Want to Share a Film Recipe

[Honu-Hugger]

I just examined a roll of T-Max 3200 that was processed tonight and so far I'm extremely pleased with the outcome -- thought I'd share it with the group:

T-Max 3200P, EI 800, 13:30 minutes in T-Max developer diluted 1:9 at 75 F, 5 seconds agitation every 30 seconds. I'll post scans as soon as they are available (tomorrow or Friday at the latest). Upon examination with a loupe and lightbox grain is extremely tight and contrast is exceptional -- in all I'm quite pleased with the results. The formula was arrived at by extrapolating some other formulae that I've worked with with other T-Max films.

D2

 

[digitalox]

Thanks for sharing, I'm always interested in these. I'm still trying to find some that I like. Been playing with TMX and TMAX and haven't been too happy with it, but I'm sure this is all user error. I have had better results now doing it in 1+9 @ 75 @ 13:30. But it still doesn't suit me so I'm moving on. I did a couple of rolls of tri-x in ilfosol-s recently that were pretty nice, I'll post a few later.

 

[digitalox]

Attached example - can't remember all the details but its tri-x in ilfosol-s, i think 75 @ 1+9 @ 7:00

 

[digitalox]

Oh, and the rest of the details
Contax G1 with 35/2
PS Elements Auto lvls and resize.

 

[back alley]

try the ilford delta 3200 if you can.
i like it much better and find it easier to get good results. i usually rate it at 1600 or 1000, depending on the light levels.
i prefer ddx to soup it in.

joe

 

[Roman]

Joe,
with me it is the other way round, tried Delta 3200, did not like it, tried TMax 3200, love it...
Sure, TMZ is a bit grainier, but with Delta my prints always looked washed out and not too sharp, but of course tastes differ.
I shoot TMZ at 3200, and develop in Calbe A49 1+1 for 20 min. at 20°C.

 

[back alley]

i found the tmax to look kind of harsh. sharpness was ok but i'm lazy and found development had to be just right for exposure not to be blown out.
ilford was easier to be lazy with.
didn't have any problems with contrast or sharpness with ilford either.
must be the water...

joe

 

[Honu-Hugger]

I too have heard that T-Max is sensitive to development time/temperature. My Dad taught me how to process film and he is such a stickler for detail/cleanliness/precise measuring -- you name it. The good thing is I unwittingly acquired (or developed 😀 ) some good habits. I took a basic photo course at the local college here a couple years ago -- don't know why, just thought it would be good discipline. The instructor was totally the opposite from my Dad: didn't use a thermometer or a timer, didn't use stop bath, chemicals were estimated as "close enough,' and yet he created some beautiful prints. Of course, this man was an artist and my Dad is a retired engineer -- I think that explains a lot!😀

D2

 

[Russ]

try the ilford delta 3200 if you can.
i like it much better and find it easier to get good results. i usually rate it at 1600 or 1000, depending on the light levels.
i prefer ddx to soup it in.

joe

I agree with Joe. I very much prefer the Delta 3200 and Ilford's Neopan 1600. Better tonality, and not nearly as finicky as T-Max.

Russ

 

[Honu-Hugger]

Ilford 3200 and T-Max P3200

Ilford 3200 and T-Max P3200

I've been using both, but have not "A-B'd" them under the same conditions (or even in the same format or camera, for that matter) to have a preference yet. I purchased a brick of Ilford 3200 in 120, and then ran across a deal I couldn't pass on 100 fresh rolls of 35mm T-Max at a Pro shop in Florida -- so like it or not I've got some T-Max to use up!😀 Still testing.

D2