>Bob,
>
>Thanks for your response. If you don't mind, I have a few more questions.
>
>> TM dev. was, er, developed to get some speed out of otherwise overrated
>> films. In D-76 (an excellent general purpose dev.), the speed (with
>> normal contrast) of TMX is 40, TMY is 200 (or less), TMZ is about 650.
>> These are true speeds, not "pulled" ratings.
>
>Okay. I can sort of see that. I've had stuff that I've shot with TMX
>at 100 and even at 200, and then developed with either the T-MAX or D-76
>developer that has come out very nice (minimal grain, good, rich
>negatives). I guess this is a case of YMMV. (To be honest, I had asked
>this before I had tried printing anything from one roll or TMX that I had
>shot at ISO 200. I was surprised at the richness, sharpness, and lack
>of grain in the images.
----I would guess the negatives may be pretty, but lacking in lower (shadow)
----tones. It is a reasonable decision to choose to make contrasty negatives,
----but good to be aware that that is what you are doing.
>> You can probably get away with boosted contrast in this situation, so
>> 800-1000 is not unreasonable with adjusted times for D-76. If you can stand
>> a noticeable increase in grain and loss in sharpness, Acufine or TM dev.
>> would be fine at about 1600-2000 ASA - just don't expect high quality.
>
>But you would stick with D-76 for T-max films shot at the ratings you
>gave above? Okay. That sounds good to me.
----Yes, but when you need speed, you NEED SPEED - hang quality, if need be.
>> No. As long as all processing liquids (including water) are at the same
>> temperature, you have not over or underexposed or developed (for the
>> desired density), you keep wet times as short as possible (don't overwash,
>> skip the Hypo-clear, and briefly use a very dilute Photo-flo solution
>> (distilled water helps avoid water marks), and use a fine-grain dev. like
>> D-76 (NOT Microdol!), you have done the best you can.
>
>Hmmmm. Your last suggestions seem in direct conflict in my naiive
>perspective. If you don't use a hypo-clearing agent, how can you keep
>the wet-time as short as possible? Maybe I'm just been pushed into be
>hyper-paranoid about making sure that I've thouroughly washed the fixer
>from my film, but it seems to me that you've either got to have a long
>wash or use the HCA. Then again, as I said, I'm probably naiive in this
>area. BTW, are you asserting that HCA causes an increase in grain in
>negative? How 'bout the effects on paper? Just curious.
----The HCA, being basic, softens the emulsion, as will Photo-flo and
----extended wet times. There has been too much hysteria over "archieval
----processing", IM(NS)HO. Extended washing can actually shorten silver
----image life - and remember all those photo pioneers who undoubtedly
----didn't wash long (fresh water was hard to come by) and whose work is
----still around... Also, I process lens test film with very short wash
----times (maybe 2 minutes), and the negatives are still fine after 20
----years or so. (My "serious" work gets a thorough wash for about 10
----minutes [many water changes, almost constant agitation] and it will
----last longer than I will care about.)
>Sorry about taking up so much of your time.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>darin
>
----David