If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Taming Tmax 100
Frank, P! Still out there? Remember my loathing of Tmax, in particular Tmax 100 (TMX 4052)? Since I was so strident, I think it is fair to follow up after more work. I had some better luck with it today under the circumstances under which it disappointed me before - bright, clear, cloudless day 1pm CST. I'm working with high Rodinal dilutions to maintain even development and controlable under-development. 1:200 was too weak (printable on #4 only), but still very encouraging. 1:150 is next - tomorrow if the sun still shines on us Midwesterners! So maybe, just maybe I'll owe you one. Maybe. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Taming Tmax 100
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Taming Tmax 100
"one_of_many" wrote in message news Frank, P! Still out there? Remember my loathing of Tmax, in particular Tmax 100 (TMX 4052)? Since I was so strident, I think it is fair to follow up after more work. I had some better luck with it today under the circumstances under which it disappointed me before - bright, clear, cloudless day 1pm CST. I'm working with high Rodinal dilutions to maintain even development and controlable under-development. 1:200 was too weak (printable on #4 only), but still very encouraging. 1:150 is next - tomorrow if the sun still shines on us Midwesterners! So maybe, just maybe I'll owe you one. Maybe. I think you will get much better results by abandoning the Rodinal. Try D-76 1:1 or Xtol 1:1 and be careful of time, temperature, and agitation. Try about 75% of the time indicated in the Kodak charts. This will reduce negative contrast about one paper grade. You may have to increase exposure by half to 3/4 stop. Since Xtol produces some increase in film speed it shuld deliver about the ISO speed with the reduced development time. T-Max changes contrast faster with development than conventional films. A change of 20% to 25% will make as much change as a 30% to 33% change for a conventional film like Plus-X or FP-4. Of course, its also more sensitive to temperature and agitation. -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Taming Tmax 100
In article .net,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote: "one_of_many" wrote in message news [snip] I think you will get much better results by abandoning the Rodinal. Try D-76 1:1 or Xtol 1:1 and be careful of time, temperature, and agitation. Try about 75% of the time indicated in the Kodak charts. This will reduce negative contrast about one paper grade. You may have to increase exposure by half to 3/4 stop. Since Xtol produces some increase in film speed it shuld deliver about the ISO speed with the reduced development time. T-Max changes contrast faster with development than conventional films. A change of 20% to 25% will make as much change as a 30% to 33% change for a conventional film like Plus-X or FP-4. Of course, its also more sensitive to temperature and agitation. With all due respect, Richard, I am pursuing my goal of having no developing irregularities caused by short developing times along full control of contrast, and to that end I'm continuing the experiments with stand processing. A long development time with an active developer such as Rodinal is not a shortcoming for me when considered in light of the critically considered outcomes of shorter development times. If one returns from an ardous hike of days or longer, what's an hour for developing any number of films that can fit in the tank? I've had this project in the back of mind since I did time-critial photography/development/printing work for a living. Those harried days are behind me. I've looked at the laboratory developing techniques such as spray-development that attempt to make even development. That should ring some bells with the old timers and industry folks. I don't have such equipment. I'll continue with this experiment for another year, should I live so long. Regardless of my comments, I always truly appreciate your comments Richard, and if this experiment comes to nothing, I will come back with an admission, but so far with the MF work I do (with Agfa MF film) it looks like I'm onto something that works very wel for N-minus development. Very Best, JJS |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Taming Tmax 100
one_of_many wrote:
: Frank, P! Still out there? Remember my loathing of Tmax, in particular : Tmax 100 (TMX 4052)? Since I was so strident, I think it is fair to follow : up after more work. I had some better luck with it today under the : circumstances under which it disappointed me before - bright, clear, : cloudless day 1pm CST. : I'm working with high Rodinal dilutions to maintain even development and : controlable under-development. 1:200 was too weak (printable on #4 only), : but still very encouraging. 1:150 is next - tomorrow if the sun still : shines on us Midwesterners! : So maybe, just maybe I'll owe you one. Maybe. If it turns out that you owe me one you can repay me by coming out with a photography group that I'm a memeber of here in the midwest. We're the midwestlf asylum and you can find out more about us at: midwestlargeformat.com. Although most of the members are in the Chicago area. We are an international group and have active members in Michigan, Indiana, Iliinois and Wisconson. We hold monthly "photo outings" and have no known rules. :-) I hope that all goes well with your testing look forward to meeting with you on one of our outings. :-) -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Taming Tmax 100
In article , Frank Pittel
wrote: one_of_many wrote: : In article , : (one_of_many) wrote: : Frank, P! Still out there? [... snip good tech ...] PS - In your initial post of this thread you mentioned that you're located in the midwest. I'd like to bring to your attention a photography group that allows me to be a member of known as the midwestlf asylum. You can learn more about us at: www.midwestlargeformat.com. Although most of our members are into LF it's not a requirement. In fact it may be the only group in existence with no known rules! :-) If you're interested I'd like to go out on a "photo outing" with you. I promise that I'm much nicer in person then I am online. :-) I live in SE Minnesota by the Mississippi River. We have some terrific river valley scenery. You should visit sometime. Unfortunately, I will be very busy with the day job soon; must make a living in that digital paradigm. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Taming Tmax 100
"one_of_many" wrote in message news In article .net, "Richard Knoppow" wrote: "one_of_many" wrote in message news [snip] I think you will get much better results by abandoning the Rodinal. Try D-76 1:1 or Xtol 1:1 and be careful of time, temperature, and agitation. Try about 75% of the time indicated in the Kodak charts. This will reduce negative contrast about one paper grade. You may have to increase exposure by half to 3/4 stop. Since Xtol produces some increase in film speed it shuld deliver about the ISO speed with the reduced development time. T-Max changes contrast faster with development than conventional films. A change of 20% to 25% will make as much change as a 30% to 33% change for a conventional film like Plus-X or FP-4. Of course, its also more sensitive to temperature and agitation. With all due respect, Richard, I am pursuing my goal of having no developing irregularities caused by short developing times along full control of contrast, and to that end I'm continuing the experiments with stand processing. A long development time with an active developer such as Rodinal is not a shortcoming for me when considered in light of the critically considered outcomes of shorter development times. If one returns from an ardous hike of days or longer, what's an hour for developing any number of films that can fit in the tank? I've had this project in the back of mind since I did time-critial photography/development/printing work for a living. Those harried days are behind me. I've looked at the laboratory developing techniques such as spray-development that attempt to make even development. That should ring some bells with the old timers and industry folks. I don't have such equipment. I'll continue with this experiment for another year, should I live so long. Regardless of my comments, I always truly appreciate your comments Richard, and if this experiment comes to nothing, I will come back with an admission, but so far with the MF work I do (with Agfa MF film) it looks like I'm onto something that works very wel for N-minus development. Very Best, JJS Stand or stagnant development is a poor technique for uniformity. It is a very old idea to get exagerated edge effects and compensation from local exaustion. It tends to produce blotches. Development time with standard developers like D-76 1:1 are on the order of 8 to 12 minutes at 68F. This is plenty long enough to avoid irregular development. If you want even longer times lower the temperature. Spray development is used mainly in automatic machines for motion picture development. Another old technique, used for sensitometric purposes, is brush development. This is suitable for small sections of film and is just what it sounds like. The film is placed in a tray and brushed back and forth with a soft brush. I don't think you can avoid having to have some rigor in processing, it sort of comes with the territory. -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Taming Tmax 100
In article . net,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote: Stand or stagnant development is a poor technique for uniformity. It is a very old idea to get exagerated edge effects and compensation from local exaustion. It tends to produce blotches. To settle this matter we need a side-by-side comparision of my 'stand' development against those that fail to work. Mine does work, Richard. I get no blotches or uneven development. Perhaps stand or stagnant development is not exactly what I'm doing. I agitate perhaps seven times, but over a 50 minute period, so I guess it's not quite the same, but some will argue it is close enough. And I'm using it with very thin films, Tmax 100 4x5 and 6x6cm Agfa 100. (I have nailed the Agfa 100 down and get _great_ results.) I can understand how so-called edge effects and blotching could be more likely in earlier, more silver-laden films. In any event, the testing continues. Today I'm trying TXT 4164 which might, just might produce the blotching you mention. It is defrosting the film as I type this and I should have results to show later this week. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Taming Tmax 100
john*at*stafford.net (one_of_many) wrote in message ... In article . net, "Richard Knoppow" wrote: Stand or stagnant development is a poor technique for uniformity. It is a very old idea to get exagerated edge effects and compensation from local exaustion. It tends to produce blotches. To settle this matter we need a side-by-side comparision of my 'stand' development against those that fail to work. Mine does work, Richard. I get no blotches or uneven development. Perhaps stand or stagnant development is not exactly what I'm doing. I agitate perhaps seven times, but over a 50 minute period, so I guess it's not quite the same, but some will argue it is close enough. And I'm using it with very thin films, Tmax 100 4x5 and 6x6cm Agfa 100. (I have nailed the Agfa 100 down and get _great_ results.) I can understand how so-called edge effects and blotching could be more likely in earlier, more silver-laden films. In any event, the testing continues. Today I'm trying TXT 4164 which might, just might produce the blotching you mention. It is defrosting the film as I type this and I should have results to show later this week. The stand development I am talking about was popular in the 1930's. The idea was to use extremely dilute developer and let the film lie in it for many hours. Without agitation the only way reaction products can get out of the emulsion or fresh developer get in is by diffusion. Since the diffusing products form a sort of clound around the film the process is much slower than when the film is agitated. William Mortensen was one of those who promoted this procedure. -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
dev time for dated tmax 400 | Stefano Bramato | In The Darkroom | 6 | July 5th 04 02:45 PM |
b+f of TMAX 400 and my so-called 'densimoter' | Phil Glaser | In The Darkroom | 9 | April 4th 04 10:53 PM |
Developing TMax P3200 | Jevin Sweval | In The Darkroom | 3 | March 30th 04 06:28 AM |
experiences with 400TX and TMAX developed with HC100/TMAX/XTOL? | E Colar | In The Darkroom | 8 | February 10th 04 09:47 PM |
Tmax developers | Archimede | Film & Labs | 33 | January 15th 04 06:33 PM |