TMax 3200 development times on Massive Dev Chart
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #1
kiss-o-matic
Registered User
 
kiss-o-matic is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 440
TMax 3200 development times on Massive Dev Chart

A lot of the notes say they are based on the original version of the film. Are the generally the same? I figure they'd have more than that by now if the times were inaccurate but I'd rather make sure.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #2
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
 
Colin Corneau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Winnipeg MB Canada
Posts: 972
I used the suggested time in DD-X (1:4) and it turned out really well...11 minutes at 20 degrees Celsius, BTW.
__________________
www.reservedatalltimes.com

"Viva Film Renaissance"
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #3
kiss-o-matic
Registered User
 
kiss-o-matic is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Corneau View Post
I used the suggested time in DD-X (1:4) and it turned out really well...11 minutes at 20 degrees Celsius, BTW.
Excellent -- that's exactly what I have here. Thanks so much. Will give these a go soon!
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #4
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,585
I don't know what it says on the Massive Developing Chart, but the Kodak data sheets for the old and new versions for TMX 3200 are the same.

You can get download the new data sheet from the Kodak Alaris website.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Dev times
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #5
randy stewart
Registered User
 
randy stewart is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 95
Dev times

When there are development data charts from the film and developer makers, why do folks first go to the "Massive Development Chart" for their development times? I can see doing so for combos and pushes not included by the makers, but not otherwise. My quess is that it facilitates the use of a smart phone app. which is favored over the errors in the MDC.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #6
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by randy stewart View Post
When there are development data charts from the film and developer makers, why do folks first go to the "Massive Development Chart" for their development times? I can see doing so for combos and pushes not included by the makers, but not otherwise. My quess is that it facilitates the use of a smart phone app. which is favored over the errors in the MDC.



I don't understand why people insist on using the MDC when manufacturer's data sheets are available. In my experience, Kodak and Ilford give times on their datasheets that are perfect most of the time, and very close to what works for my the rest of the time. In other words, the manufacturers' data sheets are the best starting point.


Because the datasheets can be hard to find on the manufacturers' sites, I have a list of links for them here:


http://crawfordphotoschool.com/film/...ions/index.php
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #7
CharlesDAMorgan
Registered User
 
CharlesDAMorgan is online now
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: South East UK
Posts: 957
I have seen so many crazy times on MDC that I no longer use it. Shoot a limited range of film and use a few developers and all you need is a timer, not an expensive piece of electronic equipment to spill fix on.

A very useful link thanks Chris!
__________________
Film amateur with a few rangefinders - Leica III, M2/M3, Werra 3 and Zeiss Super Ikonta 534/16 medium format.

Apart from that have a Rolleiflex 3.5F, the odd Minolta XD7, Hasselblad 500cm, a Topcon Super D and an Intrepid 5x4 large format (not the half of it but I am clearing them out, honest).

I do all my own black and white developing at home.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #8
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by randy stewart View Post
When there are development data charts from the film and developer makers, why do folks first go to the "Massive Development Chart" for their development times? I can see doing so for combos and pushes not included by the makers, but not otherwise. My quess is that it facilitates the use of a smart phone app. which is favored over the errors in the MDC.
Because the few film-dev combos that the manufacturers list are all (for 20deg C at least) in MDC and listed there correctly (the same as manufacturer's suggested starting point)?

It would be nice to have the official film and developer combinations clearly marked as such in MDC. But the analog people are notoriously slow to accept any change (especially if it's not their idea) so it probably won't happen...
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #9
kiss-o-matic
Registered User
 
kiss-o-matic is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by randy stewart View Post
When there are development data charts from the film and developer makers, why do folks first go to the "Massive Development Chart" for their development times? I can see doing so for combos and pushes not included by the makers, but not otherwise. My quess is that it facilitates the use of a smart phone app. which is favored over the errors in the MDC.
I only see times for Kodak developers, and I don't own any (for starters). Often there are notes, and as mentioned useful combos.

TBH, I am mostly a one-trick pony. I use Tri-X w/ DD-X 85% of the time. The other 15% of the time I have my times down. This is my first time trying the film in question.

I suppose if I was trying lots of different film stocks I would do a bit more research, but for my uses MDC is fine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #10
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,946
Errors do exist on the Massive Dev. Chart.

A couple years ago, there was a 127 film called Rerapan 100. We learned later it was just re-spooled Fuji Acros. I was always bugged by it because my results were horribly over-developed, so each time I shot it I backed off on the development; first I took away a minute, then two minutes.

Upon learning it was Acros, I compared the times listed for the two films. With one exception, the times listed for the two films in all common developers were exactly the same, or very close. The exception was Rodinal. They listed Acros as 13.5 minutes at 68 degrees.... and Rerapan 18 minutes. No wonder I thought it was over-developed! But by this time it was discontinued anyway...
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #11
PRJ
Another Day in Paradise
 
PRJ's Avatar
 
PRJ is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 324
The MDC is a joke. Do you know who is figuring out those times? Rank amateurs, that is who.

My advice is to steer clear of it. As is mentioned, Kodak has already provided you with everything you need to know.

If you ever run across a situation which the manufacturer doesn't provide the time for a certain film/developer combination, you can extrapolate the right time by using the times for D76 and another film compared to the film/developer you want to use.

Pretty much anyone who ever shot a ton of the high speed films like TMZ, Delta 3200 or Neopan 1600 will tell you that the best results you will get will be from using the next higher developing time. If you shoot the film at 1600, use the time for 3200. Back in the olden glory days of film, people were obsessed with fine grain, so to minimize grain as much as possible, manufacturers recommended shorter times for faster films. If you are just going to scan the film though it won't matter as much. You are probably better off sticking with Kodak's recommendations.

Here is the data sheet-

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/site...max_3200_0.pdf
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #12
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRJ View Post
Pretty much anyone who ever shot a ton of the high speed films like TMZ, Delta 3200 or Neopan 1600 will tell you that the best results you will get will be from using the next higher developing time. If you shoot the film at 1600, use the time for 3200. Back in the olden glory days of film, people were obsessed with fine grain, so to minimize grain as much as possible, manufacturers recommended shorter times for faster films. If you are just going to scan the film though it won't matter as much. You are probably better off sticking with Kodak's recommendations.



I've shot more than 1000 rolls of Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 and I have never developed the films for the next highest speed. That's a silly falsehood that got its start online. Overdeveloping film is a bad idea; it is hard to tame an overly contrasty negative when you print or scan. If, somehow, a film has too little contrast, you can increase contrast when you print easily.


I started shooting Tmax 3200 long before the internet was available to the public.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #13
webOSUser
Registered User
 
webOSUser's Avatar
 
webOSUser is offline
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 234
I use the Android version of the Massive Development Chart. It has worked well for me as a film development resource and timer.



I don't take the times as gospel, I compare them with film manufacturer data when I can.



Steve W
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #14
dourbalistar
Registered User
 
dourbalistar's Avatar
 
dourbalistar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by webOSUser View Post
I use the Android version of the Massive Development Chart. It has worked well for me as a film development resource and timer.

I don't take the times as gospel, I compare them with film manufacturer data when I can.

Steve W
+1 to this. With the Android app, you can also create your own custom recipes and agitation schemes, either based on your own times, or (corrected) ones taken from the film manufacturer.

Like Steve, I try to cross reference the manufacturer data sheets when possible. I think it's useful to think of all published times, even manufacturer ones, as starting points. Adjust as necessary based on your own personal needs and shooting style.
__________________
I like my lenses sharp as a tank and built like a tack.

flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #15
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
 
Colin Corneau is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Winnipeg MB Canada
Posts: 972
iPhone version of the MDC. I don't use anything other than a few widely used/common films by Kodak and Ilford, and IMO expired film is a nonsense hipster affectation if you're not a cash-poor photographer...I stay away from it.

Sure, check and compare online data sheets for films...I've never had an issue with the chart and it works well since all I need are my tanks and a small phone. Once you have a consistent process down, you can easily tweak the times/agitation to suit your best negative.
__________________
www.reservedatalltimes.com

"Viva Film Renaissance"
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #16
Noserider
Registered User
 
Noserider is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 324
The MDC errors are well documented. I use it for comparison, a reminder, or an "opinion". Rodinal numbers for example are all over the place since they don't bother to point out the differences in listed times based on Gamma. Proper AGFA Rodinal times are set to a different Gamma than Kodak Fuji and Ilford times. If you don't know exactly what I mean by developing to a Gamma then you should consider yourself a likely candidate for making a better practice of finding the original film manufacturer data sheets.

The lack of verifiable sources for the times is of course the issue. I also believe that the worst thing is that most if not nearly all the times listed on the MDC are spot on; its the times you Don't Know Are Wrong that really will bite hard. I suppose that for those users not bright or through enough to spot those errors will just chalk it up to "the cool film process' or
"Overexposed and over developed is my Style" or maybe not even know that, Really, those negatives could look better and in fact that is a straight up error. Maybe to them 25% overdevelopment is acceptable? To me and anyone with a decent photographic background its an error not art.



http://crawfordphotoschool.com/film/...ions/index.php

Great link just passing it on for the knowledge
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #17
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRJ View Post
The MDC is a joke. Do you know who is figuring out those times? Rank amateurs, that is who.
Pros wouldn't fare any better.

Getting a consensus amongst pros what the "PROper" time for every film-developer is as futile or insane as thinking that MDC can have a time that will work for every amateur or pro out there.

Not even in this little thread advanced (or maybe even pro?) users agree on TMZ times.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #18
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,528
One thing about the MDC app when used on older iPhones, much older, as a darkroom timer: its performance can be damagingly erratic, there is at least one significant bug still present. The development timer will occasionally, like 25% of the time, tick down second by second until it gets to some random minute, then count down the preceding minute over again, sometimes once, sometimes repeatedly. i.e. it might count down to 5:00 left, then jump back to 5:59 and count down to 5:00 again. If you are not watching the screen you’ll never know.

Just use any old timer and the data sheet, that’s hardly difficult.
__________________
Larry

It is about time we take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby. Elliot Erwitt
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #19
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 415
The MDC is useful if you're using a developer that isn't recommended by the manufacturer, but that's never the case for me. I prefer to start with the manufacturer's recommendations and then check MDC for differences if any. Their timer is useful, as is the developer volume calculator. It's a good app.

I agree with the poster above that suggested development times be highlighted if they happen to match the manufacturer recommendations. It would be easy to do.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #20
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
I don't understand why people insist on using the MDC when manufacturer's data sheets are available. In my experience, Kodak and Ilford give times on their datasheets that are perfect most of the time, and very close to what works for my the rest of the time. In other words, the manufacturers' data sheets are the best starting point.


Because the datasheets can be hard to find on the manufacturers' sites, I have a list of links for them here:


http://crawfordphotoschool.com/film/...ions/index.php
I agree about starting with the manufacturer when you can but the MDC is more flexible. Kodak's P3200 data sheet lists times for 65F - 85F (very good) but only with their own developers (not good). Meanwhile Ilford's DDX data sheet lists times for P3200 (good) but for only 68F and 75F (not enough) and only offers times for 1+4 dilution, not stock (why?). MDC is very useful if you're trying to plug holes like these, or if you have extra developer and want to gather information about how others have used it on different films.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #21
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
I've shot more than 1000 rolls of Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 and I have never developed the films for the next highest speed. That's a silly falsehood that got its start online.
I've shot both films and developed at the recommended times and also next highest speed. Next highest speed has always worked better for me and apparently many others. I don't think this is silly or a falsehood. But if you like the recommended times that's cool, and I won't call your way "false".
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #22
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawarden View Post
I've shot both films and developed at the recommended times and also next highest speed. Next highest speed has always worked better for me and apparently many others. I don't think this is silly or a falsehood. But if you like the recommended times that's cool, and I won't call your way "false".



Developing for the higher speed just increases contrast and grain. The recommendation to do so comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 work.

Before Tmax 3200 came out (it was the first of them to be introduced nearly 30 years ago), the only way to shoot at 3200 or 1600 was the push process a 400 speed film. Tri-X was the usual favorite for that. Pushed Tri-X is very contrasty and grainy.

Tmax 3200 changed all that (and Delta 3200 works similarly to Tmax 3200). It is also a film that requires push processing. The base speed is around 1000, but at that speed it is a very low contrast film. Pushed to 1600 or 3200, contrast becomes normal and it retains a lot more shadow and highlight detail than a pushed 400 speed film does. In other words, Tmax/Delta 3200 shot at 1600 or 3200 and developed for the recommended times for the speed gives contrast similar to a normal black and white film.

The problem is a lot of people were so used to the high-contrast look of pushed Tri-X that they thought Tmax 3200 was flawed, when in fact it is a far better film for high speed shooting. Wanting too much contrast, they recommended overdeveloping it.

If you really want that pushed Tri-X look, buy Tri-X and push it; its cheaper than Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #23
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,528
^^^^^Thanks, Chris.
__________________
Larry

It is about time we take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby. Elliot Erwitt
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #24
PRJ
Another Day in Paradise
 
PRJ's Avatar
 
PRJ is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
I've shot more than 1000 rolls of Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 and I have never developed the films for the next highest speed. That's a silly falsehood that got its start online. Overdeveloping film is a bad idea; it is hard to tame an overly contrasty negative when you print or scan. If, somehow, a film has too little contrast, you can increase contrast when you print easily.

I started shooting Tmax 3200 long before the internet was available to the public.
Jeez dude, stop it. You are cracking me up!

I am not even going to bother answering.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #25
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRJ View Post
Jeez dude, stop it. You are cracking me up!

I am not even going to bother answering.

What I wrote is the actual history and the technical facts about those films.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #26
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Developing for the higher speed just increases contrast and grain. The recommendation to do so comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 work.

Before Tmax 3200 came out (it was the first of them to be introduced nearly 30 years ago), the only way to shoot at 3200 or 1600 was the push process a 400 speed film. Tri-X was the usual favorite for that. Pushed Tri-X is very contrasty and grainy.

Tmax 3200 changed all that (and Delta 3200 works similarly to Tmax 3200). It is also a film that requires push processing. The base speed is around 1000, but at that speed it is a very low contrast film. Pushed to 1600 or 3200, contrast becomes normal and it retains a lot more shadow and highlight detail than a pushed 400 speed film does. In other words, Tmax/Delta 3200 shot at 1600 or 3200 and developed for the recommended times for the speed gives contrast similar to a normal black and white film.

The problem is a lot of people were so used to the high-contrast look of pushed Tri-X that they thought Tmax 3200 was flawed, when in fact it is a far better film for high speed shooting. Wanting too much contrast, they recommended overdeveloping it.

If you really want that pushed Tri-X look, buy Tri-X and push it; its cheaper than Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200.
I didn't mention Tri-X. It's a good film. Sometimes I use it.

I don't have a fundamental misunderstanding of how fast films work.

If I'm exposing a roll of film hand held in a lower light and lower contrast environment, I'll use a fast film like P3200 or Delta 3200, expose at 1600 or so and extend development to control contrast on the negative, making it easier to print later.

If I'm exposing a roll of film hand held in a normal light and normal contrast environment, I'll use a medium speed film, give it normal exposure and normal development to control contrast on the negative, making it easier to print later.

If I'm exposing a roll of film hand held in a higher light and higher contrast environment, I'll use a slow film, give it extra exposure and reduce development to control contrast on the negative, making it easier to print later.

It's a good idea to start with the manufacturer's recommendation for developing film as a starting point for your individual needs. That includes P3200 and Delta3200.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #27
kiss-o-matic
Registered User
 
kiss-o-matic is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noserider View Post
"Overexposed and over developed is my Style" or maybe not even know that, Really, those negatives could look better and in fact that is a straight up error. Maybe to them 25% overdevelopment is acceptable? To me and anyone with a decent photographic background its an error not art.
Not gonna argue w/ you but some people do like the over developing. Many of the Japanese greats made their names with it in Provoke. It's not my bag, and I feel those guys knew exactly what they were doing before.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Weeks Ago   #28
Beemermark
Registered User
 
Beemermark's Avatar
 
Beemermark is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRJ View Post
The MDC is a joke. Do you know who is figuring out those times? Rank amateurs, that is who. f
I think 99% of the people on this forum (and I include myself) are rank amateurs.

I have a whole notebook of Kodak information and my own personal notebook of data. Still I always go to the MDC because it is very quick, easy and has multiple developers beside Kodak.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:31.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.