   |
Yesterday I tested 100TMX in Paterson FX-39 1+14. The results look a tad bizarre. In short I don't trust the results.
I developed in solution at 70º for 4, 8, 12, 16 & 20 minutes with initial constant agitation for 20 seconds and then 10 seconds every minute.
The concentrate was fresh from an opened bottle and was of recent manufacture.
All the negs display that slight yellow/brown tone in the emulsion (not the base) one gets when the developer has not worked deep enough into the emulsion.
When I entered the data into the plotter ONLY the points for three longer times were included in the charts.
I was able to determine an EI and a processing time for 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 stop SBRs but the charts have very long stretches between 'points' and the times don't vary very much. The EI is a constant 80 for all SBRs.
I know I can check this by going out doing shooting some scenes, but fear it may prove a waste of time. Perhaps I am better off discarding the test and getting on with testing Rodinal as I've been trying to find time for for quite some time.
The reason I am searching for something is that 100TMX is very appealing from the point of view of Reciprocity characteristics and I have made some beautifully rich images with the film. I only use it for 4x5 (8x10 is HP5+ and FP4+) and want to sharpen the image somewhat. I've been down the Xtol and DD-X paths as well as T-Max RS. I thought the Crowley formulation was going to give greater acutance.
Any suggestion of whether or not these results must be trustable, please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
