TMax 3200 development times on Massive Dev Chart

[kiss-o-matic]

A lot of the notes say they are based on the original version of the film. Are the generally the same? I figure they'd have more than that by now if the times were inaccurate but I'd rather make sure.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I used the suggested time in DD-X (1:4) and it turned out really well...11 minutes at 20 degrees Celsius, BTW.

 

[kiss-o-matic]

I used the suggested time in DD-X (1:4) and it turned out really well...11 minutes at 20 degrees Celsius, BTW.

Excellent -- that's exactly what I have here. 🙂 Thanks so much. Will give these a go soon!

 

[Mackinaw]

I don't know what it says on the Massive Developing Chart, but the Kodak data sheets for the old and new versions for TMX 3200 are the same.

You can get download the new data sheet from the Kodak Alaris website.

Jim B.

 

[randy stewart]

Dev times

Dev times

When there are development data charts from the film and developer makers, why do folks first go to the "Massive Development Chart" for their development times? I can see doing so for combos and pushes not included by the makers, but not otherwise. My quess is that it facilitates the use of a smart phone app. which is favored over the errors in the MDC.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

When there are development data charts from the film and developer makers, why do folks first go to the "Massive Development Chart" for their development times? I can see doing so for combos and pushes not included by the makers, but not otherwise. My quess is that it facilitates the use of a smart phone app. which is favored over the errors in the MDC.

I don't understand why people insist on using the MDC when manufacturer's data sheets are available. In my experience, Kodak and Ilford give times on their datasheets that are perfect most of the time, and very close to what works for my the rest of the time. In other words, the manufacturers' data sheets are the best starting point.


Because the datasheets can be hard to find on the manufacturers' sites, I have a list of links for them here:


http://crawfordphotoschool.com/film/tech-publications/index.php

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I have seen so many crazy times on MDC that I no longer use it. Shoot a limited range of film and use a few developers and all you need is a timer, not an expensive piece of electronic equipment to spill fix on.

A very useful link thanks Chris!

 

[brbo]

When there are development data charts from the film and developer makers, why do folks first go to the "Massive Development Chart" for their development times? I can see doing so for combos and pushes not included by the makers, but not otherwise. My quess is that it facilitates the use of a smart phone app. which is favored over the errors in the MDC.

Because the few film-dev combos that the manufacturers list are all (for 20deg C at least) in MDC and listed there correctly (the same as manufacturer's suggested starting point)?

It would be nice to have the official film and developer combinations clearly marked as such in MDC. But the analog people are notoriously slow to accept any change (especially if it's not their idea) so it probably won't happen...

 

[kiss-o-matic]

When there are development data charts from the film and developer makers, why do folks first go to the "Massive Development Chart" for their development times? I can see doing so for combos and pushes not included by the makers, but not otherwise. My quess is that it facilitates the use of a smart phone app. which is favored over the errors in the MDC.

I only see times for Kodak developers, and I don't own any (for starters). Often there are notes, and as mentioned useful combos.

TBH, I am mostly a one-trick pony. I use Tri-X w/ DD-X 85% of the time. The other 15% of the time I have my times down. This is my first time trying the film in question.

I suppose if I was trying lots of different film stocks I would do a bit more research, but for my uses MDC is fine.

 

[css9450]

Errors do exist on the Massive Dev. Chart.

A couple years ago, there was a 127 film called Rerapan 100. We learned later it was just re-spooled Fuji Acros. I was always bugged by it because my results were horribly over-developed, so each time I shot it I backed off on the development; first I took away a minute, then two minutes.

Upon learning it was Acros, I compared the times listed for the two films. With one exception, the times listed for the two films in all common developers were exactly the same, or very close. The exception was Rodinal. They listed Acros as 13.5 minutes at 68 degrees.... and Rerapan 18 minutes. No wonder I thought it was over-developed! But by this time it was discontinued anyway...

 

[PRJ]

The MDC is a joke. Do you know who is figuring out those times? Rank amateurs, that is who.

My advice is to steer clear of it. As is mentioned, Kodak has already provided you with everything you need to know.

If you ever run across a situation which the manufacturer doesn't provide the time for a certain film/developer combination, you can extrapolate the right time by using the times for D76 and another film compared to the film/developer you want to use.

Pretty much anyone who ever shot a ton of the high speed films like TMZ, Delta 3200 or Neopan 1600 will tell you that the best results you will get will be from using the next higher developing time. If you shoot the film at 1600, use the time for 3200. Back in the olden glory days of film, people were obsessed with fine grain, so to minimize grain as much as possible, manufacturers recommended shorter times for faster films. If you are just going to scan the film though it won't matter as much. You are probably better off sticking with Kodak's recommendations.

Here is the data sheet-

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/f4001_tmax_3200_0.pdf

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Pretty much anyone who ever shot a ton of the high speed films like TMZ, Delta 3200 or Neopan 1600 will tell you that the best results you will get will be from using the next higher developing time. If you shoot the film at 1600, use the time for 3200. Back in the olden glory days of film, people were obsessed with fine grain, so to minimize grain as much as possible, manufacturers recommended shorter times for faster films. If you are just going to scan the film though it won't matter as much. You are probably better off sticking with Kodak's recommendations.

I've shot more than 1000 rolls of Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 and I have never developed the films for the next highest speed. That's a silly falsehood that got its start online. Overdeveloping film is a bad idea; it is hard to tame an overly contrasty negative when you print or scan. If, somehow, a film has too little contrast, you can increase contrast when you print easily.


I started shooting Tmax 3200 long before the internet was available to the public.

 

[webOSUser]

I use the Android version of the Massive Development Chart. It has worked well for me as a film development resource and timer.



I don't take the times as gospel, I compare them with film manufacturer data when I can.



Steve W

 

[dourbalistar]

I use the Android version of the Massive Development Chart. It has worked well for me as a film development resource and timer.

I don't take the times as gospel, I compare them with film manufacturer data when I can.

Steve W

+1 to this. With the Android app, you can also create your own custom recipes and agitation schemes, either based on your own times, or (corrected) ones taken from the film manufacturer.

Like Steve, I try to cross reference the manufacturer data sheets when possible. I think it's useful to think of all published times, even manufacturer ones, as starting points. Adjust as necessary based on your own personal needs and shooting style. 😉

 

[Colin Corneau]

iPhone version of the MDC. I don't use anything other than a few widely used/common films by Kodak and Ilford, and IMO expired film is a nonsense hipster affectation if you're not a cash-poor photographer...I stay away from it.

Sure, check and compare online data sheets for films...I've never had an issue with the chart and it works well since all I need are my tanks and a small phone. Once you have a consistent process down, you can easily tweak the times/agitation to suit your best negative.

 

[Noserider]

The MDC errors are well documented. I use it for comparison, a reminder, or an "opinion". Rodinal numbers for example are all over the place since they don't bother to point out the differences in listed times based on Gamma. Proper AGFA Rodinal times are set to a different Gamma than Kodak Fuji and Ilford times. If you don't know exactly what I mean by developing to a Gamma then you should consider yourself a likely candidate for making a better practice of finding the original film manufacturer data sheets.

The lack of verifiable sources for the times is of course the issue. I also believe that the worst thing is that most if not nearly all the times listed on the MDC are spot on; its the times you Don't Know Are Wrong that really will bite hard. I suppose that for those users not bright or through enough to spot those errors will just chalk it up to "the cool film process' or
"Overexposed and over developed is my Style" or maybe not even know that, Really, those negatives could look better and in fact that is a straight up error. Maybe to them 25% overdevelopment is acceptable? To me and anyone with a decent photographic background its an error not art.



http://crawfordphotoschool.com/film/tech-publications/index.php

Great link just passing it on for the knowledge

 

[brbo]

The MDC is a joke. Do you know who is figuring out those times? Rank amateurs, that is who.

Pros wouldn't fare any better.

Getting a consensus amongst pros what the "PROper" time for every film-developer is as futile or insane as thinking that MDC can have a time that will work for every amateur or pro out there.

Not even in this little thread advanced (or maybe even pro?) users agree on TMZ times.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

One thing about the MDC app when used on older iPhones, much older, as a darkroom timer: its performance can be damagingly erratic, there is at least one significant bug still present. The development timer will occasionally, like 25% of the time, tick down second by second until it gets to some random minute, then count down the preceding minute over again, sometimes once, sometimes repeatedly. i.e. it might count down to 5:00 left, then jump back to 5:59 and count down to 5:00 again. If you are not watching the screen you’ll never know.

Just use any old timer and the data sheet, that’s hardly difficult.

 

[jawarden]

The MDC is useful if you're using a developer that isn't recommended by the manufacturer, but that's never the case for me. I prefer to start with the manufacturer's recommendations and then check MDC for differences if any. Their timer is useful, as is the developer volume calculator. It's a good app.

I agree with the poster above that suggested development times be highlighted if they happen to match the manufacturer recommendations. It would be easy to do.

 

[jawarden]

I don't understand why people insist on using the MDC when manufacturer's data sheets are available. In my experience, Kodak and Ilford give times on their datasheets that are perfect most of the time, and very close to what works for my the rest of the time. In other words, the manufacturers' data sheets are the best starting point.


Because the datasheets can be hard to find on the manufacturers' sites, I have a list of links for them here:


http://crawfordphotoschool.com/film/tech-publications/index.php

I agree about starting with the manufacturer when you can but the MDC is more flexible. Kodak's P3200 data sheet lists times for 65°F - 85°F (very good) but only with their own developers (not good). Meanwhile Ilford's DDX data sheet lists times for P3200 (good) but for only 68°F and 75°F (not enough) and only offers times for 1+4 dilution, not stock (why?). MDC is very useful if you're trying to plug holes like these, or if you have extra developer and want to gather information about how others have used it on different films.