TMX-100-easily scratched negs?

[TomHildreth]

When I was shooting and developing my own 35mm TMX-100 it was easy to

damage the negs through "normal" handling. I tried different things

to cut down on the dings and scratches that seemed to plague me, but

never really brought it under control.

 

When shooting, developing and storing my own Plus-X or Panatomic-X in

a similar environment earlier, I had the occasional surface abrasion,

but never a severe problem. Obviously my film handling technique was

part of the problem. I haven't shot much B&W lately, but the color

negs I have been handling (in the same environment) are not suffering

from this problem.

 

Scanning some of these TMAX and Plus-X negatives lately has verified

my earlier suspicions. The amount of work required for me to edit

(read clone out blemishes) a TMAX neg is about double compared to a

Plus-X neg.

 

Other than handling technique, where was my problem? I didn't

squeegee the negatives. Would hardener have helped? What are your

experiences along these lines? Have you had problems with certain

film types that seem more prone to damage from handling than other

types?

[brooklyn]

Hiya Tom,

 

I myself have never used that film, I am a dedicated Agfa APX user, but, you might want to try a fixer with hardening agent in it, that might help.

Are you sure that it is not the camera, or the film canisters?

I roll my own film from bulk, and change my canisters every so often to keep scratches away.

 

Glen

[RobertChura]

The only time I have damaged a negative was when I first tray developed sheet film. Yes, use hardener in the fixer.

[neal_wydra1]

Dear Tom,

 

While I have always used hardening fixer (Kodafix and Polymax) for film, I have not encountered more problems with T-Max vs. other films. In fact, the only times I have had problems is when I've "squeegeed" the film.

 

Try using Photo-Flo in distilled water for your last wash and just let the film hang to dry. This method has never failed me.

 

About 7 years ago after a long hiatus from b&w I went into a camera shop asking for a bulk roll of Pan-X. The kid behind the counter just looked at me like I had two heads. Thank goodness they still had a few film names I recognized.

 

Neal Wydra

[TomHildreth]

Thanks for the replies all.

 

It seems like hardener for TMAX is highly recommended. I mentioned this a couple of times when I was having all the problems, but the camera store people kept saying it wasn't necessary. One of the steps I took to eliminate the problem was to stop developing TMAX myself and send it out to the lab. I wanted to settle on one trustworthy lab, but they lost a roll so I tried another and they lost a roll too. I'm on my third lab now. I know, I know, if I developed the film myself it would be pretty unlikely that I would lose the negatives.

 

Glen-I haven't tried APX yet, but hope to do so before too long. I have split my ISO 100 B&W shooting between TMAX-100 and Ilford D100, which is a very nice film. About 10 years ago I tried a few rolls of Agfa ISO 25 B&W film. It was excellent for some of my work, but is apparently no longer available.

 

Neal-I was air drying with Photoflo, film hanging vertically with a small weight on bottom end to prevent curling. I think the cause of most of the scratches was that I was cutting the roll into strips of 5 or 6 frames, and storing the entire roll in one glassine envelope. This meant a lot of neg on neg contact, which was not smart on my part. Nowadays my negatives go directly from the lab sleeves to proper storage pages.

 

Yeah, youthful store employees won't know about Panatomic-X. I don't know exactly when that film was discontinued-I would use it today if it was still around. In 2001 I was checking availability of B&W film in 120 size to test an old Billy Record camera I bought in an antique shop. I asked for Verichrome Pan (VP120-perhaps the most popular of the B&W 120/620 films in the 1950s and 60s). Apparently they had not sold VP120 in that store for some time as I had to convince the store crew that in this case, the term "Verichrome" was not indicative of a color slide film. I think it stood for better B&W sensitivity across the color spectrum, something lacking in earlier B&W films. This was in 2001, right around the time VP120 was discontinued. It always seemed odd to me that Kodak produced Plus-X and Verichrome Pan in 120 simultaneously for decades. I never saw much difference between the two in my shooting.

 

Thanks again.

[kc_dougherty]

Yes, a hardener in the fixer should make a huge difference. I shoot a lot of T-Max 100 in both the 135 and 120 formats (the 4x5 not so much) and I have only had scratches if I did something really careless. Archival pages are definitely the way to go for storage.

 

Because of the "pink problem" that T-Max 100 seems to have if it's not fixed long enough, I tend to fix it longer than I do Tri-X or Plus-X, so the longer time in the fixing bath may help too. I use the standard powdered Kodak Fixer for my film.

 

My negatives are air dried in the bathtub because they can drip as much as they want, are out of the way, and that is the least dusty place in the house. I made a small "clothesline" out of two plastic hangers with holes drilled in them. I can have three "lines" of negatives hanging in a small space pinned up with clothes pins. I hang one or two clothespins on the bottoms as weights. It works very well and I hang my prints in there too.

 

Kodak stopped making Verichrome two or three years ago, the demand must have been dwindling. It is a nice film (I still have some cached rolls and a friend of mine stocked up when EKC announced its demise). I'm really going to miss Technical Pan though. I had the "no, really, Verichrome is a black and white film, not a slide film" conversation a few times too. I recently acquired a Rollei 4x4 and have been shooting outdated VP with pretty good luck.

 

I'm a diehard Kodak shooter and haven't shot too much Fuji, Agfa or Ilford.

 

After more than 10 years behind the counter (and mini-lab machine) at a camera store, nothing surprises me too much anymore, except for maybe the girl who bought the Nikon N65 and some Tri-X film. She shot the film and took it to the one-hour at the local Eckerd. They ran it through their C-41 machine which ruined the film. They told her that her camera was defective and to take it back to where she bought it. She came in with the camera and the still wet negatives to complain. Luckily, after I had finished explaining that what went wrong were the geniuses at Eckerd, she understood.

 

KC

[lex_jenkins]

I've never had a problem with damage to TMX emulsion in either 35mm or 120. I've also found it easier to get good scans from than other conventional b&w films - virtually grainless.

 

I'd suggest checking your equipment for burrs that might cause scratches - reels, everything, including your camera. Also if your hands are occasionally rough due to dry skin, ragged cuticles, etc., that's enough to damage wet emulsion if the film is handled less than delicately.

[al_divenuti]

A hardening fixer ought not to be a necessity for Agfa, Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford films as they incorporate hardeners in the film itself.

 

I've only processed a couple rolls of TMX but I never had anything resembling a problem with scratches. I don't squeegie film.

 

OTOH, TMAX requires about twice the time in the fixer as other films and depletes it about twice as fast as conventional films.