XTOL has more shadow detail [there is a boost to the ISO], finer grain, and greater sharpness than X-Max.

 

[miha]

The irony is that a shift to an aqueous formulation might actually improve on certain problems that Ilford identified with non-aqueous adduct-based developers. The trade-off is between longevity and more optimal image quality, albeit that this possibly applies in a more clear-cut way to HC-110/HC than to Tmax.

The problem that Kodak (with Tmax developer) and Ilford (with DD/DD-X) will have faced is how to get enough sulphite into solution to enable a reasonable level of solvency in a developer that can be concentrated enough to dilute 1+4.

How is this done with Ilfosol, Rodinal Spezial / Studional, TT Ultrafin liquid and similar which usually dilute to 1+9 or 1+29?

 

[miha]

Here is a comparison:

View attachment 365665​

XTOL has more shadow detail [there is a boost to the ISO], finer grain, and greater sharpness than X-Max.

LESS shadow detail as seen from the chart. One needs to bear in mind that these differences are minute (imagine the x axis to be a foot / mile long ...)

 

[Colin Corneau]

It is very difficult to find in Canada, it is not suitable for use with sheet film, and the version that was suitable for both sheet film and use with replenishment is no longer made.
I would agree that it is better than HC-110.

I agree it's very seldom if ever seen up here in Canada. I've used a lot of developers with various films, including TMax which was OK. I know this sort of thing is very subjective, but I've yet to see better results with any film I used than HC-110. Bonus that it lasts such a long, long time, too.

Great thread though - always curious to learn more about something I don't use a lot.

 

[TomR55]

I thought the branding of T-Max developer along with T-Max film led to a little confusion, which seems to be persistent.

My perspective as an amateur on a student budget in the 1980s and 90s: I started with typical use of Tri-X, maybe Plus-X, and D-76 (and then a steel tank and Kodak Darkroom Photoguide donated by a generous uncle). When T-Max 100 and 400 came out, I don't remember how I heard about them but perhaps a magazine or a friend, I relatively quickly started using T-Max 400. I don't recall ever considering using T-Max developer. I think I had an idea (perhaps wrong) that it could be less forgiving than D-76, for someone like me who was going to shoot at box speed (or 1/3 stop under) and develop for the recommended time, and not do a bunch of film tests. It was also more expensive, especially if you weren't doing high volume and might be concerned about the liquid stock going bad.

When Xtol developer came out it got the reputation of "as easy to use as D-76 but better," I tried it and started using that. Looking up the dates, I forgot that there was 10 years between the introduction of T-max film and Xtol developer. I had remembered it as being shorter.

I have used the current version of TMax developer, albeit on Kodak’s T-Grain films. What I found was, if anything, deviating from Kodak’s times and temperatures (again with these films) gave less than happy results. I don’t know if this is a property of the developer, the emulsions, or (more likely) some combination of factors. I still use TMY in certain settings, but I process it in Claytons F76+ and instead of Kodak’s recommendation of 5 sec @ 30 second intervals, I use 30 seconds continuous (inversions with a twist), then agitate 10 seconds every minute (again, inversion with alternating twists). I find this gives me reasonable negatives as opposed to dense/contrasty rolls that are difficult to scan. YMMV.