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

[laser]

There is discussion about HC-110, D-76, Rodinal and many others but I seldom see any mention of T-Max Developer.



My experience is that T-Max Developer is far better than HC-110 Developer especially for grain''

Rodinol produces fine grain but with a severe speed penalty.

T-Max imaging characteristics are the same as D-76 but T-Max is chemically more stable.

For pushing T-Max is better than any other developer. It yields mid- and upper scale density without fog or grain increase

Is price or availability an issue?

Bob

 

[cliveh]

I would suggest that T-Max developer is a marketing ploy to make you think this is the best developer for that particular film, when many other developers will do the same job.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Pioneer]

I do use it occasionally for my expired 35mm film and it works just fine. But there are a lot of other options that work. If you mix your own developers and like to conserve costs then Caffenol.C-M is also a great option.

 

[koraks]

@laser Betamax was arguably 'better' than VHS. We all know how that ended. The morale of that very short story is that objective differences, especially if they're slight, are often insufficient to tip the balance. I think D76, XTOL, Pyrocat and a host of other developers are so popular because...they're so popular. Yes, it's oxymoronic. But people tend to inspire each other. So if very few people use TMAX developer, then this situation is likely to perpetuate itself, especially in the light of a lack of clear/sufficiently meaningful advantages.

Also, wasn't TMAX developer primarily aimed at pro lab users? We're mostly amateurs here. Perhaps Kodak's product marketing was effective in reaching the intended market segment, which has essentially ceased to exist since.

 

[Bill Burk]

Weird. I bought a bottle when it first came out and I don’t even remember using it.

I just looked and the bottle is practically full.

Maybe I will give it a try.

 

[halfaman]

T-Max Dev and T-Max 400 is a killer combination for me, I would have no problem to use it any time. It is a pitty that Kodak B/W films are the most expensive by far in Europe (HP5 9€ Vs TMax 400 14€). Also TMax Dev is sensibly more expensive than HC-110 or XTOL. So I think the issue here is a similar to what happens with Ilford DD-X, very good but too expensive.

Also, wasn't TMAX developer primarily aimed at pro lab users?

No. TMax RS Dev is the one intended for labs (tray and large tank processing). TMax Dev is for amateur/small tank use.

 

[Steven Lee]

When I returned to film 5 years ago, the first developer I adopted was Ilfotec DD-X. I was lured by the promise of "best overall image quality" in Ilford datasheets. I almost abandoned film again because of DD-X. It produced flat and muddy negatives with unpleasant grain with most films I've tried. To unfuck the muddiness I could digitally apply an S-curve to the scans, but it would exaggerate the already unpleasant grain. Before giving up I decided to try ID-11 and I'm so glad I did. What a massive improvement. HP5+ in particular went from looking like garbage to my favorite film status. I've tried numerous other developers since then, eventually transitioning to Xtol, but nothing comes close to the grainy muddiness of DD-X.

Now back to your question: I never tried T-Max because numerous people said it's a similar formula to Ilfotec DD-X.

[EDIT] To be charitable towards DD-X: perhaps this developer works better for optical printing, or perhaps my scanning technique at the time wasn't great, but I find it hard to re-live that experience again, so I'm staying away from anything that resembles DD-X.

 

[ic-racer]

I mention it every time developers are under conversation. I use it for everything since 1984.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[Alan Johnson]

It contains diethanolamine-sulfur dioxide complex as did the discontinued viscous version of HC-110.

 

[Truzi]

Maybe it's one of those rare cases where everyone on this forum agrees about T-MAX, lol.

I've used it a bit, but not enough to really have an opinion about it (or most developers, actually).

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I used it weekly at the newspaper, but only for pushing P3200, and I never found a better pushing developer, except for replenished Ethol UFG. The weeks' standard work I processed in a variety of developers, but the night sports was all about P3200 in T-max developer and a 300mm f/2.8. Those days...

 

[Ian Grant]

It's not Kodak's best developer. I preferred Rodinal or Xtol (replenished) when I used Tmax films. I did try & test it but not for me, it hadn't been introduced when I first tried Tmax100 & 400.

I agree with Kodak's own comparison chart, matches my own tests.

Ian

 

[grain elevator]

I looked at the samples at fotoimport.no, and found them highly unconvincing, very grainy.
BTW rodinal gives fine grain? Isn't it the grainiest of film developers?!

 

[MTGseattle]

Out of the recent batches available, I had 2 bottles because it was a thrid the price of DD-X for the same quantity. (I'm still unsure if that was a pricing goof by Glazers?) We're talking $13 vs $33.
Anyway, shelf-life appears to be pretty bad as my bottle from which I used enough for 2 120 rolls in a patterson tank now looks like coffee. It likely will still bring up an image in the film, but it looks horrible.

I know there are steps I should have taken to prolong shelf life, but I did not. For me, looking forward my requirements for chemistry are a level of decent quality for optical printing and a long shelf life. Cost is a third factor, and all I will say is that it be cheaper than DD-X which is currently aound 33-36 USD per liter.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nearly every developer can be used with TMax. The best sensitometric results with TMax sheet film required TMax-RS developer, distinct from regular TMax developer, and no longer made. But in straight form, undiluted, it could produce the straightest line with TMax; but it was also quite expensive to use. HC-110 B can produce a relatively good straight line; and with D76 you get more of a sag to the curve, with a bit longer or more upswept toe, but still have better shadow gradation than most other films.

Lots of us TMax fans are also pyro addicts, so really don't use conventional developers as much anyway. Pyro works especially well with TMY400. My favorite "pyro" developer is PMK, which is also very economical to use, and has very long shelf life in terms of the separate A&B liquid components. You mix a little of each into your water just before use, typically at a 1:1:100 ratio.

But TMX100, although very fine-grained and capable of great detail, has relatively poor edge acutance. So in its case, I began using Perceptol at 1:3. This higher dilution has a quite different effect from the normal 1:1 dilution, and actually allow just enough grain growth to lend much better edge effect, and therefore a crisper look, yet without any obvious graininess.
I'm going to process another roll of 120 TMX that way this afternoon.

 

[Don_ih]

Maybe it has a bad name. Being called "TMAX Developer" doesn't inspire someone not using Tmax to buy it (and also, like @MattKing said, it's not easy to find around here).

 

[Paul Howell]

When Kodak first started to produce Tmax 400, 100 and 3200 it seemed that Kodak would want to market a developer matched to T gains strengths.

 

[miha]

Which version of Tmax is being discussed here, original or the new "New formula" release?

 

[Kino]

Still have a 750 ml bottle from 2012 unopened and clear. Must have bought some TMax film and used another developer.

 

[laser]

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)

 

[laser]

I should have mentioned that the manufacturing responsibility and formulation has passed through many hands and companies in the last 40 years. I have no idea how the current developer compares to how it was in the early 1980s.

 

[cmacd123]

I wonder if the familiarity bias may have something to do with this. T-max film is "better" in many criteria than the old standbys like TX and HP5, but it has a more critical process requirement, (particlary a tendency t require "more" in the way of fixer.

I know when I revived doing my own film, I selected HC-110 because it was known as stable, and my developing at that time was in Fits and starts. I had heard that one of the Kodak Liquid developes had a tendency to fail quietly. So I only looked at HC-110, although I did stock all the ingredients to make published D76, and used a few batches just to confirm that I "controled" that technolgy as a backup plan.
and I will admit that I associated Tmax developer as being some special concoction solely for the Tmax film. perhaps I should try to get some over the summer, (never try to order Liquids between October and june when you live in the National Capital with the third worse climate in the world)