First shot with Nikkormat FTN

[timor]

I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "Weak,detail-free shadows" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.

I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.

Uff... And what will be the developer designed for T-max ?
Consider this, Gary exposed this 20 years past date Tmax 400 2two stops below nominal and developed in Rodinal in STAND process. HOW one is calculating push in stand ? Can you ? If so, don't keep it secret, come on, tell us. You can't. Neither me or Gary can't do that. There is not much measurable difference in achieved density between 1 hour and two hours stand. Even infectious development has own limits in very weak ( concentration wise ) developers. I think Gary, maybe by accident, did quite well here achieving rather smooth than contrasty negative and high contrast is something you can expect from over developed Tmax. Considering this, this Regan era TMY did very well in Rodinal stand. Grain and fog are rather due to it's age.
I agree, T grain films in general are not good for pushing as they contain much less silver, than cubical grain films, so there is not much to be "pushed". Incidentally Rodinal is not bad developer for Tmax films, however not for stand. It has good pH and very little silver solvants which work well for sharpness and local micro contrast. Unfortunately in prolonged process like stand it starts to replate the little silver it dissolves back on the emulsion building fog, hurting the contrast and sharpness. Tmax film as a rule should be processed quickly. Tmax films outperform any other film, but at the cost of photographer's effort. That's why many old timers has a such low opinion about Tmax, it didn't fit old methods and they didn't want to change them.

 

[Derrel]

The developer for T-Max was made by Kodak...and formulated to offer the best grain AND to develop full emulsion speed...which is something that other, traditional developers suck at. T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

Bottom line is the image he presented was made using a film that is utter rubbish for push processing in Rodinal. Twenty years out of date T-Max 400, and then he pushes that two stops AND makes a bad developer choice? Come on...as was said above by pixmedic, the result of the entire outdated film/pushed to 1600/guessed development time/wrong development method is.... a binner. Don't shoot the messenger, okay, timor?

Stand developing in 1) a developer designed for traditional silver-type emulsions when was it? Before World War II? Stand developing on 2-stop pushed AND twenty years out of date T-Max 400? All bad choices, but what the heck.

As you mentioned, T-Max is a good film...buuuut....the choice of the wrong developer, and the wrong type of development (stand), and the 20 years' outdated film lead to...a muddy mess witn zero shadow detail, flat tonality, blown out highlights in the upper areas, and overall, golfball-sized grain (Rodinal's speciality!!!), and flat, ugly mid-tones with almost zero microcontrast...

The proof of my opinion lies in the results...yeah, an image was made...and technically, it's very poor. But I know what he was after...just pop a roll of film in, push it two stops, and then take a wild guess at developoing it with whatever developer he happened to have. Obviously, poor choices, Timor. You ought to know that. And again to re-answer the first dumb, aggressive, insolent question you asked, "What will be the film developer designed for t-max?" is the one Kodak spent millions of dollars formulating... T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

 

[bribrius]

i would just be ecstatic it came out at all in this case. Shows my standards......

 

[Gary A.]

The developer for T-Max was made by Kodak...and formulated to offer the best grain AND to develop full emulsion speed...which is something that other, traditional developers suck at. T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

Bottom line is the image he presented was made using a film that is utter rubbish for push processing in Rodinal. Twenty years out of date T-Max 400, and then he pushes that two stops AND makes a bad developer choice? Come on...as was said above by pixmedic, the result of the entire outdated film/pushed to 1600/guessed development time/wrong development method is.... a binner. Don't shoot the messenger, okay, timor?

Stand developing in 1) a developer designed for traditional silver-type emulsions when was it? Before World War II? Stand developing on 2-stop pushed AND twenty years out of date T-Max 400? All bad choices, but what the heck.

As you mentioned, T-Max is a good film...buuuut....the choice of the wrong developer, and the wrong type of development (stand), and the 20 years' outdated film lead to...a muddy mess witn zero shadow detail, flat tonality, blown out highlights in the upper areas, and overall, golfball-sized grain (Rodinal's speciality!!!), and flat, ugly mid-tones with almost zero microcontrast...

The proof of my opinion lies in the results...yeah, an image was made...and technically, it's very poor. But I know what he was after...just pop a roll of film in, push it two stops, and then take a wild guess at developoing it with whatever developer he happened to have. Obviously, poor choices, Timor. You ought to know that. And again to re-answer the first dumb, aggressive, insolent question you asked, "What will be the film developer designed for t-max?" is the one Kodak spent millions of dollars formulating... T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

Welcome back Derrel, lol.

 

[gsgary]

I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!

I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "Weak,detail-free shadows" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.

I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.

But when you can get 18 rolls of b+w for £2 you can't complain

 

[Benjo255]

While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.

 

[pixmedic]

I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!

I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "Weak,detail-free shadows" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.

I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.

But when you can get 18 rolls of b+w for £2 you can't complain

Depends...
If you get 18 rolls of pics like that, you paid too much.

 

[gsgary]

I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!

I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "Weak,detail-free shadows" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.

I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.

But when you can get 18 rolls of b+w for £2 you can't complain

Depends...
If you get 18 rolls of pics like that, you paid too much.

Thats just down to shooting it 2 stops under and stand developing, I like grain 8 of the rolls is a wonderful film original Agfa apx100

 

[pixmedic]

I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!

I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "Weak,detail-free shadows" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.

I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.

But when you can get 18 rolls of b+w for £2 you can't complain

Depends...
If you get 18 rolls of pics like that, you paid too much.

Thats just down to shooting it 2 stops under and stand developing, I like grain 8 of the rolls is a wonderful film original Agfa apx100

I don't know much about stand developing, but if that was an issue, have you tried developing it sitting down?

 

[gsgary]

I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!

I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "Weak,detail-free shadows" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.

I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.

But when you can get 18 rolls of b+w for £2 you can't complain

Depends...
If you get 18 rolls of pics like that, you paid too much.

Thats just down to shooting it 2 stops under and stand developing, I like grain 8 of the rolls is a wonderful film original Agfa apx100

I don't know much about stand developing, but if that was an issue, have you tried developing it sitting down?

Im just about to wet print it you won't see as much grain

 

[pixmedic]

I think HC-110 is a much better developer than Rodinal when needing to push to 1600 or higher. But I understand the stand development idea. Exposure indoors in average lighting? f/2.8 at 1/30th no matter what. lol!

I think HC-110, dilution B ought to do stand development as well as almost anything, with good grain, and decent emulsion speed realized, at least on "conventional" grain film. The T-grain films really are not ideally suited for old-fashioned developers...they build almost no shadow density at their normal ASA ratings, which is one of the biggest drawbacks of T-Max....think "Weak,detail-free shadows" when developed with standard developers. When pushed, T-max sucks when it's developed in anything except a developer designed for it.

I have a very low opinion of T-Max film for anything except normal ISO exposing, and for developing in its own, optimized developers. I'd rather have Tri-X or HP-5 if I need to go above 400.

But when you can get 18 rolls of b+w for £2 you can't complain

Depends...
If you get 18 rolls of pics like that, you paid too much.

Thats just down to shooting it 2 stops under and stand developing, I like grain 8 of the rolls is a wonderful film original Agfa apx100

I don't know much about stand developing, but if that was an issue, have you tried developing it sitting down?

Im just about to wet print it you won't see as much grain

*generic "better when it's wet" joke*

 

[bribrius]

While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.

can't even tell. i have a couple old lenses that look oof when they are in the most in focus they go. wonder what the lens is? some are just plain soft. Others, the manual focus is a little to be desired at times.

 

[timor]

The developer for T-Max was made by Kodak...and formulated to offer the best grain AND to develop full emulsion speed...which is something that other, traditional developers suck at. T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

Bottom line is the image he presented was made using a film that is utter rubbish for push processing in Rodinal. Twenty years out of date T-Max 400, and then he pushes that two stops AND makes a bad developer choice? Come on...as was said above by pixmedic, the result of the entire outdated film/pushed to 1600/guessed development time/wrong development method is.... a binner. Don't shoot the messenger, okay, timor?

Stand developing in 1) a developer designed for traditional silver-type emulsions when was it? Before World War II? Stand developing on 2-stop pushed AND twenty years out of date T-Max 400? All bad choices, but what the heck.

As you mentioned, T-Max is a good film...buuuut....the choice of the wrong developer, and the wrong type of development (stand), and the 20 years' outdated film lead to...a muddy mess witn zero shadow detail, flat tonality, blown out highlights in the upper areas, and overall, golfball-sized grain (Rodinal's speciality!!!), and flat, ugly mid-tones with almost zero microcontrast...

The proof of my opinion lies in the results...yeah, an image was made...and technically, it's very poor. But I know what he was after...just pop a roll of film in, push it two stops, and then take a wild guess at developoing it with whatever developer he happened to have. Obviously, poor choices, Timor. You ought to know that. And again to re-answer the first dumb, aggressive, insolent question you asked, "What will be the film developer designed for t-max?" is the one Kodak spent millions of dollars formulating... T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

Uff... When you say something, you say something. I think the furthest you ever went with you b&w film development was factory recommendations. And maybe even not that far. Kodak specifically says: Tmax dev is a general purpose formula, NOT MADE specifically for Tmax films. Name has nothing to do with that, Kodak recommends this formula to every film Kodak makes. It is just automatic assumption and wrong logic. Tmax dev was destined to replace d76 as more practical and just better formula for modern films. Formulas made especially for Tmax films you can buy at Photographers formulary, stuff designed by former Kodak chemists. If you ever gonna get around to develop tmax 100 use Xray developer. But than it comes from guy asking dumb questions, why would you consider...

 

[bribrius]

The developer for T-Max was made by Kodak...and formulated to offer the best grain AND to develop full emulsion speed...which is something that other, traditional developers suck at. T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

Bottom line is the image he presented was made using a film that is utter rubbish for push processing in Rodinal. Twenty years out of date T-Max 400, and then he pushes that two stops AND makes a bad developer choice? Come on...as was said above by pixmedic, the result of the entire outdated film/pushed to 1600/guessed development time/wrong development method is.... a binner. Don't shoot the messenger, okay, timor?

Stand developing in 1) a developer designed for traditional silver-type emulsions when was it? Before World War II? Stand developing on 2-stop pushed AND twenty years out of date T-Max 400? All bad choices, but what the heck.

As you mentioned, T-Max is a good film...buuuut....the choice of the wrong developer, and the wrong type of development (stand), and the 20 years' outdated film lead to...a muddy mess witn zero shadow detail, flat tonality, blown out highlights in the upper areas, and overall, golfball-sized grain (Rodinal's speciality!!!), and flat, ugly mid-tones with almost zero microcontrast...

The proof of my opinion lies in the results...yeah, an image was made...and technically, it's very poor. But I know what he was after...just pop a roll of film in, push it two stops, and then take a wild guess at developoing it with whatever developer he happened to have. Obviously, poor choices, Timor. You ought to know that. And again to re-answer the first dumb, aggressive, insolent question you asked, "What will be the film developer designed for t-max?" is the one Kodak spent millions of dollars formulating... T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

Uff... When you say something, you say something. I think the furthest you ever went with you b&w film development was factory recommendations. And maybe even not that far. Kodak specifically says: Tmax dev is a general purpose formula, NOT MADE specifically for Tmax films. Name has nothing to do with that, Kodak recommends this formula to every film Kodak makes. It is just automatic assumption and wrong logic. Tmax dev was destined to replace d76 as more practical and just better formula for modern films. Formulas made especially for Tmax films you can buy at Photographers formulary, stuff designed by former Kodak chemists. If you ever gonna get around to develop tmax 100 use Xray developer. But than it comes from guy asking dumb questions, why would you consider...

how do you even know all this?????????????????????????????????????????

 

[gsgary]

While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.

It's sharp enough shot at 1/30 F2