Does any one know the development time for the new Tmax100 film with rotary-tube processing, for N-1, N and N+1, and D76 1:1? The Kodak Technical Publication does´nt mention this new adjusments for D76 1:1 with rotary drums. I had a hard time searching for Mr. Sexton´s developing times for the old TMax, and now that I finally found it, this film is discontinued and we must make adjusment for the new one.

Thanks in advance,

Jorge Prat

-- Jorge Prat (jprat@achs.cl), May 06, 2002

Answers

I haven't yet come across the new TMAX in the wild yet. Kodak's technical publications have some details that might answer your questions.

"Old" TMAX (called KODAK T-MAX Professional) http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f32/f32Co ntents.shtml

"New" TMAX (called KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX) http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f40 16.jhtml

In general, the development times are less for the new T-MAX in comparison to the old T-MAX.

-- C. Maines (c_maines@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

If the film did not change, why the new times? When someone runs a few tests on it let us know if the changes effect the tonal range, sharpness, density values or anything else other than being "more dust & static resistant".

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), May 06, 2002.

Wrt Dans remark: From the way Kodak wrote the statement I would assume the following: They did not change the formulation of the light sensitive emulsion. What they did change is the protective gelatine coating on top, which does not contain any silver halide crystals, to achieve the advertised antistatic behavior etc. That could influence diffusion times for developer into and reaction products out of the film.

-- Arne Croell (arne.croell@inemet.tu-freiberg.de), May 06, 2002.

Who says they didn't change the emulsions?

Kodak is now including the new recommended film developing times for the films that have moved to the new manufacturing facility. It is also interesting that the TMAX-100 times have decreased, while the new Plus-X has increased. TMAX-400 times did not change. No times were included for the new version of Tri-X. Here are a few examples for D76 (1:1) in small tanks at 72F: T-MAX 100 Professional 10 min. PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 100 7 1/2 min. (new version)

PLUS-X Pan Professional 6 min. PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 7 1/4 min. (new version)

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.j html

As always, if the above web reference has embedded spaces added by the forum software, you will need to remove them.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), May 06, 2002.

get real. Kodak changes its production facilities, ostensibly improves the process, improves the materials, and hopefully improves our chances for optimized results, and you wouldn't expect some change? and you think this is one more Kodak conspiracy to derail your photography? I extend my thanks to Kodak for taking the time to tabulate the densitometry results or their best guesses. my processing times are far removed from Kodak's recommendations so this is not a real issue for me. anyone tried mixing their own emulsions lately? give Kodak credit for their efforts in what must be a very tenuous market.

in a more general vein, review your question and understand the myriad parameters affecting your results, and how the very best advice is to expend the efforts and minimal costs to derive your own, and quite personal, processing specifications.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), May 06, 2002.

I do not think that the new film "is one more Kodak conspiracy to derail your photography.” However, I do think it is an attempt by Kodak to cut costs and keep the company and the jobs of its employees from disappearing. That being said, just because the emulsion changes, does not mean it is for the worse; it might actually be better (but I am not holding my breath on that one).

The main point was to note that TMX-100 development times (recommended by Kodak) are now 15% shorter, Plus-X times are 20% longer, and TMAX-400 times are unchanged. This seems to diffuse the theory that the only change that Kodak made "is the protective gelatin coating on top." However, we shall have to wait for a more thorough analysis once people start using the new films.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), May 06, 2002.

Correction to the above post: PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 100 (new version) development times recommended by Kodak for D-76 1:1 @72F in small tanks are 25% shorter (not 15% shorter).

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), May 06, 2002.

Thought you might be interested in what I learned yesterday from Kodak. 100TMAX (the new name) has been produced for cut sheet 4x5 film but has not been cut into that size yet. No new 100TMAX for readyloads has been produced yet. Obviously then, nothing is on the shelves at the Kodak warehouse (he checked). The quess is that the new material will be in stores at the end of the Summer, but once in the Kodak warehouse, could be special ordered. Their goal is to use up all of the old stock first.

Their advice for large format folks is to retest with the new film if you really want to be sure. Or you could try their guesses at change in development times. Personally I will retest and look forward to the new film with its new production features and Kodak happy that it can continue producing it in a state of the art facility and make a profit.

Scott

-- Scott Jones (scottsdesk@attbi.com), May 06, 2002.

"get real. Kodak changes its production facilities, ostensibly improves the process, improves the materials, and hopefully improves our chances for optimized results, and you wouldn't expect some change? and you think this is one more Kodak conspiracy to derail your photography?"

"New and improved" is often not an improvement for many users. Just different. Many of us don't see The Yellow Godfather as trying to derail our photography either. Just trying to make even more of a profit in spite of our wishes for high quality products available at dealers who get the service Kodak has become known for during more than a century of business. That is changing, just as these films are changing. Ask 5 dealers to check on Kodak B&W products & you find 8 or more stories as to what reality is. So, we wait & see & in the meantime become more convinced than ever that Ilford products sure are nice to use.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), May 07, 2002.

god forbid, that Ilford updates its product, makes adjustments, and attempts to further optimize its process and strive to improve profitability. and then have the nerve to inform us of any perceptual or procedural observations and differences? outrageous!

'57 Chevy door slams, fins and all zoom off into the sunset trailing the sounds of the Everly Brothers. Dan pulls into the 'Flying A' gas station and six mechanics attend to his tank, tires, and windshield. Dan thinks about a photograph here, but his ISO-6 film would surely fail him and his lens in this light, so in a cloud of dust he continues down Route 66, waiting for those RCA tubes to once again glow, filled with memories and dreams of better days when she was there beside him still. sixty more miles and the static should fade ...

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), May 07, 2002.

Actually Daniel, I AM in need of a repairman to fix the 8 track stereo on the Saab Sonnet. If you know of a good one let me know. And my 8x10 Ilford FP4+ is not the same film as FP4... but then Ilford never said it was as Kodak is saying about their "it's the same but different" films from the new facility.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), May 07, 2002.

The most positive thing about the "New" Kodak fikms is their committment to those of use dedicated to the use of film by oopening a new facility to produce film. This should help dispell some of the talk about the imminent death of film. JIm

-- Jim Noel (jimsphoto@cox.net), May 08, 2002.

there is a forty page technical publication on the 'New' TMax films and you gotta admit the new box styling is a welcomed change. I sometimes think the processing times come from Kodak's cafeteria and a big dart-board, where they throw a dart and write down where it lands. if I were to develop TMax films using the suggested Xtol times, I would have clear film except for the leader. perhaps they re- threw their darts this time around? Ilford seems to have used a similar scheme with its Delta 3200 times.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), May 08, 2002.

I haven't tried the new TMax yet, but will be interested in what other people in the forum think of it. If the new version has different development times, that is OK as long as we know what they are (at least as a starting point). I would also be interested in what other users settle on as for its "non lab conditions" film speed and how it compares to "old" Tmax. Maybe we could start a big war over it, like the "new Coke" vs "classic Coke" of a few years ago . Other than that, just what is wrong with 57 Chevys and tube radios? I like them both :P

-- Steve Gangi (sgangi@hotmail.com), May 09, 2002.

Daniel, are you suggesting that when Kodak publishes the old and new development times for TMX and TMY in the same publication (see above), that they are using different methodologies? If Kodak used the same methodology for the old and new film, then your argument makes no sense.

Obviously, the Kodak recommended development times must be modified for our own personal situation, but the fact that TMX recommended times (D76, 1:1) have been reduced 25% and the TMY times have not changed (and the Plus-X times have increased 20%), might tell us something about the whether the TMX emulsion has changed. You have previously gone on record as stating that since you are a lab technician for other photographers, you can figure out the development time changes without much fanfare. Agreed, but some of us are also interested in what changes (good or bad) to the film quality may have occurred as a result of any change in the emulsion.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), May 09, 2002.

> You have previously gone on record as stating that since you are a lab technician for other photographers

lab technician? I am just a flunky electronics engineer who made enough money in hi-tech to semi-retire at age forty, and fully retire next year at age 52. this affords me the time and money to support my photography studio and pursue photography full-time.

with those less-than-stellar qualifications, and knowing little of ion-migration, laminar-flow emulsion adhesions, and gelatin base chemistry, I can only guess that new materials and application technology could change the processing times without a change in the emulsion chemistry. Kodak says that the TMY processing times are the same because this film changed-over to its new facility in 1995 and published times are current. the Tri-X films are of a different technology and are moving last with published times to appear later in 2002. Kodak states that the fundamental characteristic and spectrum curves have not been changed.

to me, it seems like a good move, insuring future production of our beloved films. ok, my beloved TMax films. of all the films I have tested, I consistently return to TMax films and will be one of the first to holler if the products have been compromised in some fashion to improve profits.

I used to own a '57 Chevy, loved its styling, and owned a guitar- amplifier company of all-tube designs. love my old Rolleicord too. I was just ambling on about changing times and inertia. it happens.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), May 09, 2002.

My apologies to Mr. Taylor for claiming that he was a lab technician for other photographers. I confused him with another person who seemed to promote similar arguments in the “Film and Processing” list.

Although Mr. Taylor’s suggestion that “you gotta admit the new box styling is a welcomed change,” may well categorize him as an eternal optimist, it does little to shed light on exactly what effect the new versions of Kodak films will have on photographers (besides the stated change in development times). His other assertions such as “if I were to develop TMax films using the suggested Xtol times, I would have clear film except for the leader,” seem similarly off-base.

Granted that (for obvious reasons) the development times published by Kodak (or Ilford) cannot be used as gospel by photographers who are interested in precise and consistent development in their own unique environment, the development times should at least be determined (for a given developer) on a consistent basis. No one to my knowledge has provided a satisfactory explanation as to how the development times (in the new factory) for TMX can decrease by 25%, and for Plus-X increase by 20%, without at least one of the emulsions having been changed.

Statements from Kodak like “the fundamental characteristic and spectrum curves [of the new films] have not been changed” do not reassure me. In fact, the use of the word “fundamental” in the above quote from Mr. Taylor (attributed to Kodak) suggests to me that “some” changes in the characteristics and spectrum curves have occurred, although they are deemed by Kodak to not be “fundamental.”

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), May 10, 2002.

I don't think I am thinking about these issues with the same level of intensity as others. my comment regarding the new packaging is merely to lighten the mood. after developing thousands of rolls of TMax films in Xtol I am surprised as to why I have to deviate so radically from Kodak's published specifications. I am not blaming Kodak but simply bewildered after much experimentation as to why my times are 30% longer. many of us experienced identical puzzlement when we used Ilford's Delta 3200 recommendations, and found them not based in reality. Xtol works wonders for me, but not by Kodak's rules. it is a mystery that I have attributed to some magical qualities in the Oregon water that runs off these mountains that I use.

it will be interesting to follow everyones observations with the new film. I have P3200 and HIE in the new packaging and can't wait when TMX arrives.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), May 10, 2002.

Hmm...maybe I'm the one you were thinking of...first name (never used) daniel...but yeah, I pretty much agree with the other daniel...big deal...unless you want to run out now and stockpile the old films, what can you do?? btw, I never liked the results of my TMX and TMY films in XTOL...but in our deeptank line with RS, I can often run several different emuslions at the exact time & temp and get an acceptable neg...which to a zone system purist may seem impossible, but believe it or not, this is the way most labs run film. Those TMAX films like TMY and TMX can be successfully grouped together often....in fact, if you run b&w control strips, the strip itself is made from TMY stock...in my experience, while it *is* best to tailor each time to your film....on a working basis this isn't often practical in a lab... you can group 'em in batch runs & split the difference on the times...b&w isn't E6....

btw, Kodak sent us a sampler pack with 4 rolls of the new films--no TX though--the other day...I haven't tried any of it yet though, I'm a little ambivalent of the whole thing to tell you the truth as we still have at least a case of TMX in the fridge, I'll deal with the new film when the time comes....maybe you oughta call Kodak for a sample pack.

But none of this answers Jorge question...and I don't have the answer for the new tube times, as the times in the tech sheet that came with the sample pack with mostly for small tank processing & sheets in trays...which we do neither of. When we crack into the newer films-- actually what ticks me off the most over all this are two things...you wanna complain about Kodak, okay this is mine--they got rid of the 100 sheet boxes first off, that's really lousy. They should have made 100 sheets the smallest size available. Then they change these names...now we're going to have to rewrite our contracts again for the second time in almost a year...I can do a good Ilford rant too, ....but it's not a film issue--but--ahhh--when we get the new film, we'll just deal with it then...you know it's hard for me to even figure out what the whole point of this thread is....

Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my agency.

-- dk thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), May 10, 2002.

I just took a closer look at F-4016. In addition to changes in developing time, page 15 reveals that the ruler-straight characteristic curve one could previously obtain when processing TMX in T-MAX developer (*not* RS) is no longer available.

-- Sal Santamaura (santamaura@earthlink.net), May 10, 2002.