Taming Tmax 100

Frank, P! Still out there? Remember my loathing of Tmax, in particular
Tmax 100 (TMX 4052)? Since I was so strident, I think it is fair to follow
up after more work. I had some better luck with it today under the
circumstances under which it disappointed me before - bright, clear,
cloudless day 1pm CST.

I'm working with high Rodinal dilutions to maintain even development and
controlable under-development. 1:200 was too weak (printable on #4 only),
but still very encouraging. 1:150 is next - tomorrow if the sun still
shines on us Midwesterners!

So maybe, just maybe I'll owe you one. Maybe.

In article ,
(one_of_many) wrote:

Frank, P! Still out there?

(Silly me. New computer, new name.)
This is the old JJS.
Will fix name in a moment.

"one_of_many" wrote in message
news

Frank, P! Still out there? Remember my loathing of Tmax,
in particular
Tmax 100 (TMX 4052)? Since I was so strident, I think it
is fair to follow
up after more work. I had some better luck with it today
under the
circumstances under which it disappointed me before -
bright, clear,
cloudless day 1pm CST.

I'm working with high Rodinal dilutions to maintain even
development and
controlable under-development. 1:200 was too weak
(printable on #4 only),
but still very encouraging. 1:150 is next - tomorrow if
the sun still
shines on us Midwesterners!

So maybe, just maybe I'll owe you one. Maybe.


I think you will get much better results by abandoning
the Rodinal. Try D-76 1:1 or Xtol 1:1 and be careful of
time, temperature, and agitation. Try about 75% of the time
indicated in the Kodak charts. This will reduce negative
contrast about one paper grade. You may have to increase
exposure by half to 3/4 stop. Since Xtol produces some
increase in film speed it shuld deliver about the ISO speed
with the reduced development time.
T-Max changes contrast faster with development than
conventional films. A change of 20% to 25% will make as much
change as a 30% to 33% change for a conventional film like
Plus-X or FP-4. Of course, its also more sensitive to
temperature and agitation.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

In article .net,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote:

"one_of_many" wrote in message
news [snip]
I think you will get much better results by abandoning
the Rodinal. Try D-76 1:1 or Xtol 1:1 and be careful of
time, temperature, and agitation. Try about 75% of the time
indicated in the Kodak charts. This will reduce negative
contrast about one paper grade. You may have to increase
exposure by half to 3/4 stop. Since Xtol produces some
increase in film speed it shuld deliver about the ISO speed
with the reduced development time.
T-Max changes contrast faster with development than
conventional films. A change of 20% to 25% will make as much
change as a 30% to 33% change for a conventional film like
Plus-X or FP-4. Of course, its also more sensitive to
temperature and agitation.

With all due respect, Richard, I am pursuing my goal of having no
developing irregularities caused by short developing times along full
control of contrast, and to that end I'm continuing the experiments with
stand processing.

A long development time with an active developer such as Rodinal is not a
shortcoming for me when considered in light of the critically considered
outcomes of shorter development times. If one returns from an ardous hike
of days or longer, what's an hour for developing any number of films that
can fit in the tank? I've had this project in the back of mind since I
did time-critial photography/development/printing work for a living. Those
harried days are behind me.

I've looked at the laboratory developing techniques such as
spray-development that attempt to make even development. That should ring
some bells with the old timers and industry folks. I don't have such
equipment. I'll continue with this experiment for another year, should I
live so long.

Regardless of my comments, I always truly appreciate your comments
Richard, and if this experiment comes to nothing, I will come back with an
admission, but so far with the MF work I do (with Agfa MF film) it looks
like I'm onto something that works very wel for N-minus development.

Very Best,
JJS

one_of_many wrote:
: In article ,
: (one_of_many) wrote:

: Frank, P! Still out there?

: (Silly me. New computer, new name.)
: This is the old JJS.
: Will fix name in a moment.

I'm still here. I've been out of town and busy for the last few weeks is all.

I didn't recognize the name in you first post and am pleasantly shocked. I
figured that I would never live to read you typing anything good about Tmax
films. :-) I do have to admit that the reaction that you and others have toward
it had me wondering about the results I was getting.

I'm glad that you've had some good results with it and hope that you keep getting
good results from it. I would like to suggest that if you may want to consider
developing it with the Tmax developers. ( I prefer Tmax over Tmax-rs but Kodak
strongly discourages using Tmax with sheet film. ) As Richard Knoppow ( I don't
know how one person can possibly know so much) pointed out the Tmax films work
better with less active developers because they respond so increase contrast
so quickly with increased development. I like to use the Tmax developers diluted
1:9 at 75 degrees. The use of dilute developers is one of a couple of areas that
I agree with scarpitti completely. The development time testing I did agreed with
Kodak completely. (I got scared the first time and repeated the test) The change
in time for N+1 and N-1 was 15% and N+2 and N-2 is 50%!!

The bottom line is that the T grain films are a new technology of film and the
"old" ways of developing film don't apply anymore. I'm fully convinced that the
reason so many people have had bad results with it is the result of them developing
it as if it were a "conventional" B&W film. It's not and in order but on the positive
side Kodak listened to us "zonies" and gave us a film that responds well to zone
system controls

BTW - Over the last few months I've been looking at Ilford's Delta-100 developed
in Ilfotek DD-X. Although I haven't done enough testing to completely dial in the
times for increasing and decreasing the contrast of the negative correctly(read
predictably and repeatably) it's a fine film.

Also as soon as summer starts in the midwest I'm going to be looking into a developer
I got last december from photographers formulary. It's designed to work with Tmax
films when used in very high contrast situations. Kind of like here in the Chicago
area were we have as much as ten stops between the shadows and the sky during the
summer. As I've tried to explain to many people in the Chicago area the sky is white
during the summer not blue. :-)

PS - In your initial post of this thread you mentioned that you're located in the
midwest. I'd like to bring to your attention a photography group that allows me to
be a member of known as the midwestlf asylum. You can learn more about us at:
www.midwestlargeformat.com. Although most of our members are into LF it's not a
requirement. In fact it may be the only group in existence with no known rules! :-)

If you're interested I'd like to go out on a "photo outing" with you. I promise
that I'm much nicer in person then I am online. :-)


--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

one_of_many wrote:

: Frank, P! Still out there? Remember my loathing of Tmax, in particular
: Tmax 100 (TMX 4052)? Since I was so strident, I think it is fair to follow
: up after more work. I had some better luck with it today under the
: circumstances under which it disappointed me before - bright, clear,
: cloudless day 1pm CST.

: I'm working with high Rodinal dilutions to maintain even development and
: controlable under-development. 1:200 was too weak (printable on #4 only),
: but still very encouraging. 1:150 is next - tomorrow if the sun still
: shines on us Midwesterners!

: So maybe, just maybe I'll owe you one. Maybe.

If it turns out that you owe me one you can repay me by coming out with a
photography group that I'm a memeber of here in the midwest. We're the
midwestlf asylum and you can find out more about us at: midwestlargeformat.com.

Although most of the members are in the Chicago area. We are an international
group and have active members in Michigan, Indiana, Iliinois and Wisconson. We
hold monthly "photo outings" and have no known rules. :-)

I hope that all goes well with your testing look forward to meeting with you on
one of our outings. :-)


--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

In article , Frank Pittel
wrote:

one_of_many wrote:
: In article ,
: (one_of_many) wrote:

: Frank, P! Still out there?

[... snip good tech ...]
PS - In your initial post of this thread you mentioned that you're
located in the
midwest. I'd like to bring to your attention a photography group that
allows me to
be a member of known as the midwestlf asylum. You can learn more about us at:
www.midwestlargeformat.com. Although most of our members are into LF
it's not a
requirement. In fact it may be the only group in existence with no known
rules! :-)

If you're interested I'd like to go out on a "photo outing" with you. I
promise
that I'm much nicer in person then I am online. :-)

I live in SE Minnesota by the Mississippi River. We have some terrific
river valley scenery. You should visit sometime. Unfortunately, I will be
very busy with the day job soon; must make a living in that digital
paradigm.

"one_of_many" wrote in message
news
In article
.net,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote:

"one_of_many" wrote in message

news
[snip]
I think you will get much better results by
abandoning
the Rodinal. Try D-76 1:1 or Xtol 1:1 and be careful of
time, temperature, and agitation. Try about 75% of the
time
indicated in the Kodak charts. This will reduce negative
contrast about one paper grade. You may have to increase
exposure by half to 3/4 stop. Since Xtol produces some
increase in film speed it shuld deliver about the ISO
speed
with the reduced development time.
T-Max changes contrast faster with development than
conventional films. A change of 20% to 25% will make as
much
change as a 30% to 33% change for a conventional film
like
Plus-X or FP-4. Of course, its also more sensitive to
temperature and agitation.

With all due respect, Richard, I am pursuing my goal of
having no
developing irregularities caused by short developing times
along full
control of contrast, and to that end I'm continuing the
experiments with
stand processing.

A long development time with an active developer such as
Rodinal is not a
shortcoming for me when considered in light of the
critically considered
outcomes of shorter development times. If one returns from
an ardous hike
of days or longer, what's an hour for developing any
number of films that
can fit in the tank? I've had this project in the back of
mind since I
did time-critial photography/development/printing work for
a living. Those
harried days are behind me.

I've looked at the laboratory developing techniques such
as
spray-development that attempt to make even development.
That should ring
some bells with the old timers and industry folks. I don't
have such
equipment. I'll continue with this experiment for another
year, should I
live so long.

Regardless of my comments, I always truly appreciate your
comments
Richard, and if this experiment comes to nothing, I will
come back with an
admission, but so far with the MF work I do (with Agfa MF
film) it looks
like I'm onto something that works very wel for N-minus
development.

Very Best,
JJS

Stand or stagnant development is a poor technique for
uniformity. It is a very old idea to get exagerated edge
effects and compensation from local exaustion. It tends to
produce blotches.
Development time with standard developers like D-76 1:1
are on the order of 8 to 12 minutes at 68F. This is plenty
long enough to avoid irregular development. If you want even
longer times lower the temperature.
Spray development is used mainly in automatic machines
for motion picture development. Another old technique, used
for sensitometric purposes, is brush development. This is
suitable for small sections of film and is just what it
sounds like. The film is placed in a tray and brushed back
and forth with a soft brush.
I don't think you can avoid having to have some rigor in
processing, it sort of comes with the territory.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

In article . net,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote:

Stand or stagnant development is a poor technique for
uniformity. It is a very old idea to get exagerated edge
effects and compensation from local exaustion. It tends to
produce blotches.

To settle this matter we need a side-by-side comparision of my 'stand'
development against those that fail to work. Mine does work, Richard. I
get no blotches or uneven development. Perhaps stand or stagnant
development is not exactly what I'm doing. I agitate perhaps seven times,
but over a 50 minute period, so I guess it's not quite the same, but some
will argue it is close enough. And I'm using it with very thin films, Tmax
100 4x5 and 6x6cm Agfa 100. (I have nailed the Agfa 100 down and get
_great_ results.) I can understand how so-called edge effects and
blotching could be more likely in earlier, more silver-laden films.

In any event, the testing continues. Today I'm trying TXT 4164 which
might, just might produce the blotching you mention. It is defrosting the
film as I type this and I should have results to show later this week.

john*at*stafford.net (one_of_many) wrote in message
...
In article
. net,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote:

Stand or stagnant development is a poor technique
for
uniformity. It is a very old idea to get exagerated edge
effects and compensation from local exaustion. It tends
to
produce blotches.

To settle this matter we need a side-by-side comparision
of my 'stand'
development against those that fail to work. Mine does
work, Richard. I
get no blotches or uneven development. Perhaps stand or
stagnant
development is not exactly what I'm doing. I agitate
perhaps seven times,
but over a 50 minute period, so I guess it's not quite the
same, but some
will argue it is close enough. And I'm using it with very
thin films, Tmax
100 4x5 and 6x6cm Agfa 100. (I have nailed the Agfa 100
down and get
_great_ results.) I can understand how so-called edge
effects and
blotching could be more likely in earlier, more
silver-laden films.

In any event, the testing continues. Today I'm trying TXT
4164 which
might, just might produce the blotching you mention. It is
defrosting the
film as I type this and I should have results to show
later this week.

The stand development I am talking about was popular in
the 1930's. The idea was to use extremely dilute developer
and let the film lie in it for many hours. Without agitation
the only way reaction products can get out of the emulsion
or fresh developer get in is by diffusion. Since the
diffusing products form a sort of clound around the film the
process is much slower than when the film is agitated.
William Mortensen was one of those who promoted this
procedure.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA