[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 2.8C and two developers
- From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:31:35 -0200
I use the T-Max RS undiluted, the stock solution directly. Kodak
recommends almost 9 minutes at 20ºC (68ºF) for the T-Max 100 film and
7 minutes for T-Max 400 using the stock solution, these are more than
reasonable times to get a right development and I had developed the
T-Max RS for T-Max films only up to I developed the Ilford FP+ ISO 50
two days ago; Richard is right for some other films like the Ilford
50, devoloping time for this film is 4 minutes at 20ºC, a short time,
it's on the limit for a right development. I did not want to dilute
the RS because I used it several times and it is at least two years
old from I mixed the stock solution, I added two minutes to compensate
use and some underexposure.; anyway this was the last time I used this
solution, I'll buy a new RS, I like it for the T-Max films specially.
I did not use the T-Max RS according the Replenisher System method,
losing one of the the developer advantages; it was more comfortable to
avoid the RS method considering the number of rolls I use and develop
regularly...but the RS was useful to develop my lasts Efke 25 film
sheets for the Rollei Plates adapter.
Last month I bought Ilford ID 11 developer, but the shop sent me
Perceptol by error, I'll use it for some T-Max 400 films I still have
in the freezer, I had obtained excellent results with the combo T-Max
400/Microdol-X.
BTW, I'm happy with the Beutler A+B, but it would be too grainy for
ISO 400 films.
Carlos
2014-01-30 Robert Meier <robertmeier@xxxxxxxxx>:
> People use T-Max undiluted?? 3:1 was what I remember.
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:46 PM, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "CarlosMFreaza" <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 7:09 PM
>> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex 2.8C and two developers
>>
>>
>>> My T- Max RS developer bottle describes the following components for
>>> the Part A (the big bottle):
>>
>>> (63149-47-3); Hydroquinone (123-31-9); Sodium biosulfite (7631- 90-5);
>>> 4-Hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone (13047-13-7).
>>> The components for the Part B (the little bottle) are: Dyethilene
>>> glycol (111-46-6); Acetic Acid (64-19-7);
>>> 1,4-diphenyl-3-(phenylamino)-1H-1,2,4 triazolium hydroxide
>>> (2218-94-2). The weight or proportion for each component is not
>>> mentioned.
>>> The plain T-Max developer has been discontinued according the B&H NYC
>>> web site. Some commercial labs still developing B&W film use the T-Max
>>> RS developer due to its replenisher system, perhaps it's the reason
>>> Kodak chose this developer to continue the production; the plain T-Max
>>> is a similar developer in spite of some differences and there was no
>>> place for both developers in the current film market.
>>>
>>> Carlos
>>>
>> Now, I am not a chemist but have some idea of what this stuff is.
>> 4-Hydroxymethyl-4-methyl-1-phenyl-3-pyrazolidinone us Kodak Dimezone, their
>> version of
>> Phenidone.
>> Diethanolamine-sulfur dioxide complex I think this takes the place of sodium
>> sulfite in liquid concentrates. Its also found in Kodak HC-110 and Technidol.
>> I am not sure about Part B but think one of these compounds is the silver
>> sequestering agent used to prevent dichroic fog.
>> Looking these up on Google gets a lot of hits back to the Kodak MSDS, not
>> helpful.
>> FWIW, Xtol evidently is now quite reliable. The first step Kodak took was
>> replacing their metalized paper envelopes with plastic ones that did not
>> spring microleaks. You will find that nearly any old Kodak chemical packaged
>> in those yellow paper envelopes has oxidized. Once upon a time they used
>> sealed cans and that stuff lasted for decades.
>> I am pretty sure Ilford makes almost exact equivalents to T-Max RS and
>> perhaps Xtol. They certainly do for the late, lamented Microdol-X, Perceptol
>> is, if not identical, pretty close to it.
>> The main virtue of Xtol is that is environmentally friendly since it
>> contains no Metol or hydroquinone.
>> I am sure you are all aware that T-Max of either sort can be diluted. The
>> development times for many films are too short with the full strength stuff.
>> I don't know if it has any effect on grain. I found that T-Max RS was
>> somewhere midway between D-76 and Rodinal in grain.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Knoppow
>> Los Angeles
>> WB6KBL
>> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the
>> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
