Ornello Posted March 6, 2022 Share #1 Posted March 6, 2022 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) It seems to me, based on the results of my recent tests, that FX-39, T-Max developer, and any phenidone-based developers are not the best for T-Max films. T-Max seems to run away in the highlights. My results are showing me that metol-based developers (D-76, etc) are better for T-Max. Delta films seem to do better with phenidone developers. Edited March 6, 2022 by Ornello Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 6, 2022 Posted March 6, 2022 Hi Ornello, Take a look here T-Max vs Delta. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Sandokan Posted March 6, 2022 Share #2 Posted March 6, 2022 He agrees T-Max developer is not the best for the T-Max films. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ornello Posted March 12, 2022 Author Share #3 Posted March 12, 2022 I just printed some T-Max 400 negatives that I developed on Thursday in my modified Beutler developer. Film was exposed a couple weeks ago. The prints look awesome! I am going to try some more experimenting with a couple of ingredients to see if I can improve it still further. The formula is: Metol 0.75gSodium sulfite 12.5gSodium carbonate (mono) 2.5gWater to make 1 liter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 12, 2022 Share #4 Posted March 12, 2022 It would be nice to see some artistic renderings of all these tests you do to show what is possible, and not just 'test shots' should you show any photos. Maybe post some actual photos and generate some excitement for using these formulas, otherwise the recommendations could be like tumbleweed blowing down the main street in a ghost town, and I can hear the ghosts howling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ornello Posted March 13, 2022 Author Share #5 Posted March 13, 2022 20 hours ago, 250swb said: It would be nice to see some artistic renderings of all these tests you do to show what is possible, and not just 'test shots' should you show any photos. Maybe post some actual photos and generate some excitement for using these formulas, otherwise the recommendations could be like tumbleweed blowing down the main street in a ghost town, and I can hear the ghosts howling. The tests I run use the same subject. This is more valid than shooting randomly and using all sorts of developers. It reveals the traits of each product. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 13, 2022 Share #6 Posted March 13, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ornello said: The tests I run use the same subject. This is more valid than shooting randomly and using all sorts of developers. It reveals the traits of each product. But chemical concoctions without examples are meaningless for anybody else who doesn't shoot the same subject, with the same chemicals, film, or expose and process with the same regimen? The purpose of the Zone System was a method by which people could do their own tests with their own equipment, film, and chemicals and basically all come to some common ground and know what each other was talking about. A few chemicals added here or there to a developer are worthless if there is no demonstrable outcome. Edited March 13, 2022 by 250swb Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ornello Posted March 14, 2022 Author Share #7 Posted March 14, 2022 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) 16 hours ago, 250swb said: But chemical concoctions without examples are meaningless for anybody else who doesn't shoot the same subject, with the same chemicals, film, or expose and process with the same regimen? The purpose of the Zone System was a method by which people could do their own tests with their own equipment, film, and chemicals and basically all come to some common ground and know what each other was talking about. A few chemicals added here or there to a developer are worthless if there is no demonstrable outcome. I am describing the results. Zone system? Not on your life. Once you have established a developing time that yields good prints, it should not be changed due to subject lighting (cloudy, sunny, etc.). The shoulder of the film should take care of that (in outdoor scenes), and if more compensation is needed, compensating development can help. It will affect mainly the upper densities. Since T-Max 400 (TMY-2) has a tendency to 'run away' in the heavier densities, my modified Beutler formula is a nice tool. So far, I have used this formula only on TMY-2 (and Pan-F Plus, which I do not plan to use again). I can tell you that I use a Fujimoto G70 enlarger in the condenser configuration, and that I use a 50mm f/4.5 Focotar-2 enlarging lens. The prints are really nice looking! TMY-2 has some of the characteristics of a slow film. I mixed up some FX-15 and FX-37 (both Crawley formulas) over the weekend, and I'll try them out some time this week. Edited March 14, 2022 by Ornello Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 14, 2022 Share #8 Posted March 14, 2022 3 hours ago, Ornello said: I am describing the results. You just described the problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ornello Posted March 14, 2022 Author Share #9 Posted March 14, 2022 4 hours ago, 250swb said: You just described the problem. What do you want? I don't have a scanner suitable for the job, and the file size limits of this site make it pointless anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ornello Posted March 15, 2022 Author Share #10 Posted March 15, 2022 One of the advantages of mixing one's own developers is that it enables one to make developers for specific films. Developers can be optimised for slow, medium, fast, and ultra-fast films. Ilford Delta films are different enough from Kodak T-grain films that they require different developer types. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Robbins Posted March 17, 2022 Share #11 Posted March 17, 2022 And yet Michael Kenna has done quite well for himself sticking mainly to D76. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted March 17, 2022 Share #12 Posted March 17, 2022 Personally, I have been using Xtol 1+1 for my Tmax developing for years, for my clients as well, and I get excellent results with a very long tonal range in the highlights. I listened to the video above and his comments on Xtol and they seem to be accurate to me. Higher sharpness and slightly higher film speed than D76 and an S shaped curve that gives good highlight control and good midtone contrast. I mostly use a Jobo with constant agitation, so that may have an impact compared to other use cases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ornello Posted March 17, 2022 Author Share #13 Posted March 17, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bruce Robbins said: And yet Michael Kenna has done quite well for himself sticking mainly to D76. Nothing wrong with that at all! (Does he use medium format?) I mixed up some FX-15 two days ago, and ran some TMY-2 last night, 1+1, for 9.25 minutes. Negatives look perfect. See this:http://www.pictorialplanet.com/advanced_photography/fx-15_crawley_developer.html Edited March 17, 2022 by Ornello Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Robbins Posted March 17, 2022 Share #14 Posted March 17, 2022 Yes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Zone system, sunny16, borders, no borders, grain, no grain, high technical quality, high artistic quality, etc. There's room for everybody. Kenna started out with 35mm but predominantly uses a Hasselblad now, occasionally delving into LF. He appears to be fairly relaxed about technical issues using whatever film he has to hand when overseas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ornello Posted March 17, 2022 Author Share #15 Posted March 17, 2022 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Bruce Robbins said: Yes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Zone system, sunny16, borders, no borders, grain, no grain, high technical quality, high artistic quality, etc. There's room for everybody. Kenna started out with 35mm but predominantly uses a Hasselblad now, occasionally delving into LF. He appears to be fairly relaxed about technical issues using whatever film he has to hand when overseas. In principle, one could use a different developer for every film. This perhaps seems extreme, but I have long known that at least two developers are best if you are using a wide variety of films (from slow to fast). Using just one developer and diluting it to varying degrees is not quite the same. D-76 is fine, but Crawley has designed numerous developers that offer at least some advantages over D-76. The FX-15 formula that I just tried looks like a winner for T-Max 400. In the old days (1970s), I liked UFG for Tri-X and Acutol for FP4. Edited March 17, 2022 by Ornello Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Robbins Posted March 17, 2022 Share #16 Posted March 17, 2022 I can't say I've noticed many differences in developer qualities that would make a material difference to a photo for most viewers or photographers. I'm happily using Delta 100 in DD-X and trade processed (AG Photo Lab) XP2. I'd be just as happy using D76/ID11, FD10, AM74 or whatever for the Delta. I might notice subtle differences between these developers but not enough that I'd care. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giannis Posted March 17, 2022 Share #17 Posted March 17, 2022 On 3/14/2022 at 2:37 PM, Ornello said: I am describing the results. Sorry but I also don't find this very useful. Usually developer differences can be subtle, especially so when just tweaking a developer. A test subject/image would work great demonstrating the effects of those tweaks. A qualitative, subjective description doesn't offer much. For instance "the prints look awesome!" offers me zero information about anything, other than that the developer formed an image on the film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Robbins Posted March 17, 2022 Share #18 Posted March 17, 2022 Ornello, I appreciate your point about the difficulties of showing the subtleties between different developers online. I just don't think they'd stand the torture test of scanning in any meaningful way. However, what about showing the prints you're really happy with? There may well be something about the tonality that stands out a mile. Plus, we're all photographers and love looking at great prints regardless of the materials used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ornello Posted March 17, 2022 Author Share #19 Posted March 17, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bruce Robbins said: Ornello, I appreciate your point about the difficulties of showing the subtleties between different developers online. I just don't think they'd stand the torture test of scanning in any meaningful way. However, what about showing the prints you're really happy with? There may well be something about the tonality that stands out a mile. Plus, we're all photographers and love looking at great prints regardless of the materials used. Well, I am still working through the combinations that would be useful. Since I have all the chemicals I need to make just about any developer in the 'catalogue' (metol, phenidone, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, potassium bromide, hydroquinone, sodium sulfite, borax, Kodalk, amidol, sodium sulfite, etc. I can experiment and tweak for ever. I don't plan on using Pan-F Plus in future, so that's one less to worry about. I used to do tests of films, lenses, papers, and developers when I worked in a photo store back in the 1970s. I would show results to customers and other salesmen. The differences were easy to spot when they were pointed out. I have no way of scanning prints at the moment, except an office copier, and it does a very poor job. Edited March 17, 2022 by Ornello Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ornello Posted March 18, 2022 Author Share #20 Posted March 18, 2022 (edited) Developed some T-Max 400 in FX-15 (Crawley formula, below) diluted 1 + 1 (9.25 mins @ 68F/20C) on Wednesday, made prints last night. The prints look fantastic! Grain nearly invisible. Sharp, great detail. Wonderful tones too! I think the combo of metol and phenidone (with hydroquinone?) is the key. I'm wondering, though, if omitting the hydroquinone, using the developer diluted and discarded, would work just as well. The formula was intended for re-use, so I'm not certain that the hydroquinone is necessary if it is diluted and discarded. Printed on MG V RC, condenser, Leica Focotar-2 50mm f/4.5 lens. If you don't own one, get one! Warm water 700 ml Metol 3.5g Sodium sulphite Anhyd. 100g Hydroquinone 2.25g Phenidone 0.1g Sodium bisulphite 0.5g Borax 2.5g Sodium carbonate 1g Anhydrous (1.17g Monohydrated) Potassium bromide 1.5g Water to make 1 ltr Edited March 18, 2022 by Ornello Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now