traveler_101
American abroad
I finally got around to mixing my 5 litters of XTOL. Nice results with Fomapan 200 and pushed Tri-X, but when I tried it yesterday with T-MAX 100 the negatives were rather thin. It is not the developer because I used it again today 1+1 for Kentmere 400 and the negatives look fine.
I don't think I underexposed the film; it was shot at box speed. Is it an issue with T-Max? Perhaps it is due to the fact that i developed two rolls in my tank at 1+1 so that would be 145 ml of developer per roll, whereas all the other rolls were developed one at a time with more developer.
Any thoughts?
I don't think I underexposed the film; it was shot at box speed. Is it an issue with T-Max? Perhaps it is due to the fact that i developed two rolls in my tank at 1+1 so that would be 145 ml of developer per roll, whereas all the other rolls were developed one at a time with more developer.
Any thoughts?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Xtol is officially specified as five rolls per litre stock without compensation. So you'd need about 400ml volume per roll if you use it 1:1. A two roll Jobo tank only contains 520ml, so you'd be underdeveloping there unless you use almost the full volume for only one roll. A T-crystal film would need the minimum volume more urgently than cubic crystal formulas - for some complex reason related to the greater crystal surface these deplete more developer.
DKimg
Established
I don't think you've used enough XTOL to properly develop your one roll of film, 1+1. The other way around was at least adjusting the developing time accordingly with 145ml of XTOL. If anything, I would imagine that's more likely a 1+3 ratio?
I've been using the 5L Xtol for the past 6 months with Tmax100 being one type of film I use the most, and I haven't had any issues...
This was just done about a week and half ago with sheet film. I need to check my notes but this may be either 1+3 or 1+1. Usually I develop at 1+3, but with sheet film, I usually develop 12 sheets at a time... so I'll jump the ratio to 1+1.
I've been using the 5L Xtol for the past 6 months with Tmax100 being one type of film I use the most, and I haven't had any issues...
This was just done about a week and half ago with sheet film. I need to check my notes but this may be either 1+3 or 1+1. Usually I develop at 1+3, but with sheet film, I usually develop 12 sheets at a time... so I'll jump the ratio to 1+1.
traveler_101
American abroad
Ok, thanks, live and learn. I was developing 1+1 and my tank takes 580 ml. I thought I had read that it was ok so long as you had 145ml of stock per film--which I had . . . just.
The other rolls were developed individually in 200ml of stock -- 400ml total.
The other rolls were developed individually in 200ml of stock -- 400ml total.
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
Have you had a chance to scan the negatives , or possibly print a few to see
the final output ? Peter
the final output ? Peter
traveler_101
American abroad
One of the disadvantages of Kodak film, as we all know, is that is curls like mad. Mine has to sit for some time between the pages of a book under heavy pressure before I can get it into the flat bed scanner, so no I haven't managed to scan it yet.
The negatives are subdued, the lettering and numbering not as clear and bold as they should be; I hope that they might be "usable," but it certainly isn't the sort of negatives one looks for. Will say more, possible post a sample, in a couple of weeks.
V
varjag
Guest
Is it possible you made a mistake, e.g. took the time for 24C but deloped at 20? Happens to the best of us.
I really doubt it has anything to do with amount of solution.
I really doubt it has anything to do with amount of solution.
bigeye
Well-known
I don't think you've used enough XTOL to properly develop your one roll of film, 1+1. The other way around was at least adjusting the developing time accordingly with 145ml of XTOL. If anything, I would imagine that's more likely a 1+3 ratio?
I've been using the 5L Xtol for the past 6 months with Tmax100 being one type of film I use the most, and I haven't had any issues...
This was just done about a week and half ago with sheet film. I need to check my notes but this may be either 1+3 or 1+1. Usually I develop at 1+3, but with sheet film, I usually develop 12 sheets at a time... so I'll jump the ratio to 1+1.
"Wow!" On many counts.
To OP: Here's the 'original' datasheet that includes 1:3, which comes in handy: http://wwwes.kodak.com/ES/plugins/acrobat/es/professional/productos/Xtol-ing.pdf
Mark C
Well-known
Just develop it longer.
traveler_101
American abroad
No, no mistake. I developed for 9.5 minutes at 20 C --15 seconds longer than the Massive Development Chart calls for . . . however there are three possible explanations (beyond not enough developer).
1. I used a different routine; normally I am very deliberate with my inversions; however while reading Kodak's T-MAX data sheet it said to do 5 inversions in 5 seconds; that's twice as fast as my usual pace. I followed their advice this one time, but I think they are wrong;the developer does not have time to return to the bottom of the tank when you are moving it that fast.
2. It has been so cold around here of late that my bathroom is at about 15 C; could it be that sitting there my development mixture dropped in temperature from 20 to 19, for example? It was 20 to start because I am very careful about that, but maybe I let it stand there a little too long?
3. The data sheet that Bigeye just sent me has T-Max 100 in XTOL @ 10 minutes, not 9.25. I under-developed by 30 seconds, certainly that contributed to the problem.
Oh and bigeye should not send photos like that . . . how can I concentrate on my technical problems with images like that floating around?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
A degree or two less would call for 10-20% compensation. The Kodak sheet does not contain factors for low developer volumes, but going by the second run figures I'd guess at another 20% for the insufficient volume. Taking all into account you may have ended up underdeveloping by 30-50%. Which is significant.
john_s
Well-known
After taking the temperature at the beginning, towards the end I put the thermometer through the top of the tank. If there's a change, I adjust the dev time for the average of starting temp and near the end. Here the problem is warming up: today it's going to be 39degC (=102degF).
DominikDUK
Well-known
How thin are we talking about, people who are not acostumed to Tmax often believe that there is something wrong with the film or developer simple because it looks thinner than the films they normaly use. Have you actually printed the neg? As for overdevelopment despite it's supposedly finicky nature Tmax can handle quiet a bit of abuse.
traveler_101
American abroad
Hi,
Here is an attempt at scanning a negative from the first of the two rolls in question. Can't really see much, but you might notice that the lettering is fainter than it should be.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93975264@N05/16002779737/
And here are the scanned images from that roll.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93975264@N05/16001201920/in/photostream/
joeswe
Well-known
Generally, Tmax 100 seems to be more sensitive to small variations in development factors (agitation, time, temperature etc) than traditional films. Also, I find the times quoted in the Kodak datasheet (9m30s IIRC) don't work for me with 120 Tmax 100 in Xtol 1+1, I need to extend development times to 11 minutes @ 20C. I invert constantly for the first 30 seconds and then again 4 times every 30 seconds. Tank is a standard Jobo 1520 for two 35mm reels. I haven't used it in 35mm for some time, though...
That being said, your negatives don't look that thin, to me. The density of edge markings will depend on a variety of factors and are not always a reliable benchmark for judging negative development, more like a crude indicator of gross processing errors. I checked your album and the pictures there don't look terribly underdeveloped, too. My impression is that the darkness in some of the pictures could be more related to scanner settings and/or maybe exposure issues (having sun within the frame). Do you still have the developed leader part of the film that was completely exposed to light?
Highway 61
Revisited
This might be the OP's problem cause.
I develop my films in vintage Nikor steel tanks being rather smaller than plastic ones : the one-roll model takes 230ml, the two-rolls takes 420ml and the four-rolls takes 840 ml.
To compensate the developer volume per roll ratio, I use to develop my T-Max 100 in D76 1+1 for 13'30" @20C and the results are per-fect :
[Note for nitpickers : OK OK I know that D76 isn't as good as T-Max Dev for T-Max films... :angel: ]
So : with the same tanks I'd go for 13'30" with X-Tol 1+1 too.
DominikDUK
Well-known
The lettering on the neg is okay and more or less what is usual with T-Max you seem to have underexposed the negs also the image bleeds into the lower sprockets so I have to ask what camera you are using. Sevo is most likely correct but I wouldn't rule out the camera as a culprit. dodgy metering is another possibility and T-Max has less tolerance for wrong exposure then some other films despite the fact that T-Max has the biggest dynamic range of any film. Finally the Images lack post processing all scans need a certain amount of it the Image Looks like there was None. All in all the neg photo and the scan look more like underexposure and not a Problem at development stage.
joeswe
Well-known
No, that is not correct.
Kodak in their datasheets clearly specify 100ml of stock Xtol per 135 or 120 roll or equivalent as sufficient for dilute one-shot development. 500 ml of 1+1 Xtol contains 250 ml of stock and is therefore more than ample to develop two rolls of 135 or any equivalent.
The capacity when re-using stock solution is not to be confused with the minimum amount of stock developer when diluting for one-shot development. Quote from the Kodak J-109 datasheet:
Ronald M
Veteran
Always use water bath to maintain temp.
One roll in a two roll tank guarantees perfect agitation. Put loaded reel on bottom, empty on top. Invert 2 times in 5 sec every 30 sec or 4 per 60 for a little compensation.
Use ONLY ENOUGH DEVELOPER FOR ONE ROLL. TOP OF TANK IS EMPTY. THIS IS PERFECT AGITATION.
4 or 5 in 5 sec works fine also per Kodak data sheet. one reel in a one reel tank
If 145 ml is correct, 1:1 will not fit in a small tank. There must be room for developer to move. 250 ml is fine. I would try 145 + 105 water and cut 1:1 time 15% for trial.
A plastic Paterson has lots of head room, so developer moves rapidly. 2 inversions in 5 sec.
Think of sheet film. We pull it up, drain to one corner, dunk . drain to opposite corner, dunk, wait 50 sec and repeat. This works.
The key to developing is to do it all EXACTLY the same EVERY time.
For scanning, keep development on the short side, about for condenser enlarger, .42 contrast index. CI in data table is for diffusion enlargers which need a neg with more contrast. Subtract additional 10% for .42.
For really nice negs with super sharpness and extra fine grain, Expose at 50 iso, cut developer timer 10% for .42, then and then an additional 20%. You will be rewarded with rich shadow detail , mild scanable highlights, fine grain, and sharp negs.
Use Ilford wash, then about 4 to 6 60 sec soaks until film base clears. FRESH NEW FIX IS IMPERATIVE OR FILM BASE WILL NOT CLEAR no matter how long you wash.
You can fix a low contrast file with levels or curves. A neg with too much, requires multiple scans to get high and low density correct, then merge as HDR.
One roll in a two roll tank guarantees perfect agitation. Put loaded reel on bottom, empty on top. Invert 2 times in 5 sec every 30 sec or 4 per 60 for a little compensation.
Use ONLY ENOUGH DEVELOPER FOR ONE ROLL. TOP OF TANK IS EMPTY. THIS IS PERFECT AGITATION.
4 or 5 in 5 sec works fine also per Kodak data sheet. one reel in a one reel tank
If 145 ml is correct, 1:1 will not fit in a small tank. There must be room for developer to move. 250 ml is fine. I would try 145 + 105 water and cut 1:1 time 15% for trial.
A plastic Paterson has lots of head room, so developer moves rapidly. 2 inversions in 5 sec.
Think of sheet film. We pull it up, drain to one corner, dunk . drain to opposite corner, dunk, wait 50 sec and repeat. This works.
The key to developing is to do it all EXACTLY the same EVERY time.
For scanning, keep development on the short side, about for condenser enlarger, .42 contrast index. CI in data table is for diffusion enlargers which need a neg with more contrast. Subtract additional 10% for .42.
For really nice negs with super sharpness and extra fine grain, Expose at 50 iso, cut developer timer 10% for .42, then and then an additional 20%. You will be rewarded with rich shadow detail , mild scanable highlights, fine grain, and sharp negs.
Use Ilford wash, then about 4 to 6 60 sec soaks until film base clears. FRESH NEW FIX IS IMPERATIVE OR FILM BASE WILL NOT CLEAR no matter how long you wash.
You can fix a low contrast file with levels or curves. A neg with too much, requires multiple scans to get high and low density correct, then merge as HDR.
joeswe
Well-known
It is very unlikely that 250 ml will be enough to fully cover one roll, as according to the OP the tank has a specified min. volume of 580ml for two rolls. A quick test will show, but it is more likely that he would then need at least 300ml for a single roll.
As written in my post above, the correct minimum amount of stock when using dilutions is 100 ml per roll, and I assume the OP is aware of that. He used 145ml of stock only to achieve the specified volume of the tank for two rolls in 1+1 dilution (4x145=580).
IMO the OP has the maths correct. He used sufficient stock developing agent and he used enough volume to cover the two reels in this tank. So, I do not think that any of this has contributed to an alleged underdevelopment.