tmax 100 with hc 110 (dil b) seems underdeveloped

[theofanis700]

I started using the new tmax 100 after over 15 years using 400 iso films. I recently developed some

tmax 100 using hc 110 (dil b) at 20 degrees C and the negatives look underdeveloped compared to the

density of my 400 iso films I used in the past. May be I' m doing something wrong. I developed for 6

minutes( agitation for the first 30 seconds and then 5 seconds every half a minute) as I read in kodak's

forum. Does tmax 100 negatives have this kind of look (slightly less density) or my developing times are

wrong ? I keep hc 110 in 250ml bottles and the bottle was full before development so It doesn't pass my

mind that the developer is exchasted (I bought the original 1lt bottle 8 months ago).

[hector_obregon]

I dilute mine 5 ml to 240ml total and develop for 8-8.5 min at 20 degrees C. and have been happy with the

results. My HC110 is a couple of years old.

[lex_jenkins]

If you just started using TMX you may need to shoot several rolls to get acquainted with it. Generally it's very unforgiving of underexposure and meter error. Try it at EI 64-80.

 

Also, adjust the development times to suit the exposure conditions. Contrasty lighting may call for slightly less development; flat lighting for slightly more.

 

Finally, I'd suggest using Dilution H rather than B. Dilution B was more appropriate to sheet film development since pour times were not a factor. Development times shorter than 10 minutes can lead to inconsistencies with tank and reel development.

 

See: http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

[john carter]

I like my negatives darker, but I use what would be 8.0-8.5 minutes with B. I use basically the same temp, agitations as you. I've started down rating it to 50 which give wonderful shadows.

[stefan_kahlert2]

TMAX-films look thin. This is pretty normal. If you develop them to look like conventional films, you will have the same usual complaints about bullet-proof highlights. I ran into that pitfall myself...

If you want to know if the densities are right use a densitometer or print your negs.

 

best

 

Stefan

[tom_johnston4]

<p>I realize that this thread is old but I will relate my experiences with this film/developer combination for anyone interested. I have been using TMX since it was first introduced and it is still my film of choice for most large format photography. (I prefer TRI-X or HP5+ for small format.) When the film first came out, TMAX developer was not available so I tried several developers and settled on HC110-B as being the best of those that I tried. I believe John Sexton used HC110 too when the film first came out but I believe he later switched to D76. When TMAX developer came out, I tested it. It produced a full speed of 100 unlike HC110-B which has always produced a E.I. of 64-80 for me with both the new and old versions of the film and in all formats, but I found that I preferred HC110. Since that time, it has been found that TMAX developer is NOT the best developer for TMAX100 film, despite the name, but TMAX-RS is better. <br>

The new and the old versions of the film require very different development times, depending on the developer used. Also, TMAX negatives do appear to be "thinner" than traditional films. However, as long as you have ample shadow detail, don't worry about that. In fact, the very best negatives I have made - as far as how they print in the darkroom - have looked very thin. <br>

Now, here's something that anyone reading this may find hard to believe: TMAX100 has always had a reputation for being very touchy (sensitive to time/temp/agitation variations). However, it is extremely NON-responsive in HC110! I tested the combination extensively in both roll film formats and sheet film when it first came out and I actually found it to be so tame that it was almost hard to achieve N+1 development in HC110-B. N+1 times were almost TWICE that of N development! Forget N+2. For expanded development, I have to use different developers or increase the concentration of HC110. I have found TRI-X developed in HC110-B to be MUCH more responsive (touchy). <br>

When the new version of the film came out, I had to re-do all my testing. I'm glad I did because, as I said, development times were very different than they were for the old version of the film. (The same for TRI-X). But I found the film to still be very UN-responsive to changes in development time in HC110. But it is easier to achieve N+ development with the new film simply because the normal development time is shorter. <br>

This may all sound strange to someone who has heard how touchy TMAX100 is but, years ago, I talked to a Kodak chemist and he confirmed that my results are exactly what is to be expected with TMAX100 and HC110. I forget why he said that was the case. Since then, I read at least one thread where other photographers reported experiencing the same thing.<br>

I get excellent results with this film/developer combination and it remains my standard choice for large format work.<br>

Try rating it at E.I. 64 when you develop in HC110-B and don't worry about the "thin" look. As I said, my best printing TMAX100 negatives appear very thin on the light table. Remember, what looks good on a light table is not necessarily what will print best in the darkroom.<br>

I'll attach a photograph I made when TMAX100 first came out. It was developed in HC110-B and it appears very thin. Of course, the image here is a low-resolution scan so it doesn't show the real qualities of the negative.</p><div></div>