Help me develop TmaxP3200

M

marke

Well-known
Local time
12:48 PM
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
1,099
Location
Wisconsin, USA
View My Gallery
I'm trying to learn how this film works, and I've shot 2 rolls at 1250 EI and one at 1600. I have both D-76 developer which I've familar with, as I use it for Tri-X and Arista Premium 400. I've heard some people actually have some good results with this combination. But I also picked up a bottle of Tmax developer.

Sooo...can anyone offer advice on:

1- Which developer to use?

2- What time/temp/agitation?

3- Should the 1250 EI and 1600 EI have different developing times?
 
1- Tmax gives more shadow detail, D-76 probably more sharpness. I have used Xtol, which is pretty close to D-76 and I like it. I would probably use that Tmax-Dev for even higher EI's.

2- Just check massive dev chart or manufacturers recommendation. No one can tell you the correct method, but of course a starting point is nice to have.

The more you dilute, the more shadow detail and acutance you will generally have. Finer grain comes with less dilution.

3- Probably, but depends a lot on how carefully you have measured light and exposed the negatives. If you have been street shooting without too careful measuring, I wouldn't stress much.
 
I usually shoot tmz at 3200. For my use I dont like xtol or rodinal for this film at that speed, it softens things up too much, same with diafine. Ive found that ilford ddx really adds alot of punch to this stock and I like it alot. I would bet that hc110 would do something similar. I usually run it for 11 or 12 minutes in ddx.
 
MCTuomey said:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68040

scroll down a ways in the post to the pic of the bookseller. just below it, chris gives his approach. judging from his results, i think it's worth trying.
Click to expand...

😀

Tmax Developer 1+4, 75 degrees (24C), 8 minutes, EI 1600. Agitate first 30 seconds, then 4 inversions every minute.

I prefer it at EI 1600 rather than 3200 because the shadow detail is a lot better (the longer dev. time for 3200 doesn't add much shadow detail, just contrast). The contrast isn't too high and the grain is acceptable. You'll get finer grain in Xtol, but I prefer the tonality in Tmax Developer.

christine5.jpg


christine7.jpg


rodeo2007-3.jpg
 
I have to add that with Xtol, the dilution is very important. Stock will give fine grain and lose film speed, where 1+2 or even 1+3 will give a lot more shadow detail, but also grain will be more obvious. I think TMZ @ 3200 with 1+3 Xtol was quite grainy. Not bad if it suits the subjects and your taste though 😉.

Tmax will still give the most shadow detail.

I dont know how much the dilution changes the properties of Tmax-Dev... Might be it doesnt affect so much?
 
Thanks, guys!

And especially thank you, Chris. I had found your post earlier, while waiting for replies in this thread. I really love the pictures you've posted here. The first one is my favorite. Have you printed any of these?

Okay, I think I'll mix up some Tmax and run one roll through tonight to see how it goes. Yesterday, the group home where my mother-in-law lives had a New Years Day party. That's about the only kind of party I really wanted to go to, and it was a good time. I specifically wanted to go because there was going to be an accordian player there. Hopefully, something turned out. Get ready for some polka! 😀
eusa_dance.gif
 
I shoot P3200 @ 1250-1600.

Tmax developer is excellent. Good shadow detail

Xtol will give you a little finer grain than TMAX dev., but it is a grainy stock.

Diafine @ 1250. Very nice and quite good grain. Being a 2 bath developer Diafine gives you very smooth highlights, so you can expose a little more for the shadows.

I really like the gritty look of P3200. It's quite beautiful and unique.
If you want something with finer grain and much smoother tonality use Delta3200 @ 1600. Delta3200 about a stop faster than P3200 (1000-1200asa vs 800-1000asa)
 
Last edited:
marke said:
Thanks, guys!

And especially thank you, Chris. I had found your post earlier, while waiting for replies in this thread. I really love the pictures you've posted here. The first one is my favorite. Have you printed any of these?

Okay, I think I'll mix up some Tmax and run one roll through tonight to see how it goes. Yesterday, the group home where my mother-in-law lives had a New Years Day party. That's about the only kind of party I really wanted to go to, and it was a good time. I specifically wanted to go because there was going to be an accordian player there. Hopefully, something turned out. Get ready for some polka! 😀
eusa_dance.gif
Click to expand...

No problem, I think you'll like what you get. I've printed all of them on my Epson 2200. I stopped doing wet printing several years ago because of chemical allergies. These print beautifully on the Epson. I'm using a Nikon 8000ED with glass carrier to scan.

The Developing time I use is Kodak's time for EI 1600. They list times of 7.5 minutes for EI 800 and 8 minutes for EI 1600. Your 1250 shot's I'd just develop at the 1600 time. One of my camera bodies has a meter that consistantly overexposes 1/3 stop, effectively giving EI 1250 with this film and the meter set to 1600 and the results are fine with just a little more neg density than I get with my other, more accurate, body.
 
Tmax p3200. Two rolls. Expired ages ago. E.I.=1600. Xtol 1:3. 68F. 19 minutes. Time from Kodak chart for p3200 and Xtol 1:3. Continuous agitation. Grain doesn't look any more noticeable than a lot of my Tri-X negatives developed in D-76 1:1.
 
Last edited:
HC-110 is essentially D-76.

I've developed my TMZ in D-76 and thought it was nice.

I certainly would never try it in Rodinal!

If I had Tmax dev I would probably try that... even though I've never used it... call me irresponsible! (Kodak developed Tmax dev for Tmax films... and they tend to make good stuff for b&w)

🙂
 
I've actually done Tmax 3200 in Rodinal! It was years ago, when I was in high school, and it actually looked really nice. It was grainier than with Tmax Developer but not too grainy (the sharpness was NICE) and the tonality was beautiful. I don't have any of them scanned though. Maybe I'll try to dig one out and scan it
 
I'd say TMZ is much much nicer looking at least to my eye (and a couple friends say that too), than Delta 3200. The 'real' ASA speed is not that much different, so I would prefer TMZ in any case.

Developed in same stuff, for example a dev that gives good film speed, the 'real' ASA speeds are probably 1000 and 1200, which is nothing like a stop. Even 800 to 1200 is more like half a stop than a whole.
 
Okay, so I tried one roll last night and I'm pretty happy with the way it turned out. I used the Tri-X developer at 1+4. Because my temperature of the developer was lower than Chris's, I opted for 9 minutes instead of 8. Otherwise, everything else was the same. I had forgot to mention that this film expired in 2007, but as far as I know it's been kept cold.

I also looked at the Kodak website chart, and was confused. To me it seems they list this film twice, giving it two different developement ranges. Is this stuff T-MAX P3200 Professional, or is it PROFESSIONAL T-MAX P3200? What's the difference?

Okay, here's a few shots from the first roll. I'm open to any suggestions. All taken with my 50/1.4 Summilux pre-asph.

original.jpg



original.jpg


original.jpg
 
A few years ago Kodak built a new factory to make black and white films, with all new coating equipment. The developing times changed for most of the films as a result of changes in the way they were made. The two names you see in the chart refer to the old and new versions of the film. My developing times are for the new one...I didn't think any of the old would still be around.

Your photos look great, so it looks like the time you chose was fine.
 
Thanks for the info, Chris. Since it's expiration date is 2007, I'm going to assume it's the new version. I'll stick with this time/temp for the other two rolls.

This film should be a lot of fun in the right situations. Man, film grain done right is SO much better than digital noise!
 
Chris, I think I have it. Is this the one you're talking about?
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/edbwf/edbwf.pdf

Svitantti, I have seen those notes, but up until now I haven't quite seen a need for them. But now I understand. Thanks!

Okay, here's a few more from that day. These were taken at the retirement home where my mother-in-law now lives. I have to tell you guys, that these are the kind of pictures that really get me cranked up about photography - capturing the emotion and interaction between people. After all, isn't that what life is all about?!

The first two are of her talking with a friend. It's always hard to get a good shot of her. Even though she's old, she is quick with her eye, and often see the camera before I can get a good candid shot.

original.jpg


original.jpg



The third one is of a caregiver that works at the home, dancing with a wheelchair-bound resident.

original.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Questions on using powder developers and replenishers
Replies
15
Views
1K
Freakscene
Freakscene
T
Proper film Chemistry for PET based films-from a Lab-Box with D96 user
Replies
7
Views
667
agentlossing
agentlossing
brothernature
Replenishing Fixer and mixing Xtol
Replies
4
Views
797
Freakscene
Freakscene
P
FOMA Foma Citro stop bath
Replies
5
Views
548
Muggins
Muggins
T
Developing for shadow detail
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
titrisol
titrisol
Back
Top Bottom