When, or did, TMX100 change?

[Takkun]

I remember when Kodak updated their packaging, and I am well aware of the change to TMY-2, but everything in between is hazy...

I see on Michael Covington's page on HC110 times for 'new' and 'old' TMX100, with about a minute difference, so I'm guessing so.

A while back I found five or so rolls of the stuff that I think I bought around 2007 or thereabouts, and was slightly past date then. left them in a closet in my parents' place. I've shot and developed one roll at box speed, and it looked very, very undeveloped. Wasn't sure if it was my time off, or the film was just that old and degraded.

 

[Freakscene]

Kodak films changed in 2002.

Your TMX is probably just senescent.

Marty

 

[charjohncarter]

I was gifted some TMX from 2002-2003, and it was poorly stored. I've been shooting it and am surprised that there are no problems:

Rolleiflex T, Tmax 100, HC-110h by John Carter, on Flickr

That was from my first 'test roll.'

 

[Roger Hicks]

Kodak films changed in 2002. . . .

Dear Marty,

And vastly for the better. More latitude and a better developer repertoire with far more flexibility. TMX was great under Kodak lab conditions; not so much for real-world shooting. The same is true of all first-generation tabular-grain films, and of Ilford's first-generation Delta epitaxial films (which even at their introduction were still much cleverer than T-grain).

Cheers,

R.

 

[filmtwit]

I some times pick up very old Tmax 100 (35mm 100') via epay. I almost always Rodinal sit/stand the first roll. Up until the last batch, this always worked perfectly for my usage. So give that try.

 

[Hogarth Ferguson]

Kodak films changed in 2002.

Your TMX is probably just senescent.

Thanks,

Marty

New word for me, thank you

 

[Skiff]

Kodak films changed in 2002.

Exactly.
It was when Kodak concentrated all the BW film production in Rochester (no more BW film production in the Kodak factories in England and France). Films had to be adjusted for the slightly different machines in Rochester.

 

[Freakscene]

And vastly for the better. More latitude and a better developer repertoire with far more flexibility. TMX was great under Kodak lab conditions; not so much for real-world shooting. The same is true of all first-generation tabular-grain films, and of Ilford's first-generation Delta epitaxial films (which even at their introduction were still much cleverer than T-grain).

I agree Roger, but at the time I was developing film for people, and I am particular, as were many of my clients. So the improvement was tinged with the annoyance of having to test and tweak development for TMX, TMY, TMZ, TX, PX and TXP in replenished and dilute Xtol, D76, HC110, TMax and Rodinal in a short space of time. I also realised after a while that the test strips Kodak was selling me for 18+ months after the change were pieces of the old films. It was confusing to calibrate the new films using old film.

I always found Delta easier to work with than TMax, but I often didn't have the option to choose when working with other people's film.

Marty

 

[charjohncarter]

Dear Marty,

And vastly for the better. More latitude and a better developer repertoire with far more flexibility. TMX was great under Kodak lab conditions; not so much for real-world shooting. The same is true of all first-generation tabular-grain films, and of Ilford's first-generation Delta epitaxial films (which even at their introduction were still much cleverer than T-grain).

Cheers,

R.

I really like Tmax 100 (some things I don't like: 50 EI [for me], and a few others like you described). But when I'm careful it is great, also like you said things are different with tabular-grain films.

 

[Takkun]

They're definitely newer than 2002--I remember shooting Tmax for the first time around then, and it was still the old-school packaging with the sticker on the canister lid. These ones, if I guessed, were from 2005-6.

I'll chalk it up to bad storage. I wonder how TMax films in general handle it: during my mass-developing spree this last week, I had several rolls from 2012 come out very thin while others from the same tank looked fine.

I some times pick up very old Tmax 100 (35mm 100') via epay. I almost always Rodinal sit/stand the first roll. Up until the last batch, this always worked perfectly for my usage. So give that try.

That's my intention! Planning to dig out my strobes, shoot them at EI 32 and try Rodinal. It's only four rolls and not enough to experiment, but should be fun. Better than tossing them out!

 

[Takkun]

I really like Tmax 100 (some things I don't like: 50 EI [for me], and a few others like you described). But when I'm careful it is great, also like you said things are different with tabular-grain films.

I've always had better luck with Delta 100 than Tmax, and vice versa with 400, in XTOL. Found some MF negs I always swore were HP5 based on the tonality, but turned out to be D100. TMX gave me rich, contrasts yet full-tone images when I was careful, but those were rare days.

 

[Takkun]

Shot at EI50 with flash (a big honking Sunpak 544), Rodinal 1+100 for an hour with inversion halfway. A little grainier than I expected for TMX, but great tonality and still totally usable. The first roll I shot at box with HC110 was extremely thin.

I think I could use off the rest of this at EI25 and without the agitation. Shadows were a bit weak, and the highlights turned out a little hot.