Kodak is now including the new recommended film developing times for the films that have moved to the new manufacturing facility. The time differences are much more than I expected, but it is also interesting that the TMAX-100 times have decreased, while the new Plus-X has increased. TMAX-400 times did not change. No times were included for the new version of Tri-X. Here are a few examples for D76 (1:1) in small tanks at 72F:

T-MAX 100 Professional 10 min.

PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 100 7 1/2 min. (new version)

PLUS-X Pan Professional 6 min.

PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 7 1/4 min. (new version)

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.jhtml

As always, if the above web reference has embedded spaces added by the forum software, you will need to remove them.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), April 07, 2002

Answers

Damn. Just when I get my time/temperatures for n, n-1 ect down, they change the emulsion.

-- Eric Verheul (everheul@cnetech.com), April 07, 2002.

The tank time for TMX in TMAX RS has just dropped from 8 min at 75 degrees F to 7...no big deal for me, 7 min at 75 degrees F has been our standard time for over 5 years in our tankline.....

-- dk thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), April 08, 2002.

DK, are your suggesting that Kodak is now using a different method to determine film development time, and that the film has not actually changed?

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), April 08, 2002.

No...I figure when the new stuff comes out, we'll have to run some tests and figure out new times...or maybe we won't...I don't see a reason to fuss about it a whole lot though. We run TMAX RS in a tank and have our own set of times for films, they hardly ever match up to what the recommended times are....if you ran control strips for b&w, the actual Kodak strip is TMY. As far as RS goes, it likes to run at 75 degrees...if the times dip under 5 minutes, there are ways to slow the developer down ....so I'm not worried about this really.... just about everyone is going to have their own developing times based off their technique...those published times are just good starting points....when we get the new film, I plan on just shooting it like I always have and run some tests. But 1 minute less time in b&w is nothing....if it were E6 that would be a stinker, but b&w?? Why worry... But, to each their own....

-- dk thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), April 08, 2002.

The concern is not the change in development time (we can all figure out our new times), rather the concern is (given the 25% difference in development times) whether the emulsion has changed in terms of its qualitative characteristics. Of course, even if it did change, it could have changed for the better.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), April 08, 2002.

you'll have to wait & see.....

-- dk thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), April 08, 2002.

Just a thought: Kodak is saying the new films have increased scratch resistance--perhaps that's the reason for the increased times (more time to dissolve a coating, or penetrate it) rather than a change to the light sensitive part of the emulsion?

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), April 09, 2002.

The development time for TMAX-100 decreased 25% and the time for Plus- X increased about 20%. There is nothing in the announcement about scratch resistance. There is some mention about the new film being "much less susceptible to attracting dust," but it doesn't say if this only occurs during the new manufacturing process, after manufacture but before the film is developed, or after development (or some combination of the above).

The announcement claims only "slight adjustment in development times." If the new published times are accurate (relative to the old times, not relative to our personal times) then I don't consider 25% to be slight. Interestingly, TMAX-400 development times did not change at all.

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20020224- 01.shtml (remove embedded blanks if necessary)

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), April 09, 2002.

I finally got a chance last evening to compare times given in Kodak's new publication F-4016 to those provided for "old" T-Max in F-32. No changes in the TMY columns were noticable; perhaps those haven't been retested yet. For TMX, some times increased (Xtol), some decreased (D-76) and others stayed pretty close (T-Mx RS). Each of us will probably just need to grind through the tests ourselves to be sure.

-- Sal Santamaura (santamaura@earthlink.net), April 10, 2002.

So, uhm, is there a problem here then? I'm not trying to sound like a jerk or anything but big deal if the times in D76 1:1 in a small tank have changed? It's not like a conspiracy or anything....unless I'm in it, maybe??

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), April 11, 2002.

The issue is not really whether we have to change development times, rather the issue is whether the emulsion has changed in qualitative terms. Do the changes affect shadow detail, latitude, contrast, etc? If any of these factors has changed, they may have changed for the better or the worse. But the initial slant that Kodak was trying to spin on the changes was that they were only the result of moving to a new plant, and not changes in the emulsion formula. If the development time changes by 25%, it is hard to believe that the emulsion has not been changed.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), April 11, 2002.

That's 25% for D76 1:1...according to you. A change of one minute is not much to me in regards to TMAX RS. Even if it means my "normal" time drops to 6 minutes now. I was always shaving 10% off all published Kodak times for TMAX films in general. They ran hot for me. I actually run other people's film--I work in an in-house lab--at the Kodak CI's and times. How do I know how they shot the film? The film prints okay, but I prefer my TMX at -10%. The bona-fide Kodak control strip for b&w monitoring though? It's TMY.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over changes to the emulsion or tonality...it's a done deal. It's their product, they can do with it as they wish...maybe it will be better y'know? They changed the film base for Ektachrome sheet films, and I haven't heard any worries about that online....that was for the best, now Fuji should follow suit. Ektachrome 100S, SW etc. in sheets is on an ESTAR base now. That's great news....

my opinions as always.

-- dk thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), April 11, 2002.

I admitted that there was only a concern if the published Kodak development times for the new films are accurate (relative to the development times published by Kodak for the old version of the films). The difference in development times are not according to me, they are according to Kodak at the web site for which I provided the html in the original post above. I chose D-76 1:1 to compare old and new development times because I thought it was fairly standard developer.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), April 11, 2002.

I had read someplace years ago, that D76 was the developer they used to test the films in general with....but a developer like TMAX RS is probably used in more commercial labs than anything. I just read between the lines of the posts that maybe the implication was that something sinister or misleading was going on.....but we shoot probably about 200-300 sheets of TMX 100 in a month. I don't want to see the film change, but if it does, so be it...we'll adapt. If I wanted to get ticked off at Kodak, as some people seem to just love to hate them at the slightest opportunity--it would be over switching the packaging to all 50 sheet boxes now. They should have made them all 100 sheet boxes....they went in the wrong direction for consolidating packaging....for me anyways. But, like I said, what am I gonna do about it? We could shoot a few cases a year of TMX and still be small potatoes to Kodak....my opinions only as always.

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), April 12, 2002.