Problems dialing in my TMax 400 process - XTol pooping out?

[leicaglow]

<p>This isn't so much about the Paterson Orbital processor I bought, in order to develop short run 4x5 negatives, as it is about developer exhaustion (I think), or something with the TMax emulsion.</p>

<p>The scenario is: I can develop just about any film I shoot, using 200 ml of XTol for he 4 sheets the Paterson processor holds, and it comes out spot on. So far, Adox CHS 100 (looks great in XTol, BTW), Tri-X, and Fuji Acros. But for some reason, the TMax 400 is way too thin--like 2 stops worth. </p>

<p>Can anyone think of any reason why XTol might be so far off with TMax 400? I am not as experienced with TMax as other films, but is there something in the makeup of it that would behave differently? I think the XTol package says to develop for 6 min or so, and I've been giving it 9, and it's still a stop and a half too thin. Thanks for any ideas.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>To see if it's developer exhaustion, you could experiment with using twice as much developer.<br>

T-MAX films change contrast index <em>much</em> more quickly as a function of change of developing times than other films. Look at the contrast index as a function of development time curves on the Tri-X and T-MAX data sheets. So if your thermometer were off a few degrees, this would lead to a slight error on Tri-X, and a big error on T-MAX.<br>

Of course, that says changing from 6 to 9 minutes should make a big difference. Hmm.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>200ml of Xtol should not be exhausted by four sheets of 4 x 5. Have you printed the Tmax negatives yet, or is your assessment based on inspection of the negatives? I ask because properly exposed/developed Tmax negatives look thinner to the eye than conventional emulsions. (Apologies if I'm stating something obvious that you already know.)</p>

[fred aspen]

<p>Two stops, hmmmm? Are you sure it is Tmax 400, not Tmax 100? That's about two stops.</p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>Just keep developing more until you get negatives you like. If you get excessive contrast before you get acceptable shadow detail, your negatives are underexposed. I think the minimum volume of XTOL per roll is 25ml, so I don't think developer exhaustion is likely. I've found TMY-2 takes longer to develop with some developers than the old version did. I would use one sheet at a time, and make large corrections. Double your development time (18 min), for instance. If your resulting neg is overdeveloped, you can cut back by 20%, and you'll probably be within very close range of optimum. If , on the other hand, your resulting neg is still underdeveloped, double your developing time again. Within a very few iterations, you'll find your normal development time. When you get a negative of normal, or near normal contrast, evaluate your shadow detail. If it's inadequate, your negatives are underexposed. If you find your normal development time for TMY-2 is 12-15 min, and your personal EI is 320, can you live with it? Why should Kodak be so far off on their recommendations? I would expect there to be a lot more chatter on the net if this was a normal circumstance with this film/developer combination. I would double check all my user input (equipment, metering, chemical mixing, etc.) to rule out user error. Something seems amiss.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p><a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/chemistry/bwFilmProcessing/xtol.jhtml?pq-path=14032">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/chemistry/bwFilmProcessing/xtol.jhtml?pq-path=14032</a><br>

According to tech pub j-109 :<br>

 

<p>We recommend always starting with at least 100 mL (3.5 fluidounces) of full-strength developer to prepare the diluted solution for each 135-36 or 120 roll (or the equivalent of 80 square inches [516 square centimetres]).</p>

 

<br>

Time at 68⁰ full strength 6 1/4 minutes; 1:1 7 1/4 minutes. If the stock solution is more than 3 months old in a partial full bottle it may be going bad, newer mix should be good.</p>

 

[leicaglow]

<p>Thanks for all the ideas. I really appreciate it. I just mixed this a few days ago, and it is working with other films, spot on, using the same lenses, which have recently been serviced. I guess there is not magic. I'll have to adjust to about 13 min with stock solution and see if it is tolerable. It must be something with XTol in a Paterson tank, because it works fine in my dip and dunk. I'm just trying to dial in my daylight process so I can multitask with other work, rather than working in the dark. Thanks again, all!</p>

[frank.schifano]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the XTol package says to develop for 6 min or so, and I've been giving it 9, and it's still a stop and a half too thin. Thanks for any ideas.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>J-4043, the tech sheet for TMY-2 says 6.5 and 9.25 minutes for XTOL at full strength and 1+1 respectively. Now, it's true that TMY-2 is more sensitive to time and temperature fluctuations than, how shall I say this, more classic emulsions, so your temperature may be a bit lower than indicated if you're holding 68F by your thermometer. It's also very true that TMY-2 negatives do look thinner to the eye than more classic emulsions, but that doesn't matter. Printing times tend to run a bit shorter, but a properly exposed and developed negative prints with a full range of tones despite its appearance.<br>

Just an FYI. I recently made a real boner of a mistake with a roll of TMY-2 by exposing and developing it as if it were TMX. That's a two stop over exposure. The development time for both films is remarkably close, so that wasn't too much of a factor. But the real kicker is that even with that much over exposure, these negatives printed just fine, far better than I'd have expected them to.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<blockquote>

<p>so your temperature may be a bit lower than indicated if you're holding 68F by your thermometer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for reminding me. I have two dial thermometers. Both had read the same when I checked them so I used the easiest to read scale one and during a processing session one day I dropped it. After that I noticed my highlights were dull gray. I compared it to the other dial thermometer and found a 2 degree difference. I had a hard to read glass rod photo thermometer that I used to check the dials against, the one I had dropped was reading 2 degrees high.</p>

 

[frank.schifano]

<p>Well there you go. Some dial thermometers are adjustable, some aren't. If yours is, there will be a nut on the back of the dial head. Gently turn it until it agrees with whatever you're using as a calibration standard. Personally, I have no use for those things. I've several, and they all read differently. I use a Paterson Color Thermometer as a calibration standard, and digital kitchen thermometers as my working units. Mostly they pretty much agree, but once in a wile you get one that's off. No matter. It's consistent and as long as I know by how much it's off, it works. Eventually, it goes flakey; but they're cheap and you can find them for $10 or less at your local WalMart.</p>

[Fotohuis RoVo]

<p>I do the same, a Jobo color (Mercury) calibration standard and a cheap Jobo floating thermometer (Alcohol) or digital kitchen crap as my working units. Just found on 30 pcs. two the same which I select as regular thermometer. Eur. 5,50.</p>