Why isn't TMAX developer more popular?

Lee L said:

Kodak's take on it:

http://www.kodak.com/global/images/...ts/chemistry/bwFilmProcessing/f002_0072hc.gif

Click to expand...

Thanks, Lee! Nothing like doing your homework... I have seen that chart in the past, but it must have gotten lost as I repeatedly defragment my brain. Perhaps I should change operating system?

That chart also mirrors my own findings using Tmax films, in the end I settled on replenished Xtol once it was released particularly for Tmax 400, but I also used Rodinal with Tmax 100.

Ian

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Does the TMax developer really give better film speed (shadow detail) than Xtol?

Click to expand...

In my experience, it does with Tmax 3200. It also gives nicer tonality with that film, though Xtol has finer grain. Tmax developer works fine for Tri-X and Tmax 400 too, but I prefer D-76 1+1 for both films.

The chart is good for helping you decide which Kodak developer is best for you, your films, and way of working. However, the difference between them is quite small. I am one who embraces grain, or at least am not afraid of it being a problem in my work. The differences are small in the finished prints and while it maybe possible with larger enlargements, to see these differences. For the size of prints I create, the difference is irrelevant. All the developers are there for us to use as we see fit, and there are trade offs in all of them. Kodak has done a good job of giving us the film, and developer selections we currently have even if their marketing is not always on the money. YMMV.

Michael R 1974 said:

I always thought the differences must be smaller than implied. Otherwise why would anyone use anything other than XTOL? Kodak would have you believe it does everything better than anything else. So aside from special applications (like people who might want exagerrated grain for a certain image), why doesn't everyone use XTOL for everything? Finer grain, sharper, full film speed, all at once.

Click to expand...

What the chart I linked to doesn't show is the changes in characteristic film curves with changes in developers. So, for instance, when Andrew Moxon likes the tonality of TMax developer better, and there is no practical difference in other characteristics (grain, acutance, film speed) at the print size he prefers, then he choses TMax over Xtol for his preferred tonal curve.

The curves from Kodak for TMY2 in D-76 straight at 68F and TMY2 in TMax developer at 75F are overlaid in the attached image. The darker lines are TMax developer.

Well, Xtol is a damned good compromise. It does most things really well, and very little wrong.

But as Andrew says, pick one that suits your purposes and use it.

There are differences, and they may become more pronounced depending on how you vary your film developing technique. Some developers respond better to reduced or increased agitation than others, and this helps you shape the film curve, which in turn has an impact on your final results.
And, when you print big, the differences become more pronounced.

The differences also become more pronounced if you're push processing film.

Ian

A question about the recommendation by Kodak to not use Tmax Dev with sheet films. Are certain sheet film processing methods more or less likely to result in this effect?

Is it a consistent problem or random?

What is it about RS that prevents it, chemical or that fact that it is a slightly depleted system?

If the latter, would replenishing Tmax Dev as noted above make it possible to set up my workflow such that I develop roll films first, "replenish" then develop the sheet films? If it makes a difference, I hand roll a Jobo processing drum for sheet film.

Hmmm, that's more than one question.....

DB

Another question: Does the recommendation against using standard Kodak T-Max developer for sheet film also apply to rotary processed sheet film (Jobo ATL-2300 in my case)?

Tom

The issues of Dichroic fogging are likely to be worse with Rotary processing as aerial oxidation will increase the chances of it occurring. The problems arose with Tmax at the time of it's introduction, the emulsions have changed so it's perhaps worth trying.

Ian

BetterSense said:

It seems like nobody uses the stuff, at least based on internet traffic.

Kodak's documents indicate that it gives the best film speed out of all the Kodak developers, but it seems like most people that want to push film use Rodinal or Xtol. Why would they give up shadow speed, if TMAX developer is better?

What is TMAX developer good for? Is it only good with TMAX films? Even so, the recent "what developer for TMYII" thread, most people recommend developers besides TMAX developer.

Click to expand...

I personally think a lot of it is down to people who use it are pretty happy with it, but because it's not a very 'trendy' developer and a bit 'mainstream' (for want of better words) they choose not to rave about it.

I've been using it recently on T-Max 100 & 400 and I'm very pleased with the results, but then again I dont view and analyse grain structure through a 20x loupe!

Just my thoughts...

Bill C: Do you think every photographer reads the pdf file of information?

I don't believe so. Flickr is obviously a better source of reliable data than EKC.
Way back in the day, I studied the data, and tried to understand it, because I was totally ignorant and out of my depth.

Not that it helped much, I guess.

Ian Grant said:

The issues of Dichroic fogging are likely to be worse with Rotary processing as aerial oxidation will increase the chances of it occurring. The problems arose with Tmax at the time of it's introduction, the emulsions have changed so it's perhaps worth trying.

Ian

Click to expand...

I remember the great 8x10 negs I got from TMY and TMAX c 1990. Fantastic !

And I also remember scrubbing the dichro fog away, sometimes. I tray developed, BTW. It is ABSOLUTELY time to try it again !

d

I have never had great luck personally with the T-Max lineup processed in D-76 so maybe I should give them a try and process in the TMAX developer....

I will say that TMY-II rated @ 320 in TMAX dev 1:4 is also VERY nice.... 7 mins @ 68 deg F replenished is the ticket for me for negs that print well on VC or graded paper at around G2 or G3

"The issues of Dichroic fogging are likely to be worse with Rotary processing as aerial oxidation will increase the chances of it occurring. The problems arose with Tmax at the time of it's introduction, the emulsions have changed so it's perhaps worth trying."

I agree with Ian on the "worth trying" part; in fact, I have never used the RS version for T-Max sheet films. At first, this was out of sheer stupidity: I didn't note the warning on the bottle label of regular T-Max. ( After a few years, I finally did note the warning, but, by then, I had no reason to change to the RS version.) Over several decades I've never had any sign of dichroic fogging, and almost all my sheet film processing is in done in a Chromega drum.

Sorry a major computer problem recently kept me from joining this discussion (public flogging for computer hackers, anyone?). I've used T-Max Developer since its introduction. Based on Sexton's testing around the late 1980's(??), I use a 1:7 dilution for both T-100 and T-400. If I regularly had to process large amounts of film, I might consider a more economical alternative to T-Max, but the concentrate keeps well and is highly satisfactory for my intermittent use. It may be unpopular with some users, but not with me.

Konical