T-max400 with Xtol
Dirk-Jan Gjeltema
Maybe this question has been asked before, sorry if it's so.
Has anybody experience with developing Tmax 400 in Xtol developer, with
dilution 1-1. I did this untill now with Kodak Tri-X at 24 degrees
celsius and than 7 minutes according the paper J107, with very good
result. Now I starting with the Tmax400 in Xtol 1-1 24 degrees and also
7 minutes according the J107. But the negatives are very thin and very
low in contrast (due to under-developing I assume). I had the same
problem with the Tmax3200. Has anybody experienced this problem also,
and maybe has a solution to it?
Jean-David Beyer
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------BE896344A5E0ECE7142578F7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dirk-Jan Gjeltema wrote:
>
> Maybe this question has been asked before, sorry if it's so.
> Has anybody experience with developing Tmax 400 in Xtol developer, with
> dilution 1-1.
Yes.
> I did this untill now with Kodak Tri-X at 24 degrees
> celsius and than 7 minutes according the paper J107, with very good
> result. Now I starting with the Tmax400 in Xtol 1-1 24 degrees and also
> 7 minutes according the J107. But the negatives are very thin and very
> low in contrast (due to under-developing I assume). I had the same
> problem with the Tmax3200. Has anybody experienced this problem also,
> and maybe has a solution to it?
No. No.
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
--------------BE896344A5E0ECE7142578F7
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jean-David Beyer
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Jean-David Beyer
n: Beyer;Jean-David
adr: ;;;Shrewsbury;New Jersey;;United States of America
email;internet: jdb...@exit109.com
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------BE896344A5E0ECE7142578F7--
Tom Reed
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Dirk-Jan Gjeltema wrote:
> Maybe this question has been asked before, sorry if it's so.
> Has anybody experience with developing Tmax 400 in Xtol developer, with
> dilution 1-1. I did this untill now with Kodak Tri-X at 24 degrees
> celsius and than 7 minutes according the paper J107, with very good
> result. Now I starting with the Tmax400 in Xtol 1-1 24 degrees and also
> 7 minutes according the J107. But the negatives are very thin and very
> low in contrast (due to under-developing I assume). I had the same
> problem with the Tmax3200. Has anybody experienced this problem also,
> and maybe has a solution to it?
>
I've not used this particular combination, but...
Check to see if your negatives are underexposed or underdeveloped. If
there is a loss of detail in the shadow areas, then your negatives are
underexposed. I mention this because Tmax films (esp. the 400) don't seem
to have any tolerance for underexposure (you may want to check your meter
as well).
I don't have J-107 in front of me, so I can't comment on the times, but
Tmax 400 _usually_ needs more development than Tri-X (although it's not
likely that Kodak published the wrong time). You may want to double
check.
Good luck!
Tom R. tr...@omicron.csustan.edu
It isn't true that there's a community of light, a bonfire of the world.
Everyone carries his own, his lonely own. -- John Steinbeck
Bill Harris
Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> writes (in toto):
>Yes.
>No. No.
>--
>Jean-David Beyer
>Shrewsbury, New Jersey
Verbose tonight, aren't we? <VBG>
Bill Harris
Dirk-Jan Gjeltema <d...@zeelandnet.nl> writes (in part):
>Maybe this question has been asked before, sorry if it's so.
>Has anybody experience with developing Tmax 400 in Xtol developer, with
>dilution 1-1. I did this untill now with Kodak Tri-X at 24 degrees
>celsius and than 7 minutes according the paper J107, with very good
>result. Now I starting with the Tmax400 in Xtol 1-1 24 degrees and also
>7 minutes according the J107. But the negatives are very thin and very
>low in contrast (due to under-developing I assume). I had the same
>problem with the Tmax3200. Has anybody experienced this problem also,
>and maybe has a solution to it?
Stop by George Smyth's Website (http://www2.ari.net/glsmyth) and look
at "The Massive B&W Film & Developer Chart" there. This contains
development times for many films.
This chart contains this comment about TMax and XTOL:
"I received a message from Mark Houtzager warning against using
Kodak's published times for XTOL (as featured here). He writes: "I
have unluckily tried TMAX 400 20C 6.5min. in pure XTOL. It renders
hardly any picture on the neg base, which has been confirmed by other
Netters." Until Kodak publish revised times I'm hoping someone out
there can clarify the issue. I've received data from Jaap Los who has
had good results using XTOL (1+1) 20C rating TMAX 100 @80ASA and TMAX
400 @250ASA, giving both a dev time of 11mins. It seems that Kodak's
times are on the short side, so if in doubt you might want to
overdevelop by 10-20%. Please let me know if you have any other
recommendations for XTOL, and until further notice be careful with
this one."
It seems that Kodak's published times for Tmax are not always correct.
You might also want to check out Maxim Muir's "Maximum Monochrome"
WebSite, which is devoted to B&W films. There is an article by Bill
Bascom there that discusses TMax problems.
Good luck!
POSTED & EMAILED
Bill Harris
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Images Unlimited
Nature Photography: Scenics, Wildflowers, Butterflies and Astronomy
WebSite: http://www.mindspring.com/~woharris/
eMail: woharris *at* mindspring *dot* com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If replying by via eMail, please remove the "NOSPAM." from my name!
Gdoces
I have experienced the same result. Most of my previsious Tmax and Xtol
experience has involved 120 Tmax 100 with the use of 400ml. of Xtol 1:3 @ 75F
for the Kodak recommended times. I use a Jobo CPA2 processor. This
combination has produced excellent negatives. The other day for the first
time I tried 120 Tmax 400 with the same Xtol dilution at temp. for the Kodak
recommended time and the negatives came out extremely thin. Which, like
others, leads me to suspect that Kodak's published times for Tmax 400 and Xtol
are not correct
GSD
Dana Myers K6JQ
In article <343E91...@zeelandnet.nl>,
d...@zeelandnet.nl wrote:
>
> Maybe this question has been asked before, sorry if it's so.
> Has anybody experience with developing Tmax 400 in Xtol developer, with
> dilution 1-1. I did this untill now with Kodak Tri-X at 24 degrees
> celsius and than 7 minutes according the paper J107, with very good
> result. Now I starting with the Tmax400 in Xtol 1-1 24 degrees and also
> 7 minutes according the J107. But the negatives are very thin and very
> low in contrast (due to under-developing I assume). I had the same
> problem with the Tmax3200. Has anybody experienced this problem also,
> and maybe has a solution to it?
Just an hour ago I processed a roll of TMY 120 in Xtol 1+1 @ 75F,
using the J-107 suggested time of 7 min. The neg looks fine; in
a dichro enlarger that has a condensor, it will be a tad contrasty.
I've been getting fine TMX negs in Xtol 1+1, again using the Kodak
suggested time.
I've heard several reports of thin negs with Xtol, though. Assuming
we all control our temperatures carefully, I can only guess that
variations in agitation may be the difference. I use a small tank,
agitate by spirited inversion 6 times every 30 seconds (about 5 sec
every 30). This is the Kodak suggested procedure for small tanks
and TMax.
How are you agitating?
Dana K6JQ
Da...@Source.Net
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Arved Grass
Gdoces wrote in message <19971011162...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
That's interesting. I tried 120 TMX in Xtol 1:3 in a Peterson tank, and the
negs came out thin. I tried the same film in Xtol 1:1, and got much better
results. I attributed the lack of performance in 1:3 to exhaustion. In
both dilutions, I used Kodak's recommended times for 75F development.
Although I'd classify the results at 1:1 as adequate, I wasn't impressed
with the results. I'm staying with Rodinal 1:50 (using Agfa's
recommendation, 'cept I'm sticking with EI of 100 for now).
Warmest regards,
- Arved
SPECTRUM
This adds more thought to the inconsistancy theory I have about E.K. mixing
Xtol. It seems that some of the developer is very active and other samples are
far less active. I had one batch that E.K. sent me that was virtually inactive.
I couldn't develop Tech Pan with it ! I think they forgot to add the Dimezone or
whatever particular brand they use. The only response that I got from
ProProducts was that the packaging must have been compromised somehow ! And I
offered to send the package for thier inspection but assured them that it wasn't
torn or compromised in any apparent way. I did send them the film but never
recieved a satisfactory answer about the apparent lack of development potential
of the Xtol.
BTW, there has been some talk about the Xtol developer being exhausted at
the higher dilutions. This shouldn't happen within the designed parameters of
the formula. Even in a rotary processor using minimal quantities of developer,
there should be enough development potential that even a small quantity of
developer will develop a roll of film given an extended amount of time or higher
temperature. Like Rodinal, any developer can be diluted and used for development
of continious tone negatives. You just have to allow for the time/temp/dilution
factor. Adams diluted HC110 1:30 from stock for compensating development (pg.
187, The Negative).
However, if a formulated developer such as Xtol depends upon a starter
agent, such as Dimezone, to get the development started and a contrast
developing agent, such as hydroquinone or ascorbic acid, to seperate the tones,
without the Dimezone, or with to little of it, development will not start or
won't start soon enough to allow the secondary agent to pull up the higher
densities and the shadow densities will suffer as well.
My first experience with this was when I made a paper developer similar to
D-72 but without the Elon. I wanted a warm toned image and all of the warm tone
formulas I had seen up till then were hydroquinone-only types. Well I didn't get
any image formation for quite a while ! Makes me wonder how long it took to
develop a print before Elon and the aminophenols were discovered ! Anyway after
about 15 minutes in the developer I gave up and added a pinch of Elon and Viola
! An image developed ! I had almost given up hope !
--
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc.
http://www.spectrumphoto.com SPEC...@spectrumphoto.com
Arved Grass wrote in message <61rr30$7th$1...@viper.america.net>...
RLCaldwell
One of our group, Dana Myers, posted a message saying that Kodak now says that
when using Xtol, there must be at least 100 ml of stock per roll of film.
I recently learned this the hard way when I put two rolls into a 1:2 dilution
and came out with very weak negatives. ( As I remember, I effectively had
about 70 ml per roll.) This was very disconcerting because I thought I had
properly calibrated everything for Xtol.
Also, some users have reported that agitation-wise, Xtol is not for the faint
of heart.
Bob
Dave Weiss
Arved;
You are talking about TMX and not TMY, right? (just looking at the subjuct
line(.
I had a similar experience as you described below with Xtol; 1:3 dilution
at @75 F gave unprintable negatives. I, however, used the bigger Patterson
tank and was also developing a roll of TMX 135 (yes, different emulsion,
but I split the time difference). The 135 came out slightly overdeveloped!
Very weird. Could this be exhaustion?
I also use Rodinal (exclusively for the past few years except for this
little experiment). Could you confirm for me your set-up of TMX with
Rodinal? I have been using it 1:75 @68F for 11:30 (dichro head).
Oh, EI of 64.
Thanks!
Dave
Arved Grass
Dave Weiss wrote in message <623ghb$6...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>...
>
>Arved;
>
>
>You are talking about TMX and not TMY, right? (just looking at the subjuct
>line(.
Yeah, I was. The post I was replying to mentioned both TMX and TMY, and I
replied in context to the part about TMX. I've changed the subject line
(what a concept! :-)
>I had a similar experience as you described below with Xtol; 1:3 dilution
>at @75 F gave unprintable negatives. I, however, used the bigger Patterson
>tank and was also developing a roll of TMX 135 (yes, different emulsion,
>but I split the time difference). The 135 came out slightly overdeveloped!
>Very weird. Could this be exhaustion?
Well, I've never seen overdevelopment being explained by exhaustion.
I tried out TMX in X-tol 1:3 in a Peterson Universal tank, using the
recommendations from Kodak's web page, and 75F development. While I'd like
to say that my underdevelopment seemed to be exhaustion, this tank was
filled with 500ml of diluted developer, which works out to 125ml of stock
solution. That should be plenty from what others have said (100ml per
roll). However, my negs were thin. A fluke?
A second trial was X-tol 1:1 (by this time, I'm not interested in economy, I
want to get rid of this stuff, but I also wanted to give this a fair trial
in light of the comments about exhaustion). Again, I developed using the
Kodak recommendations for 75F development. This gave me negs with
acceptable density (note, I don't have a densitometer, all I can say is how
they print, and they printed normally on Ilford MG IV RC using the "Zone
Zero" method, and grade 2 filtration (Beseler 23C w/ dga colorhead).
>I also use Rodinal (exclusively for the past few years except for this
>little experiment). Could you confirm for me your set-up of TMX with
>Rodinal? I have been using it 1:75 @68F for 11:30 (dichro head).
>Oh, EI of 64.
I'm pretty happy with Agfa's original recommendation (with an EI of 100 -
they've since revised thier data), and use the 1:50 dilution because the
1:25 dilution times are pretty short, even at 68F. I'm in the middle of
detailed zone-system testing per Ansel Adam's "The Negative," appendix 1.
I'm actually interested in finding a higher temperature to develop at, like
75-80F, since here in NE Florida, 68F development means ice water baths
given our ambient temperatures.
For my equipment (Mamiya RB-67, manual Nikons), I can realistically only
come within 1/2 stop of ideal exposure, anyway. Testing to 1/3 stop
accuracy isn't only impracticle, it would be useless as well. Given the
film's latitude, I'm sure it's not necessary.
Sorry I couldn't be of more help, and I didn't mean to come off as being
confrontational, either.
Warmest regards,
- Arved KF4UCQ
Dave Weiss
In a previous article, Arved.~SpamMeNot~@fair.net (Arved Grass) says:
>
>Dave Weiss wrote in message <623ghb$6...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>...
>>
>>Arved;
>>
>>
>>You are talking about TMX and not TMY, right? (just looking at the subjuct
>>line(.
>
>
>Yeah, I was. The post I was replying to mentioned both TMX and TMY, and I
>replied in context to the part about TMX. I've changed the subject line
>(what a concept! :-)
>
>>I had a similar experience as you described below with Xtol; 1:3 dilution
>>at @75 F gave unprintable negatives. I, however, used the bigger Patterson
>>tank and was also developing a roll of TMX 135 (yes, different emulsion,
>>but I split the time difference). The 135 came out slightly overdeveloped!
>>Very weird. Could this be exhaustion?
>
>Well, I've never seen overdevelopment being explained by exhaustion.
Sorry, my wording must of been confusing. When I developed both the 135 TMX
and the 120 TMX together in the same tank at the same time, the 135 roll
came out fine and the 120 roll was grossly underdeveloped. For me at
least, it does not seem possbile that one roll would develop nornally while
the other grossly underdevelop if exhaustion was the problem.
All of this at near recomemnded times and temps from Kodak J-107
(1:3 dilution, 75F, 15:30 min, hence the splitting of reomconnded times of
15 minutes to 15:50 minutes between the 135 and 120). I can't figure it
out unless a 50 sec undervelopment of the TMX 120 leads to unprintable
negatives?
dave
--SAA14428.877039379/kanga.INS.CWRU.Edu--
Dana Myers K6JQ
In article <626h9a$q...@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
dq...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Weiss) wrote:
> Sorry, my wording must of been confusing. When I developed both the 135 TMX
> and the 120 TMX together in the same tank at the same time, the 135 roll
> came out fine and the 120 roll was grossly underdeveloped. For me at
> least, it does not seem possbile that one roll would develop nornally while
> the other grossly underdevelop if exhaustion was the problem.
How did you agitate?
> All of this at near recomemnded times and temps from Kodak J-107
> (1:3 dilution, 75F, 15:30 min, hence the splitting of reomconnded times of
> 15 minutes to 15:50 minutes between the 135 and 120). I can't figure it
> out unless a 50 sec undervelopment of the TMX 120 leads to unprintable
> negatives?
The times given in the dilute chart in J-107 are in decimal minutes -
so 15.50 min means 15m 30s. For TMX in Xtol 1:3 @ 75F, I read 12m 30s
for TMX 135 and 12m 45s for TMX 120. I'm surprised that one roll
was really thin since it sounds like you might have overdeveloped them
both. How did you control the temperature, and how did you agitate?
Bruce Perathaner
G>solution. That should be plenty from what others have said (100ml per
G>roll). However, my negs were thin. A fluke?
Arved, If your negs are thin, they're underexposed not underdeveloped.
-- ========================================================================
Keep Shooting!
Bruce
InterNet: Bruce.Pe...@comp-online.com RIME : ->495
AOL: Bru...@aol.com FidoNet : 1:273/408
===========================================================================
---
ş OLXWin 1.11 ş So...Do vegetarians refuse to eat "animal" crackers?
Dave Weiss
I agitated every 30 seconds for about 7 seconds with fairly brisk
inversions. I alternately use a few rotations in the middle of the
development period as suggested by the Patterson tank (and that little
stirring mechanism that moves the reel without the whole tank being
rotated).
When not agitating, the tank is kept in a water bath in which the
temperature is monitored (via thermometer). Using a second thermmometer, I
checked the temperautre inside of the tanke every 4 minutes or so. The
temperature did not vary by more than 1/2 a degree F.
About the underexposure comment (made by someone else). I used a luna pro f
light meter which has never been a problem (the battery checks out ok).
I will need to double check the meters accuracy.
Since I was using a c330 with different lenses (and shutters) that seems
very unlikely as well.
Ah well, life is full of mysteries!
dmw
Glenn Stewart (Arizona)
Bruce Perathaner wrote:
> G>solution. That should be plenty from what others have said (100ml per
> G>roll). However, my negs were thin. A fluke?
> Arved, If your negs are thin, they're underexposed not underdeveloped.
> Bruce
I haven't experimented with any 35mm film as a comparison, but the other
night I processed some 120 T-Max 100 in Xtol 1:1, along side three other
rolls, processed respectively in: Microdol-X 1:3, Acufine 1:1 and T-Max
(concentrate at 1:4, per the instructions on the bottle). All were
developed per manufacturer's instructions for the satated dilutions and
temperatures.
The four rolls were shot of the same scene, same aperture, same shutter
speed, simply run through the camera to get four rolls to process and
compare.
My goal was to find out whether I could improve on the results I've been
getting with T-Max developer. I'm very fond of the consistency of
development and level of contrast I've been getting with the T-Max -
T-Max combination, but wanted to see whether Xtol would noticibly reduce
grain, as stated in Kodak's tech paper. I also wanted to test some other
standard developers for comparison, and to have a small amount of them
around for another experiment that I will run in a week or two,
involving 'film developers' used for print development. I'll post the
results of that test later. Don't bother to post opinions on what the
outcome will be. I'm going to do it and post the results anyway.
In any case, the T-Max developer roll was used as the 'control', looking
the same as what I've grown used to for density and contrast. The
Acufine roll was pretty close in appearance as far as density (slightly
thinner) and contrast, but had far less grain. The Microdol-X roll was
noticibly less dense (1/2 stop in printing?) and a bit flatter in
contrast, but had less grain than the Acufine roll (almost undetectable
under 20x magnification). My concern with the Microdol was the l-o-n-g
development time for the 1:3 dilution (18.5 minutes). The Xtol roll was
1-2 stops thinner than the T-Max roll. Because of the lack of density, I
won't comment on the contrast because I don't have any way to measure it
without printing it. The grain, however, was undetectable under 20x
magnification.
I will test another roll exposed the same way, but developed longer to
see if Xtol will produce the density and contrast I want without the
grain increasing. If it will, I'll change to Xtol.
I wrote all this, really, to say that I, also, had noticed a lack of
density (underdevelopment?) with Xtol and 120 T-Max film, indicating
that Kodak's claims for this developer may be a bit overstated with
regard to 'increased film speed', at least when using their recommended
development times. I also thought there might be some interest in the
experimentation.
Best regards
Stew
---
Manual cameras, Luna-Pro's and stick shifts.
Please send e-mail responses to the following address ONLY:
gste...@inficad.com E-mail responses to my Intel address will be
cheerfully ignored (Intel policy).
The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of Intel Corporation.
Dana Myers K6JQ
In article <345104...@inficad.com>,
gste...@inficad.com wrote:
> I wrote all this, really, to say that I, also, had noticed a lack of
> density (underdevelopment?) with Xtol and 120 T-Max film, indicating
> that Kodak's claims for this developer may be a bit overstated with
> regard to 'increased film speed', at least when using their recommended
> development times.
Film speed isn't determined as much by the highlight density as
by the shadow density, which doesn't normally change very much
over a range of development. Extended development time primarily
increases the highlight density, which in turn increases the
contrast of the neg.
The suggested times for TMX 135 have worked very well for me,
with a measured film speed using .1 over FB+F of EI 100, though
it did seem the FB+F density was lower than I expected. If you
compare the density of the edges or inter-image gaps between
the different negs, can you spot a difference?
The times for TMX 120 do seem to give thinner negs, though
they print nicely and I haven't had the chance to do a
densitometer test yet.
ajo...@waonline.com
I've tried Xtol, various dilutions, with Tmax 100 (35mm) and found
the film significantly underdeveloped. The edge printing and leader fog
was significantly less dense than with the same film developed in Tmax
developer.
My results with Tech Pan were even worse: unusable negatives, a very
light grey.
There is apparently some minimum amount of stock solution required per
roll, according to some people at Kodak I spoke to. But I don't have any
specific info yet. In any event, the instruction sheet one can download
from Kodak's web site doesn't discuss this.
Dana Myers K6JQ
In article <3452C7...@waonline.com>,
ajo...@waonline.com wrote:
>
> I've tried Xtol, various dilutions, with Tmax 100 (35mm) and found
> the film significantly underdeveloped. The edge printing and leader fog
> was significantly less dense than with the same film developed in Tmax
> developer.
Comparing the H+D curves from Kodak F-32 (in TMax and D-76) to
the H+D curves for TMX in Xtol, it clear that, for comparable
contrast index values, Xtol generally yields a neg of lower maximum
density, but the shape of the Xtol curves are very similar to
the D-76 curves.
Developing time is determined by the desired negative contrast, not
the absolute density, and it appears that Xtol will generally yield
negs of overall lower density with the same contrast as negs in D-76
and TMax developer.
Empirically, I haven't had a problem with flat negs using the Kodak
suggested times. I don't use a pre-soak, I use a water bath to control
developer temperature and I agitate by vigorous inversion as described
in J-107. In fact, I get negs suitable for a diffusion enlarger, which
is to say they're more contrasty than desired for a condensor enlarger.
The one densitometer test I've run of TMX 135 indicated a real speed
of EI 100.
> My results with Tech Pan were even worse: unusable negatives, a very
> light grey.
Yup, TP in Xtol doesn't appear to be a terribly interesting
combination.
> There is apparently some minimum amount of stock solution required per
> roll, according to some people at Kodak I spoke to. But I don't have any
> specific info yet. In any event, the instruction sheet one can download
> from Kodak's web site doesn't discuss this.
I called 1-800-242-2424 ext. 19 and asked about this; I was told that
J-107 is being updated to require a minimum of 100ml of stock Xtol
per 80 in^2 in any dilution. I haven't look at the online J-107
yet but I've read here on the net that the fax-back J-107 does
include this information.
I *have* read reports of "thin" negs in Xtol, but I'm not sure if the
reports were "contrast is too low" or "overall density is lower".