Developing the new kodak films.

[gareth_harper]

OK I've know this subject has been up before and I've searched the

archive but I haven't found the answer I'm looking for.

Basically I've got an important shoot coming up and it's right at the

point where I'm forced to change over to the new Tmax 400 and tri-x

emulsions.

I'm using Ilfosol S for the Tmax 7minutes 45 seconds and 12 minutes

in rodinal 1/50 for the tri-x.

I get the impression from the previous posts that the rodinal time

for tri-x has increased, i.e. maybe 13 minutes instead of 12.

Basically am I looking at increasing the time a little.

 

For the T-max400, have times generally increased or decreased?

Should I increase or decrease the dev time or stick with my old time?

 

I'm going to bracket both films +/- 1 stop for all shots to be on the

safe side and shoot 50% XP2 so I hopefully gaurantee the shoot

doesn't become a disaster.

Got to get a result here, any help very much appreciated.

[m0002a]

Development times for Tmax 400 have not changed.

[lex_jenkins]

I haven't noticed any difference at all between old and new TMY, either in development times or overall look of the film. And the only difference I see in the new TX is somewhat finer grain, even in Ilfosol-S. I'm developing both the same way, including 35mm and 120 versions of TX.

[josphy]

The published times from Kodak seem to vary the development times by a minute or more in some cases (varying from developer to developer of course) and yet people are using the same old times? Are other people doing this besides Lex? I'm mostly interested in Tri-x.

 

Baffled as to why Kodak is publishing diff times if nobody is paying attention to them anyway,

Joseph

[m0002a]

Apparently there is some confusion here. The development times for TMX, TMZ, Tri-X (all versions), and Plus-X all changed because of changes to these films made by Kodak. No changes were made to TMY (Tmax 400) film and therefore Kodak recommends no development time changes for this film (even though the name changed).</p>

 

The old and new development times for selected developers can be seen in the document below. Note that TMY(Tmax 400) is the only one of the above mentioned films that do not have changes to the development time:</p>

 

<a href=http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/edbwf/edbwf.pdf>EDBWF.PDF</A></p>

 

I certainly am of the opinion that development times should be adjusted for the films other than TMY.

[gareth_harper]

OK the T-max 400 is pretty much or exactly the same. I'll use the same time.

The tri-x is similar. Has anybody had to change their tri-x time with rodinal? Sould I give an extra 30 seconds or just go with my old time and see what happens?

Anyway it sounds as if all sould be rougthly ok, and I'll be bracketing anyway as I've got to get these shots right.

Sometimes I wonder if Kodak sets out to confuse as all.

Thanks again.

[m0002a]

I guess that I don't understand what is so confusing. Kodak publicly stated that TMY was the only one of the above films that they did not change. Kodak published revised development times for the other films for most of their developers.

 

To determine a development time for a developer not listed (Rodinal), I would take the average percent change of the developers listed and apply the same percent change to your old Rodinal development time, and then adjust from there if necessary.

[lex_jenkins]

I was skeptical of the decreased development times recommended by Kodak for the new Tri-X. So far I've developed the new version using my old times and gotten very comparable results. I've tried only a few developers - ID-11, Rodinal, Ilfosol-S (and Diafine, for which the times are pretty much irrelevant anyway) - so there may be significant differences using other developers. Best to test for yourself.

[m0002a]

One theory is that the coatings on the films changed (except for TMY which was already produced at the new factory with the new coating) and that it depends on whether you pre-soak as to if any development time changes will occur. Since Kodak does not recommend pre-soak, then their published times changed.

 

I have heard the above explanation, but do not know if it is actually true. But if it is true, then it is one more reason for each person to do their own testing.

[steve_unsworth1]

With the new Tri-X I use Xtol 1:3 with the same times as the old version and everything looks ok to me.

[m0002a]

Not sure what "looks OK to me" actually means when evaluating the new times recommended by Kodak. It would probably be best to try the new times and compare it to your old times (and your old negatives). Unfortunately, Kodak no longer publishes times for 1:3 dilution of XTOL.

[steve_unsworth1]

Sorry Mark that was a bit of a generalisation wasn't it :-). What I menat by 'seems ok to me is that I have a full range of tones across the negative - i.e. I don't have blocked out shadow detail or blown highlights. Bear in mind that I scan, I don't have a wet darkroom.

[m0002a]

Steve, no apologies necessary. But I don't think anyone will ever get to the bottom of this controversy (started by a magazine article written by 2 ex-Kodak employees) unless there are some serious controlled experiments done. But what do I care, since I use Ilford films these days.

[donald_davis2]

I have noticed here that the new Tri-X is very close, if not actually a tad bit better, than the old version. Now...has anybody compared the new Plus-X to the old Plus-X? I have always been a Plus-X person, but Tri-X is a very close second.

[peter_schauss1]

I shot a roll of the new Plus-X about a month ago, developing it in D76 (1:1) using the time specified on the new data sheet. The results were similar to what I got with three rolls of the old Plus-X a month or so earlier using the old times.

 

The new Tri-X, on the other hand, seems to need about 45 seconds more time in D76 (1:1) than the 9 3/4 minutes specified on the new data sheet.

[gareth_harper]

The confusion comes from the suttle renaming of the films, not to mention the different versions available. I belive that besides T-max pro etc.. there are amatuer versions kicking about, or have these been dropped. It's easy to end up wondering whether you have the new or the old or the pro or the amatuer version new or old. Ilford films seem much simplier to understand in this respect. Simple line up with 'new' or 'improved' or 'plus' stamped on the packets when they get an overhall.

 

I've concluded from the responses that my T-max time should be the same.

 

My tri-x time maybe the same. Has anybody had to increase or decrease the time with rodinal?

[gareth_harper]

Oh forgot to mention I'm developing them for darkroom use. I want to avoid overdeveloped tri-x at all costs. Can handle a stop under but a stop over becomes a real pain.

[lex_jenkins]

I think what Mark is hoping for is someone with a densitometer to step up and confirm or refute our anecdotes with hard data. ;]

[m0002a]

Lex, I am assuming that Kodak used a densitometer to come up with the new development times. So if someone wants to refute Kodak, then they should prepare to do some serious testing and not just rely on anecdotal observations.

[barry_kenstler]

Gareth,

 

I'm inclined to agree with those two ex-Kodak employees (Dick & Silvia) that Mark referred to. They ran tests on the old and new stocks and noted the differences in speed, grain, curve shape, CI's vs dev time, etc. Based on some of the work they did in the past, I would guess their methodology is about as controlled as you are going to get. They concluded in an article published in Photo Techniques that the old developing times (D-76) appeared to work just fine for the new films. In that same article, they noted that the new TMY showed somewhat more prominent grain than the old, even though it was not changed and is manufactured in the same facility. Their developing times for the new materials, which differ at times significantly from those published by Kodak, bring into question the accuracy of the Kodak numbers(heretics-hence the controversy). You're on the right track. You should be safe going the route you suggested using a slight bump up for TRI-X,using the Chromogenic, and keeping your TMY times the same. Besides, unless you are precisely calibrated to print only on a particular graded paper, using VC paper or Photoshop, will allow you to seemlessly adjust for any difference an 8% change in developing time will cause.

[gareth_harper]

Had a look at that Kodak document. All it tells you is that for the new tri-x 400 it depends on what developer you use which way the time goes, up or down.

 

Anyway, I've just hung up the two films to dry, deved em for 11 minutes and 45 seconds and they certainly look as if they will provide me with some prints. Until I've had a good look at them I'm not 100% sure about my dev time. At a glance they look just a tad thin, so probably move to 12 minutes for the next lot.

 

 

Certainly Kodak should get an award for confusing packaging and naming of their films.

[steve_unsworth1]

<i>Certainly Kodak should get an award for confusing packaging and naming of their films</i>

<p>

The colour films are just as bad, they seem to change every year.

</p>

[donald_davis2]

<i>The colour films are just as bad, they seem to change every year.</i>

<br>

<br>

Amen to that!!! I have just about had it with Kodak canning some of my all time favorite color films!!! I mean, they canned Royal Gold25/Ektar 25, Royal Gold 100 (kodak, if you even give a shit about your customers, reintroduce RG 100 as High Definition 100), Supra 100, and the biggest mistake...discontinuing Kodachrome 25!!! Has anybody ever seen an 11x14 made from Ektar 25 in medium format? <b>INCREDIBLE!!!</b> At first I was even upset a long time ago when they discontinued my favorite E6 slide film, Ektachrome 50HC. It had a nicely saturated look, but not the wet paint appearance of Velvia 50. I always felt that 50HC had a palette similar to K25 but with extra saturation. However, Kodak redeemed themselves to me with the release of Ektachrome E100G.

<br>

<br>

Now with their B&W films, I still will be a fan of Plus-X. However, I am ashamed to admit I have never shot a roll of the Ilford emulsions until just recently. I have a roll of Pan F waiting to be developed. And I do intend to try FP4+ and HP5+ soon. I just wonder if after that trial, I will be switching to Ilford's films? From the comments here about those two above films, I think that may indeed happen.

[gareth_harper]

Ok, I've tried printing a few. I did bracket +/- one stop on these shots, and of the two I've printed so far the thin neg was best for printing. Moving my time back to 11minutes and 30 seconds. I'm happy I've got a ball park figure now.

See http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1648211 for what the print looked like.

[jorge_oliveira2]

One identifies new Kodak from old (at least in the negative, I use reloaded film) from the side marking.

 

New TX= 400TX; New PX= 125 PX and so on.