Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,921   Posts: 1,522,078   Online: 791
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,034

    Kodak's times for TMax 400 @1600, goofy?

    I've recently been experimenting with pushing two 400 speed films to 1600: Kodak's TMax and Ilford's Delta. The developing times for each, with stock Xtol at 68d egrees F, are 8.5 minutes for the Kodak and 13 minutes for the Ilford. These are manufacturer published times.

    However.

    While the Delta 400 negatives are nice, with good shadow detail, and good exposure, the Kodak negs are horrible. NO shadow detail and all the negatives look devoid of detail outside the best-lit areas.

    Is that what's supposed to happen? Is Kodak off its rocker here?
    In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.

  2. #2
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,926
    Images
    65
    In my Kodak dataguide the time given for 1600 speed is 11.5 minutes for the film pushed to 1600 in Xtol.

    This is for small tank. For large tank it is 13.5 minutes.

    PE

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,034

    Where is this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    In my Kodak dataguide the time given for 1600 speed is 11.5 minutes for the film pushed to 1600 in Xtol.

    This is for small tank. For large tank it is 13.5 minutes.

    PE
    I am using data from Kodak's website, publication f4043.pdf. On the film box it says to go to www.kodak.com/go/bwfilms and then I click on the T-MAX 400 link... which is where that publication exists...

    Am I misreading the publication?
    In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.

  4. #4
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,926
    Images
    65
    I think your reference must be in error as the normal process time and push process times (400 vs 1600) are so close.

    My data comes from the 6th edition of the Kodak B&W Darkroom Dataguide. It is on Page 30. The situation is made confusing as there are really two ways to look at this. There is the 400 film pushed and the TMZ at varying speeds. That latter is actually more correct I think due to the close values for the two times noted above.

    PE

  5. #5
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,070
    Images
    60
    Does any of this flow from the recent changes to the TMAX 400 emulsion?

    I would agree, however, that the 400 ISO and 1600 ISO times seem awfully close.

    Matt

  6. #6
    erikg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    pawtucket rhode island usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,393
    Something does seem amiss. I took a look at the PDF that Wolfeye is working from and I don't think he is misreading it. The times are different from what PE states and do not seem to provide enough compensation for a two stop push. PE's dataguide numbers make more sense.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,034
    Kodak states that a 1-stop push requires no extra development time. That seems odd in and of itself.

    Mayve Kodak is trying to make amatuers look bad, and only give out the real times to pros.
    In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,067
    I never had success in pushing TMY, (I should add that I haven't tried it with the new version) I always found pushed Tri-X to be far superior. I had assumed, (yeah I know - U and ME) that the flat crystals were the issue so I never pursued it further. Xtol 1+2 and Rodinal 1+99 (though for 25 minutes) gave me great "gritty" images.

    Bob H
    "Why is there always a better way?"

  9. #9
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,589
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    I'm even more confused.

    I've got the xtol-j109.pdf publication page 6

    Stock xtol, 68 degrees, 400 or 800, 6.5 minutes
    Stock xtol, 68 degrees, 1600, 8.5 minutes
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  10. #10
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,589
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I'm even more confused.

    I've got the xtol-j109.pdf publication page 6

    Stock xtol, 68 degrees, 400 or 800, 6.5 minutes
    Stock xtol, 68 degrees, 1600, 8.5 minutes
    Here's the pdf
    Attached Files
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin