Re: good processing of T Max

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Greg Schmitz (gws1@columbia.edu)
Date: 07/18/02-09:59:20 PM Z


You should be aware that the 135 roll film, the larger roll film sizes
and the sheet film versions of T-Max are not the same. Based on tests
I ran about 5 or 6 years ago the 135mm TMX (ISO 100) film has a much
lower gradient in the shadow areas than the sheet film. I found this
out the hard way when I decided to switch to T-Max for 35mm work (TMX)
for "street photography" - a real disappointment. I had to choose
between "muddy shadows" or bullet proof highlights.

That said, I have been using T-Max 400 in both 8x10 sheet film and 120
sizes developed in TMax-RS developer for almost 10 years and have been
quite pleased with the results. The 35mm TMX (ISO 100) makes very
nice copy negatives when processed in HC-110 Dilution B but, IMHO, is
no comparison to Plus-X for anything other than copywork.

Best -greg schmitz

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Shannon Stoney wrote:

> Richard wrote:
>
> > T-Max RS developer will also produce higher Dmax than D-76 and is
> > probably easier to find than either DK-50 or D-19. Its also a low fog
> > developer, useful for push processing. It also tends to produce straighter
> > characteristic curves than D-76. I should have mentioned it before.
>
> I have been thinking of switching to T Max actually, but when I used it in
> its 35mm form, I had a lot of trouble processing it so that it wasn't grainy
> or overdeveloped. What is the secret to good processing of T Max? I have
> read that it is "sensitive to inaccuracies in development times." I wonder
> what that means. Also, apparently it has an anti-halation layer that's
> harder to remove than that of other films. I fix in the tube rather than in
> a tray, but I suppose I could put a screen in the tube so that the red dye
> would get removed during fixing.
>
> --shannon
>


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:11:01 AM Z CST