Re: T-max 400 processing times.

[E Bauer <jbauer@xxxxxxx>]

Jd wrote:

>     Just out of curiousity, how come you don't like T-max?

    First of all, to each his own -- if you like this stuff, great! (I even
enjoy some of Elvis' songs -- I just don't think he deserves to be called "the
King of Rock and Roll.")  I played with the T-max emulsions when they first came
out -- Kodak wanted everyone to believe that this was the best stuff since
sliced bread -- greater exposure latitude, great development latitude, finer
grain in the 100 than Panatomic-X (which they discontinued, a major mistake in
the opinion of many), greater sharpness.  Most of this was (and is) simply not
true.  The T-max films are sharper, that is true, but that's about it; and if
it's sharpness and micro grain you're after, T-max 100 can't hold a candle to
Tech Pan in Technidol -- not even close.  Those of us who did technical work on
Panatomic-X in Microdol flat weren't as impressed as Kodak told us we should
be.  As far as grain goes, there are a number of factors involved.  Correct
exposure and processing are critical.  Get sloppy on either and you'll have a
"large" grain pattern from anything.  And while the T-max emulsions may indicate
a "finer" grain pattern by definition, the final print is what counts -- the
regularity of T-max emulsions is quite noticeable, and many find it less
visually attractive than the irregular pattern of "larger grain" films.
    One of the great beauties of art is that whatever works is what works -- one
reason I prefer IR (35mm HIE) for much of my current work is that I like the
large grain structure.  A friend on mine some years ago used High Speed
Recording film exposed at EI 4000, processed in Dektol, and contraction
reticulated the stuff in the fix by about 30 degrees F.  He printed these 35mm
negs to 16x20 -- had to stand way back to see the image -- that's what he
wanted, and it was effective.

>  I used that plus-x and I thuought it had too much grain

    Again, exposure and development are critical -- I have 11x14 prints from
35mm Plus-X in D-76 (1:1) that many people (who know photography) first guess to
be from 4x5 negs.  I've also screwed up Plus-X to the point that a 5x7 print
looks horrible.  My standard Tri-X at EI 1600 (in my own developer mix) has
finer grain structure than what I see from most work on T-max 400 at 400 -- a
smaller tonal range, but not too bad -- works well for theater.

> What is the difference between the different developers?

    Do some research if you like, but basically, I'd suggest you play with some
film/developer combinations and find those that best serve your purposes.  This
might well involve T-max for you -- for me it does not.  I have ways that work
for me -- you should find ways that work for you.  In any case, exposure is
critical.  Wet time, temperature control, and agitation are all very important
aspects.  HC-110 is a non staining developer you might want to check out, some
people swear by split D-76, some prefer Rodinol, Microdol, etc.  Find what works
for you and go for it!

*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************

------------------------------