From: sparks@col.hp.com (John Sparks)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: T-Max developing (again)...
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:57:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: col.1992Sep29.165747.22681
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

In article <92273.091655JSN3@psuvm.psu.edu> <JSN3@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>...My developing technique is very
>consistent but I don't know if perhaps I'm over-agitating.  I was taught back
>in college days to agitate for the first 30 seconds and and for 5 seconds every
>30 seconds thereafter.  I use stainless steel and don't have any problems.

This is the recommended agitation procedure.  I don't think this is a problem.

>I suppose you could describe my negatives as a bit on the "beefy" side but that
>is how I like them.  (Who needs anorexic negs?)

>...The bottom line is my tones seem somewhat blocked. 

Well there are two ways to get dense negatives.  One is to give extra
exposure (most people I know rate TMAX 400 at about 200-320 and TMAX 100
at about 50-80 not the Kodak speeds of 400 and 100).  This gives a
negative with good shadow detail.  The other way to get dense negatives
is to give extra development.  This will give too much contrast for most
situations and will prevent you from fitting the highlights and shadows
on the paper at the same time without considerable effort (very low
contrast papers and/or much burning and dodging).  This sounds like the
type of dense negatives that you are getting.  

>I noticed someone on the net said they used a water bath.

I don't think this will make a big difference as long as your negatives are
consistant now.

>BTW, I suppose it would help you to know I've been using
>T-Max developer (expensive stuff) and the suggested time.

The key here is "suggested time".  This is only a starting place and in
your case is probably too long.  Try reducing development by maybe 20%
and see if the negatives are not blocking up.  You can fine tune your
development time to get exactly the results you want.  Reducing
development time gives less contrasty negatives, increasing development
time increases contrast as well.  This summer I got a very graphic
demonstration of the need for establishing your own development time.
At a workshop I attended, we developed our film in a Jobo processor,
with the same set up that the instructor used all over the country,
development times varied from 7 to 9 min or so for normal development.
The only thing that changed was the water supply used to mix the 
developer.  I guess the hardness/softness or the particular minerals
disolved in the tap water made enough difference in the activity of
the developer that this kind of change in development times were
required for consistant negatives.  I'm now convinced that establishing
your own normal development time is necessary for optimum results.

Exposure is fairly independent of development time and film speeds
should also be considered suggestions and can be correctly determined by
looking at detail in the shadow areas of the negative or print.  If the
negative is too thin in the shadows or the best print you can make lacks
the detail you want in the shadows, your negatives need more exposure.
If this is the case, try increasing exposure by 1/2 to 1 stop (i.e.
rate your TMAX 400 about 250 or 2/3 stop more exposure than rated speed
as a starting point).

>Has anyone tried
>the photographer's formulary version of T-Max developer?  I haven't ordered
>from them yet but I just got my copy of the Book of Pyro (another project) and
>I will be soon.  Thanks in advance!

I read something somewhere that basicly said that the many different
developers available were just many different ways of getting the same
results.  Things aren't quite that simple, but changing developer
results in very subtle changes in the results.  In particular, small
changes in grain structure, slight changes in sharpness, subtle changes
in local contrast or slight changes in curve shape (in other words
changes contrast in highlights vs shadows or highlights vs midtones) are
the kinds of things you will see when changing developers.  I don't
thing trying different developers is a very productive thing to do
before you are getting the best results you can get with the developer
you are using.  Fine tune the development time and film speed for one
developer (say TMAX) and only if there is something that you don't like
(costs too much, hightlights just aren't quite right, not sharp enough,
etc.)  is it worth trying something else.  From my results with TMAX
film with lots of controlled testing, the best of the normal developers
is D76 1:1.  This gives a little more grain than TMAX developer, but
also gives more sharpness (I use mostly 4x5 so grain isn't a big deal,
but the sharpness difference is noticable).  The only problem with D76
is that the stock solution doesn't keep very well.  I generally throw
out any stock solution over 2 months old and try to keep it only a month
(I buy D76 powder in quart or 1/2 gal quantities and keep it in full
tightly sealed quart or 1/2 quart glass bottles).  As D76 ages, it gets
more active and with TMAX films in particular, this is enough to get
significantly more contrast with old developer vs fresh developer.

I have tried PMK pyro developer and unlike several others on the net,
didn't have any magic results.  It is probably a good choice for TMAX,
but the fumes made me kind of ill, so I gave it up (I may give it a new
try once I get my fan installed in my new darkroom).

I think you will like TMAX films once you fine tune your development
times and film speeds.

John Sparks
From: feltman@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Robert Feltman)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:42:11 GMT
Subject: Zonies, (I) need help
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA