Tmax thin negatives normal?

[Aaron Hellman]

I normally use Tri-x, and am familiar with normally developed negatives when using various developers. However, whenever I use tmax 400 developed in D76, the negatives look markedly thinner. I thought I read somewhere that thin negatives are normal with tmax, but I am not sure. Any tmax experts out there to help? Thanks.

 

[Highway 61]

T-Max negatives must look like any other ones. I wonder who could assert that they shouldn't... (well, this is the Internet).

Developing time for T-Max 400 with D-76 is the same as for Tri-X (if exposed at the same speed). What is slightly different with T-Max is the fixing time (which must be a bit longer).

 

[sevo]

They should look thinner than old school thick-emulsion films, and the original product literature mentions that. But the same goes for just about every modern film - it is not really meaningful for people that have never shot anything bigger than 35mm and started processing after 1970. Few people still have a individual "perfect negative" reference based upon what a properly developed Verichrome sheet looked like...

 

[Trius]

I've never processed TMY-2 in D76. In Rodinal or Rodinal+Xtol the negatives have full density and range at the standard processing time. For Rodinal 1:50 I use 11 minutes with minimal agitation.

I'm assuming your T-Max is the current emulsion (TMY-2) and is not outdated or was subject to poor storage.

If by "thin" you mean insufficient shadow detail, then you may need more exposure or adjust your metering.

 

[Bill Clark]

Well, I wish I was thinner!

My T-Max negatives have the same density as other films I use. Maybe a few little nits here and there but mostly the same. Unless, of course, I goof with exposure, soup temp., timing, a little too much wine, then it can vary. D-76 works fine for me. But I will use other stuff, Mic-X has been a current favorite and I have used other developers like Pyro. I find that's fun for me, taking the photo stage, the process stage and the viewing (print usually with film) stage and trying out different things with each stage.

 

[Steve M.]

Normally that would indicate underexposure, assuming that the developing went as it should. However, there's a fair amount of info on the web that makes it look like the newer Tmax film are markedly thinner than the older formula, and none of it is ever going to look like the old school Tri-X films (which I love, but Kodak has just about priced that out of my budget, so I switched to Arista Ultra EDU 100 in straight Mic-X). Like any film that you haven't used regularly, it will probably take a roll or two to get it dialed in to suit your way of working.

The Mic-X is good stuff Bill. I love it full strength w/ the Shanghai pan 100 in 120, and as I mentioned, it gives really sharp shots w/ the Arista film.

I suspect that once the op gets things dialed in he'll like the T-max. Being a Tri-X guy all the way I never got the hand of it, but those who know what they're doing get great results from it.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I am a long time fan of the T-max films. They have a longer tonal scale than TriX so the images are richer in tones. Also the grain is finer. But the choice of film is a question of taste.

With TMY-2 I get the best results with the Perceptol developer from Ilford when I expose at 200 ISO. I use two parts of water and one part Perceptol @ 23 degrees C. Developing time is 11 minutes. Agitation every 30 seconds. Simply trow away the solution after use. You will develope 10 films from 1 package, about EUR 1 for each film. Keep the solution in a (glass) wine bottle of 1 litre. Close the bottle with a Vacu-vin kork and pump the air out with a Vacu-vin pump.

Erik.

 

[Highway 61]

(...) and none of it is ever going to look like the old school Tri-X films (...)

Looks like the Tri-X we can buy from new now is very different from the "old school" Tri-X we had got used to in the 1980s.

I'd say it's closer to what the first TMY looked like...

Also - there seems that, for some reason due to the quantity of active chemicals in the working solution, the developing times now told by Kodak and "The massive dev. chart" are too short if you use stainless steel tanks (which contain less working solution than Paterson plastic tanks).

With any Kodak film available today, that is, Tri-X, T-Max 400 and T-Max 100 exposed at box speed, 12'30" with D76 1+1 @20C and agitation every minute (plus continuous agitation during the first minute) works very well for me with stainless steel tanks.

Like Erik said, if you expose lower than box speed, Perceptol will work particularly well.

I may switch to T-Max 400 once I am done with my current Tri-X stock. As written above, Tri-X has now lost most of its magic.

 

[ABrosig]

I always found TMax in D-76 to produce thinner negs at recommended development times. I almost exclusively use HC110 now, but I don't shoot a lot of TMax. What TMax I have developed in HC110 has always come out looking "normal" as far as density/shadow detail is concerned.

 

[rolfe]

With proper fixing, my TMY negatives have a clearer base, which may give a mis-impression that the negative is thinner.

 

[Dwig]

With proper fixing, my TMY negatives have a clearer base, which may give a mis-impression that the negative is thinner.

+1, this is the "source" for the Kodak statements that T-Max films may appear slightly "thinner" that older style films.

@OP:
If you negatives are actually "thin" you need to look at the shadow detail (thinnest part of the image on a negative) very carefully. If there is adequate shadow detail then the film was under developed. If the shadow detail is severely missing then the film was underexposed.

 

[mdarnton]

I've been shooting Tri-X and TMax400, both, lately, and running them at the same time in D76. What I'm getting is less shadow density and detail in TMax, to the tune of about half a stop. That might drive me back to Tri-X after I run through this 100' roll: I'm not ready to shoot TMax at 125, since I already shoot Tri-X at around 200.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I've been shooting Tri-X and TMax400, both, lately, and running them at the same time in D76. What I'm getting is less shadow density and detail in TMax, to the tune of about half a stop. That might drive me back to Tri-X after I run through this 100' roll: I'm not ready to shoot TMax at 125, since I already shoot Tri-X at around 200.

This is remarkable, as TriX in D76 is a classic combination and should result in ISO 400 when developed at correct time and temperature. ISO 200 is what you will get with "true" fine grain developers such as Microdol, Microphen and Perceptol, because the silver grains in the film will be partly resolved. Tmax400 exposed @ ISO125 in D76 should result in too dark and too contrasty negatives. Maybe you have to check your lightmeter.

Erik.

 

[DNG]

I shoot Tmax 400 at 400, and develop in HC110 (H), 13m at 20c,

1. Pre-Rinse 3m in filtered water
2. 30s agitation, then 5s every 1.5m
3. 4m filtered water stop/rinse
4. 5m fixer, 30s agitation, then 5s every 1.5m
5. 15m filtered water rinse
6. 1.5m Photo-Flo agitate every 20s, (5-6 drops of concentrate in 600ml filtered water)
7. Hang dry in a Humid bathroom for 1hr, then hairdryer on low/hot changing sides every minute or so, about 2 feet away

Produces great density and great shadows and highlights!

 

[Rob-F]

I haven't used TMX or TMY in years. When it first came out, I started using it right away, and my negatives always looked thinner than most other emulsions. I was using D-76, T-Max developer, and one or two others. (Back then, for a time, we used to think that T-Max developer was specially for T-Max films. It isn't; it's a push developer.)

I quit using T-Max because it never seemed contrasty enough. Increasing the developing time to increase contrast gave me blocked highlights. Though I did get some keepers when the subject contrast was high enough.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I haven't used TMX or TMY in years.

I started with Tmax100 back in the 1980's. I used it for single frame (Olympus Pen FT). People still marvel when they see the results. I exposed it at 50 ISO and developed it in Microdol X. See the Olympus Pen FT thread.

The Tmax developer caused many people to quit the Tmax films. It was a horrible stuff. I never understood why it existed. It was expensive and only good to throw away.

Erik.

 

[FrankS]

OP: Yes. A properly exposed and processed T-Max neg is less dense than a Tri-X or HP5 neg.

 

[Highway 61]

The Tmax developer caused many people to quit the Tmax films. It was a horrible stuff. I never understood why it existed. It was expensive and only good to throw away.

This is all true...

 

[miha]

snip
The Tmax developer caused many people to quit the Tmax films. It was a horrible stuff. I never understood why it existed. It was expensive and only good to throw away.

Erik.

It still exists and it's an excellent developer, not just for T-MAX films. IMO.

 

[Highway 61]

It still exists and it's an excellent developer, not just for T-MAX films. IMO.

Looks like the developer formula has changed over years. When it first came out you had to dilute it a lot to minimize grain to a level you were getting with conventional developers. As a result the contrast was gone. And you had to apply very long developing times. Which wasn't the goal.

Nowadays both the T-Max films and the T-Max Dev are different stuff from what they were when Kodak released them first in the early 1980s.

OP: Yes. A properly exposed and processed T-Max neg is less dense than a Tri-X or HP5 neg.

Less dense with same lighting conditions and same exposure means less informations on the negative. Something is a bit illogical there isn't it.