Which developer does Kodak use to ISO-rate their films? Must be the same one to make their films comparable. I am willing to be it's D76 because what else can this be?
You have zero credibility, NB23. Just more totally uninformed babble. Kodak had no "master developer", whatever on earth that might hypothetically be. Does the same shoe size fit everyone? Just like they had a huge selection of films at one time, they likewise offered various developers depending on the specific application. They owned an entire chemical division. Maybe you should actually read some of their contemporaneous film handbooks. I've spoken in person with certain individuals involved in the testing of Tmax when it first came out, who wrote technical articles for Kodak.
But since you seem to be having some fun outright trolling, which is fine, I just don't want to bother with the annoyance, so you're on my Ignore list for awhile.
| Water (125 deg. F) | 750 | ml | 24 | oz. |
| Metol (or "Elon") | 2 | gm. | 1/2 | teaspoon |
| Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous | 100 | gm. | 4
1 | tablespoons plus teaspoon |
| Hydroquinone | 5 | gm. | 1-1/2 | teaspoons |
| Borax, granular | 2 | gm. | 1/2 | teaspoon |
| Cold water to make | 1 | liter |
T-Max films may very well be designed to be optimal in one developer, while still being excellent in D76.
Particularly if that other developer was itself designed with T-Max films in mind.
Perhaps developers with names that are similar to the film?
The process of designing new films is unlikely to have just one set of target criteria.
Meanwhile, you have not demonstrated any ability to produce a single photo...
Here is a comparison. Choose the qualities you want. None deliver everything. It is a trade off.
View attachment 229309
As I understand it, there is no longer a requirement in the ISO standard that a particular developer be used. I assume that the revision also includes other measures to help maintain the standardization.
markbau - you need to keep in mind the distinction between engineering and marketing. For example, around the same time, they were advertising TechPan as "4X5 quality in 35mm". Besides being total BS, that is exactly the kind of thing one would encounter in magazines like Pop Photography, trying to drum up some popular usage along with a particular specialty developer, despite all of that kind of usage amounting to only a tiny amount of the potential usage of that particular film, along with the numerous respective developers needed for an overall suite of applications. Pictorial photography was only a supplementary side branch.
Similarly, if TMax was going to replace Super-XX, Plus X, and Tri X functionally, like the silver bullet film they anticipated, the usage of multiple developers had to be factored right from the start. All kinds of technical applications were in mind. But when it came to advertising the product to casual users, of course they wanted to make it easy for amateurs, and had the sample prints done by John Sexton using their most commonly available developer, D76. I saw a number of those actual early prints. Doesn't mean he stuck with that same developer himself later on, but that at the time, he was formally contracted to use that particular combination. But totally different developers would have logically been recommended for color separation applications, or astrophotography, or whatever, which were potentially much higher volume applications back then, but that didn't involve the type of people who sat around reading Shutterbug or Pop Photo.
I was never a Pop Photographer or Shutterbug reader but I did subscribe to Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques for many years and I still miss that magazine. The D&CCT article, if I recall correctly, was written by someone at Kodak who was involved in the development of TMax and they quite clearly stated that D-76 was the standard developer used in the testing anddevelopment of the new film. Perhaps someone still has the copy that the article appeared in? Obviously at some stage Kodak would have extensively tested the new film in all sorts of developers.
This isn't the only photo forum I participate in. There are others where it seems NOBODY uses D76 anymore, and probably hasn't for decades. Perhaps a few still do; but it would be like a Model T rally. Serious practitioners have been cooking up their own special brews for a long time. None of the former big commercial labs in this area used 76, and the smaller remaining ones don't. Relatively little chemistry seems to come off photo store shelves, and not much even remains of those retail venues. The alleged importance or dominance of 76 seems to be blown way out of proportion in this thread.
D76 is still WIDELY used. Extra widely.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?