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

[Sirius Glass]

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 ...)

Frankly, the ISO boost is small and I very rarely notice it, but then if I want shadow detail I use the Zone System metering and that would be more shadow detail than the ISO boost.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

Going back to the 60s to mid 70s when discontinued, might have been earlier, many labs used Polydol. I spend some time at Mather AFB in the mid 70s and we used Polydol as our main developer, although a small lab we did have a versiamate. When we could no longer order it we had to use Dk 50 for roll and 4X5. HC 110 has been around for very long time as well, I use the new version, not sure of the keeping prosperities but the results seems to be in camp as D76 stock.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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

I think the baseline you need to start from is that 'fine-grain' is often relative to whatever the marketing department wanted it to be. If your comparators are Rodinal and Neofin Blau, a lot of things can be called 'fine-grain'.

Rodinal Special/ Studional uses/ used Triethanolamine (thus about 1930s tech, if you are going from Kodak patents) and was clearly aimed at aspects of the HC-110 market. Agfa made other (powder) developers that were much more explicitly aimed at being properly fine-grain in character (Refinal - essentially their version of Microphen - and Atomal etc).

Tetenal Ultrafin had a rather questionable formula from what I can tell (a bit like some of Crawley's less brilliant ideas), but we should note that the evolved variants of Ultrafin were essentially an HC-110-alike (Ultrafin Plus) and a DD-X-alike (Ultrafin T-Plus), which rather suggests they were perfectly aware of the same issues that the bigger film manufacturers were finding too, but also had a clientele who were fixed in their ideas of developer preference, so kept making regular Ultrafin.

Ilfosol 3 is a bit more puzzling. I suspect it of using a tiny amount of an ammonia salt (there is a prime suspect for what this could be) to enhance solvency in a more concentrated developer (you can smell it at 1+9, but not as clearly at 1+14 - and it's not from exhaustion of the developer) - Ilford's patents from the 1990s hint rather heavily at them actively researching this. It would definitely explain some of the specific oddities of Ilfosol 3. The grain character is fine but noticeably more defined than something like ID-11, not coarser - however this results in the granularity being a little more obvious.
Earlier versions of Ilfosol seem to have been quite chemically varied, so I'll leave those out of this.

 

[miha]

I think the baseline you need to start from is that 'fine-grain' is often relative to whatever the marketing department wanted it to be. If your comparators are Rodinal and Neofin Blau, a lot of things can be called 'fine-grain'.

Rodinal Special/ Studional uses/ used Triethanolamine (thus about 1930s tech, if you are going from Kodak patents) and was clearly aimed at aspects of the HC-110 market. Agfa made other (powder) developers that were much more explicitly aimed at being properly fine-grain in character (Refinal - essentially their version of Microphen - and Atomal etc).

Tetenal Ultrafin had a rather questionable formula from what I can tell (a bit like some of Crawley's less brilliant ideas), but we should note that the evolved variants of Ultrafin were essentially an HC-110-alike (Ultrafin Plus) and a DD-X-alike (Ultrafin T-Plus), which rather suggests they were perfectly aware of the same issues that the bigger film manufacturers were finding too, but also had a clientele who were fixed in their ideas of developer preference, so kept making regular Ultrafin.

Ilfosol 3 is a bit more puzzling. I suspect it of using a tiny amount of an ammonia salt (there is a prime suspect for what this could be) to enhance solvency in a more concentrated developer (you can smell it at 1+9, but not as clearly at 1+14 - and it's not from exhaustion of the developer) - Ilford's patents from the 1990s hint rather heavily at them actively researching this. It would definitely explain some of the specific oddities of Ilfosol 3. The grain character is fine but noticeably more defined than something like ID-11, not coarser - however this results in the granularity being a little more obvious.
Earlier versions of Ilfosol seem to have been quite chemically varied, so I'll leave those out of this.

Thank you Lachlan, most interesting explanation (and to me, highly plausible).

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ultrafin were essentially an HC-110-alike (Ultrafin Plus) and a DD-X-alike (Ultrafin T-Plus)

The Ultrafin Plus I used was more similar to a DD-X like product.

 

[miha]

The Ultrafin Plus I used was more similar to a DD-X like product.

Yes. Tetenal Neopress HC was the product similar to Kodak HC-110.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yes. Tetenal Neopress HC was the product similar to Kodak HC-110.

In that case Ultrafin Plus was probably closer to Tmax developer (its MSDS explicitly stated it used a sulfur dioxide adduct) - Ultrafin T-Plus was definitely a DD-X-alike, but was relatively more recent (2010's).

Just to confuse everyone further, Neopress HC's MSDS (from the early 2010's) states that it used a large amount of potassium sulphite rather than the sulphur dioxide adduct from HC-110/ HC.

 

[miha]

In that case Ultrafin Plus was probably closer to Tmax developer (its MSDS explicitly stated it used a sulfur dioxide adduct) - Ultrafin T-Plus was definitely a DD-X-alike, but was relatively more recent (2010's).

Just to confuse everyone further, Neopress HC's MSDS (from the early 2010's) states that it used a large amount of potassium sulphite rather than the sulphur dioxide adduct from HC-110/ HC.

Interesting, thanks.

Now I wonder who was involved in reformulating T-MAX developer? Kodak themselves? Their supplier?

 

[Alan Johnson]

Now I wonder who was involved in reformulating T-MAX developer? Kodak themselves? Their supplier?

The type of developer in which the diethanolamine-sulfur dioxide adduct was replaced by potassium sulfite can be traced back to 2007 when PhotoSystems, manufacturer of the new T-Max developer, produced this msds for Kentmere K-110 ,an HC-110 type, but the originator of this replacement is not publicly known.

https://www.freestylephoto.com/pdf/msds/kentmere/Kentmere_K110_Liquid_Film_Developer.pdf

 

[miha]

Thanks. But why the change in the first place?

 

[koraks]

Thanks. But why the change in the first place?

Much easier to manufacture.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I can only comment on the situation as of March 2024 where there appears to be only two suppliers of diethanolamine sufite and they are both in China.

 

[miha]

Much easier to manufacture.

Might be, perhaps due to much lower volume in the recent years they needed to simplify the process.

 

[miha]

I can only comment on the situation as of March 2024 where there appears to be only two suppliers of diethanolamine sufite and they are both in China.

Are you sure? Google found numerous suppliers from Turkey (Borotech, Isik Kimya), Thailand. etc.

 

[koraks]

Google found numerous suppliers

OK, but supplier != manufacturer.

So, remove the ones that:
* Supply, but don't manufacture
* Say they can supply, but when push comes to shove, at best end up selling you stuff from the one or two existing Chinese manufacturers.
Unfortunately, Google can't do that.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Are you sure? Google found numerous suppliers from Turkey (Borotech, Isik Kimya), Thailand. etc.

Diethanolamine sulfite | 63149-47-3 suppliers - BuyersGuideChem

Get supplier listing of Diethanolamine sulfite and equal product

www.buyersguidechem.com

These are the only two I found with the sulfite in industrial quantities.

 

[miha]

OK, but supplier != manufacturer.

Sure, but the link provided by @Alan Johnson also shows a list of (two) suppliers

Anyway, I don't want to speculate any further, lets keep to the topic of the thread.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Much easier to manufacture.

Yes, and probably not economic to replace potassium sulfite by imported diethanolamine sulfite.

 

[iseolake]

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 used it for Fomapan sheet film once and got dichroic fog. Later I found the warning about not using it for sheet film. Something about the binder used on sheet film reacting with the developer.

 

[laser]

Interesting, thanks.

Now I wonder who was involved in reformulating T-MAX developer? Kodak themselves? Their supplier?

The original T-Max Developer was formulated by Kodak. As time moved on and supply moved to others the suppliers would influence the formulation. Kodak had extensive resources to apply to formulating the original T-Max Films and Developer. I doubt if the chemical suppliers had as extensive resources. The original formulation was done in side-by-side with the film designers.

 

[miha]

The original T-Max Developer was formulated by Kodak. As time moved on and supply moved to others the suppliers would influence the formulation. Kodak had extensive resources to apply to formulating the original T-Max Films and Developer. I doubt if the chemical suppliers had as extensive resources. The original formulation was done in side-by-side with the film designers.

Ergo, with the new formulation the quality must have gone downhill.

 

[MattKing]

Ergo, with the new formulation the quality must have gone downhill.

Not necessarily. Changes might reflect modern improvements in manufacturing techniques, positive improvements respecting the availability of chemical constituents or a whole host of other positive factors.
The only thing that is certain is that the world is different than when Eastman Kodak originally designed the product, and when manufacturing first transitioned to other parties.

 

[miha]

Not necessarily. Changes might reflect modern improvements in manufacturing techniques, positive improvements respecting the availability of chemical constituents or a whole host of other positive factors.

Oh, I'm glad I'm not that naive. But yeah, we are all speculating, nothing more.

The only thing that is certain is that the world is different than when Eastman Kodak originally designed the product, and when manufacturing first transitioned to other parties.

Hear, hear!

 

[MattKing]

Oh, I'm glad I'm not that naive. But yeah, we are all speculating, nothing more.

And I'm glad I'm not that pessimistic .
While photo-chemicals are now much mode of a specialized, low volume niche than they once were, there are many other things that have been improved tremendously since T-Max developer was created. Even Eastman Kodak has benefited from all sorts of modern improvements, while struggling with modern problems. For example, I would hazard a guess that the developers of T-Max would have been overjoyed to have available to them the modern control systems to help create a manufacturing process that is more efficient and flexible and adaptable.