Does anyone have experience developing TMax 400 with HC110? If so, could you please tell me which dilution and development time worked best for you? Given recent less than optimal results with HC110 dil B (1+7) and Tri-X (negs WAY too dense), I'm hesitant to follow Kodak's guidelines for TMax as well. I'm leaning towards using dilution d (1+39) but have no idea what times to use.

Thanks in advance.

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), October 14, 1999

Answers

RE: TMax 400 in HC110: I've discovered that dilution d is actually 1+9, not 1+39, and that my thermometer was way off (real temp was much higher i.e. about 78 F). A roll of TMax400 in 1+9 at 71 F for 5 minutes was underexposed by about 1.5 stops. I'll try Kodak's recommendation of dilution b (1+7) for 5 minutes at 71F and post the results.

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), October 22, 1999.

Response to TMax400 in HC110: For the record: I achieved "acceptable" results with TMax 400 in HC110, dilution d, for 6 minutes at 70-71F. Overall the negatives are well- balanced, but perhaps slightly under-developed. I would therefore recommend 6.5 minutes as a starting point for anyone interested in using this film-developer combination for personal film testing. Personally, I'm sticking with Tri-X.

Asher

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), November 01, 1999.

It seems that you would benifit from reading "Beyond the Zone System" by Phil Davis. It is a good book for explaining exposure and development and why the manufacturers give the exposure and developing information that they do. It would be a little less hit and miss than your current approach.

-- Jeff White (zonie@computer-concepts.com), November 01, 1999.

Thanks Jeff- I'll check it out.

Are you saying that well-controlled film testing, as described by Adams in the appendix of The Negative is just "hit and miss"??? There's only so far that tests performed by others can go in each individual system. There are so many confounding variables that I find it hard to believe that anyone can achieve satisfaction without some personal film testing.

I didn't post my results in detail, but I do find it useful to expose the film across all zones and try development times that are 10-15% shoter or longer than recommended times, making adjustments based upon the results.

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), November 01, 1999.

Just my two cents worth of input.

What combination that might work for one might not work for another. Reason being if a personal test is conducted on a particular film make, this calibration would have been done on a personal enlarger different from others. The development time obtained might not be suitable . Some may operate cold lights enlarger which require different film density than a condenser model. I learnt this the hard way by trail and error. To get a proper neg to work for you, one first have to find their own personal film speed through his own personal equipment. This being his own spot meter, camera, lens, enlarger, enlarging lens, chemicals for film and paper and the knowledge of performing the test.

Hope this enlighten alittle.

Francis

-- Francis (shuttter@hotmail.com), November 03, 1999.

Asher, what you will learn from the BTZS approach is that the manufacturers reccomendations are correct "if" you want negatives that have a characteristic curve that is the ISO standard. That is where you have to make a decision. I started out using Adams' testing procedures and they are fine but finding Normal make take several trys and if you are impatient like me, I want to test once and be done with it. I am speaking for sheet film. With roll film I have always used the manufacturers starting point or if you look at the data sheets it will show how to alter development to arrive at various gradients. Accuracy of equipment such as your thermometer is very important, a 10 degree variation with T-Max will not give satisfactory results unless you are just lucky. Give the book a look.

-- Jeff White (zonie@computer-concepts.com), November 03, 1999.