# Really pushing T-Max 400



## darin3200 (Aug 22, 2005)

So I went to a gathering with some of my friends and it was dark. The only film I have is kodak uc 400 and tmax 400. I put in tmax and discover I need  to shoot it at 3200 to get decent shutter speeds. With a 30% time increase in the developer I pretty much have to double the dev time. 
It should be fun to see if it works. I'm too tired to develop tonight, so first thing tomorrow morning this film is going to get developed  :mrgreen:


----------



## Meysha (Aug 23, 2005)

That sounds awesome. I'm too lazy to develop my own stuff... and I'm also too addicted to digital - that doesn't really help.

This got me wondering, and sorry if I hijack your thread, but are you able to do the same thing to normal colour negative film and drop it into a lab (or would it have to be a pro lab - not just a machine)?


----------



## KevinR (Aug 23, 2005)

A pro lab would be the best bet. When I managed mini labs, I would occasionally push process if it came up. But it was kind of hit and miss with the automated developing machines. I would shut the drive down and guesstimate the developing.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 23, 2005)

darin3200 said:
			
		

> With a 30% time increase in the developer I pretty much have to double the dev time.



I'm confused.  Adding 30% to the dev time wouldn't be anywhere near doubling it.  That would be adding 100% to dev time.  A quick look at the Tmax 400 tech pub, and I think adding 50% to 100% the dev is about what you want to do, depending on the developer you are using (for instance 6.5 min dev time at ISO 400 with Tmax RS jumps to 12 min with Tmax RS at ISO 3200).

Tmax tech pub

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...#small-tankprocessing(8-or16-ouncetank)—rolls


----------



## darin3200 (Aug 23, 2005)

meysha said:
			
		

> This got me wondering, and sorry if I hijack your thread, but are you able to do the same thing to normal colour negative film and drop it into a lab (or would it have to be a pro lab - not just a machine)?


Like KevinR said pro labs could probably do it, but our town has a wal-mart and I don't know if I would trust them   



			
				ksmattfish said:
			
		

> I'm confused.  Adding 30% to the dev time wouldn't be anywhere near doubling it.


Ooops, I meant to say a 30% increase in development time per stop pushed, 400 to 800 to 1600 to 3200 would be 3 stops times 30% gives a 90% increase. Thanks for the spec sheet, its very helpful.


----------



## darin3200 (Aug 23, 2005)

UPDATE: So I developed the film for 16 minutes. The develope I used was some cheap stuff branded Adorama but from what I read it was pretty much generic D-76. Agitation was an inversion every 30 seconds. The shots came out looking underdeveloped but I have quite a few shots to work with.   :thumbup:


----------



## Patrick (Aug 24, 2005)

darin3200 said:
			
		

> UPDATE: So I developed the film for 16 minutes. The develope I used was some cheap stuff branded Adorama but from what I read it was pretty much generic D-76. Agitation was an inversion every 30 seconds. The shots came out looking underdeveloped but I have quite a few shots to work with. :thumbup:


Did you use it stock or diluted?
I've got some tmax 400  Might have to go play for awhile...LOL
I can't imagine inversions every 30 seconds for say 18 min or so.....:thumbup:


----------



## darin3200 (Aug 30, 2005)

Patrick said:
			
		

> Did you use it stock or diluted?
> I've got some tmax 400  Might have to go play for awhile...LOL
> I can't imagine inversions every 30 seconds for say 18 min or so.....:thumbup:


I really don't know, the stuff I was using was generic 'film developer' from adorama. I'm guessing it was stock though because I typically developed T-Max for 8 minutes which the recommened time with d-76 stock.

And the picture came out nicely, here's one of the nicer ones with some marks showing my carelessness in the darkroom

sample pic


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Aug 31, 2005)

3 stops of 30% increase wouldn't be 100% increase.

you have to 1.3^3=2.20

Which is about 120% increase in dev time. How grainy is it?


----------



## santino (Aug 31, 2005)

take a look at http://www.kbcamera.com/techniqueweeklytip.htm
if that would work, oh boy, tmax in a tri-x look


----------



## darin3200 (Aug 31, 2005)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> 3 stops of 30% increase wouldn't be 100% increase.
> 
> you have to 1.3^3=2.20
> 
> Which is about 120% increase in dev time. How grainy is it?


Interesting, I never though to go exponentially. The film could've used a little more development.  The film is grainy but terribly so.


----------



## darin3200 (Aug 31, 2005)

santino said:
			
		

> take a look at http://www.kbcamera.com/techniqueweeklytip.htm
> if that would work, oh boy, tmax in a tri-x look


That's a crazy development technique. I haven't used tri-x before but I plan on buying some soon. And while I'm at it maybe some new 'print' developer


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 31, 2005)

My new favorite high speed film/developer combo is Tri-X in Diafine (the pic below is an example).  I'm shooting the Tri-X at ISO 1250, but many folks have great results at ISO 1600.


----------



## terri (Aug 31, 2005)

Matt, that is amazing! I would never have guessed you had the ISO that high.... looks smooth as silk and that tonal range is awesome. :shock:

How did you develop it? What dilution did you use? I really want to pick up some Diafine. I know you and Doxx swear by it, and this image at that ISO is just a slam dunk.


----------



## santino (Sep 1, 2005)

yeah, I rate it always at 1600 and it works great but your shot dev. in diafine looks smooth as silk, like terri already said


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 1, 2005)

It's from a 6x6 neg so that's a lot of it.  But my experience is that Tri-X at 1250 or 1600 in Diafine is still less grainy than Tri-X at 1250 or 1600 pushed 2 stops in D-76 1:1.

EDIT:  Diafine is pretty idiot proof.  There are 2 solutions (no variations in concentration).  Temp doesn't really matter (as long as both solutions are the same.  Time doesn't really matter; 3+ min in each solution.  Minimal agitation.  It's a compensating developer so it's almost impossible to get a high contrast neg.  Most traditional emulsion BW films (anything but tabular grain films like Delta and Tmax) get a 1 stop ISO increase.  For some reason Tri-X gets a 1.5 to 2 stop increase.  Oh, and Diafine never exhausts so it last for a long, long time.  I'm up to somewhere around 150+ rolls developed in my first batch.  Eventually you'll run out of enough solution A because a tiny amount leaves with each roll of film.  

The disadvantage with Diafine is that you won't have any contrast or tonal range control.  I use it with Widelux shots and low light shots, but still stick with traditional developers for most of my work.


----------



## terri (Sep 1, 2005)

Thanks for that info, Matt! Being considered "idiot proof" is among my top prerequisites when trying something new.  I'm excited to give it a try.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 3, 2005)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> Oh, and Diafine never exhausts so it last for a long, long time.


Not strictly true. All chemical reactions - which is what development is - uses up the reactants, so sooner or later the developer will become exhausted.
Unfortunately, I can find no technical information concerning Diafine so I have no idea as to the amount of chemicals present in the solution which would give an indication as to practical working life.
But as KSM has pointed out you tend to run out of solution before the chemistry stops working.

As an interesting point you can actually get most developers to work as a two bath. I've seen it done with D-76 (but you have to make it from scratch). You have to vary first dev time for different films, though, which kind of defeats the purpose.

As with most things in Photography, for every gain there is a trade off.


----------



## santino (Sep 3, 2005)

yeah, you can make two bath D-76 but I don't have the necessary chemistry.


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 3, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> All chemical reactions - which is what development is - uses up the reactants, so sooner or later the developer will become exhausted.



I understand what you are saying, and it makes complete sense, but I can't find anyone who has managed to do it.   

I'm going to get another 150 to 200 rolls out of this first batch before my solution A will drop to the point it won't fill my 64 oz tank (so around 400 rolls total).  If I switch to a 32 oz tank I could get another 150 to 200 rolls.  I went onto apug.org and asked if anyone had ever managed to find the limit, and no one over there has.  There are folks claiming (I have no way of verifying) to be using Diafine that is over 15 years old (since it was mixed). 

When my solution A can't fill my 64 oz tank, I'm mixing a fresh batch, because it's only $12, and if I get 400 rolls out of it that's 3 cents a roll.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 4, 2005)

The keeping properties and high capacity are almost entirely to do with seperating out the alkali from the developer in two baths.
The main reason why single bath developers stop working* is due to the build-up of Hydrobromic acid, a by-product of development, neutralising the alkaline pH of the developer. A lot of what goes on in replenishment is re-buffering the dev to get it alkaline again.
Two bath developers keep for so long because there isn't really anything to react together in each solution as long as air is kept out. Each solution typically contains only one or two chemicals.
Single bath developers generally tend to be a 'soup' of five or six different chemicals in alkaline solution - some of them being there just to cut down on the reactions with each other.


*Asuming that you have a high through-put and don't just leave it lying around to go off.


----------



## nealjpage (Sep 16, 2005)

I'm going back a few posts here. As a person new to photography, when someone says they're shooting at ISO 1600, does it mean he's using 400 film but setting the camera at 1600 and using the light meter to set apature? Will this still work with a flash, too? Please excuse my curiosity, but i guess I'd better learn this sooner or later.


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 16, 2005)

nealjpage said:
			
		

> ... when someone says they're shooting at ISO 1600, does it mean he's using 400 film but setting the camera at 1600...



It means they are exposing the film, whatever the ISO, as if it were IS0 1600.  If it is ISO 400, then this would be a 2 stop adjustment towards less exposure.  What comes after the exposure depends on what they are trying to do, and what chemicals and techniques they are using.


----------



## doxx (Sep 16, 2005)

With Tri-X Diafine simply rocks... Neopan and Diafine - bah uke-right:

Right now, I'm doing a roll of Delta 3200 @1600 (dunno why, just love my
Tri-X@1600 :roll: )

my last batch of Diafine lasted for a year(!) and I had to toss it only
coz I was running out of solution A.
The 15 year thing sounds flakey, unless they shoot a roll 
every holiday or so   

on the same note: fast films with medium format are amazingly
smooth, it actually made me upgrade my Rolleiflex with a 
Beattie screen (small fortune)... now the viewfinder is as bright
as daylight! ks, I know how much you like your Rolleiflex -
you have to get one of those, believe me.

the pic above is really nice


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Sep 16, 2005)

I have a yashica with a mamiya screen. I'm pretty sure beattie is brighter, but hell... it was 30 bucks to upgrade.

Composition and posing really improve with that camera.


----------

