"New" TMY: same as it ever was?

"New" TMY: same as it ever was?

I happen to have all three sets of Kodak rotary-processing recommendations
for Tmax 400 in front of me: the old (prior to move to new coating facility)
Publication F-32, the "new" (first generation at new coating faciity) F-4016,
and the "newest" (current production, "finer grain!") F-4032.

Kodak claims that the "finer grain" TMY -- the newest stuff -- has "slightly"
different processing times than the generation immediately prior. If their
table is to be believed -- nonsense.

The data in the newest -- F-4032 -- publication, for the "finer grain"
film appear, for rotary processing of sheet film, to exactly match the
data in the oldest -- F-32 -- publication, for the "old coating facility"
film.

Time to plug in the densitometer again and hope it's still working, I
suppose. I wonder what exactly Kodak is up to: did they revert production
to how (and where?) it used to be before the first set of changes?

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls . com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky

Re: "New" TMY: same as it ever was?

In article <fqcr34$1ca$1@panix5.panix . com >,
Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls . com > wrote:
>I happen to have all three sets of Kodak rotary-processing recommendations
>for Tmax 400 in front of me: the old (prior to move to new coating facility)
>Publication F-32, the "new" (first generation at new coating faciity) F-4016,
>and the "newest" (current production, "finer grain!") F-4032.

The newest publication is actually F-4043.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls . com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky

Re: "New" TMY: same as it ever was?

In article <fqcu4l$nv9$1@reader2.panix . com >,
tls@panix . com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

> In article <fqcr34$1ca$1@panix5.panix . com >,
> Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls . com > wrote:
> >I happen to have all three sets of Kodak rotary-processing recommendations
> >for Tmax 400 in front of me: the old (prior to move to new coating facility)
> >Publication F-32, the "new" (first generation at new coating faciity) F-4016,
> >and the "newest" (current production, "finer grain!") F-4032.
>
> The newest publication is actually F-4043.

Rewriting the book would mean they would have to care about analog
imaging, I question that to be the case. When Kodak discontinued PX in
sheet film I stopped using Kodak products.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

Re: "New" TMY: same as it ever was?

In article <fqcr34$1ca$1@panix5.panix . com >,
tls@panix . com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

> I happen to have all three sets of Kodak rotary-processing recommendations
> for Tmax 400 in front of me: the old (prior to move to new coating facility)
> Publication F-32, the "new" (first generation at new coating faciity) F-4016,
> and the "newest" (current production, "finer grain!") F-4032.
>
> Kodak claims that the "finer grain" TMY -- the newest stuff -- has "slightly"
> different processing times than the generation immediately prior. If their
> table is to be believed -- nonsense.
>
> The data in the newest -- F-4032 -- publication, for the "finer grain"
> film appear, for rotary processing of sheet film, to exactly match the
> data in the oldest -- F-32 -- publication, for the "old coating facility"
> film.
>
> Time to plug in the densitometer again and hope it's still working, I
> suppose. I wonder what exactly Kodak is up to: did they revert production
> to how (and where?) it used to be before the first set of changes?

They probably didn't bother to rewrite the data sheet,...just rename it.
Good luck.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

Re: "New" TMY: same as it ever was?

In article <internetphobic-CCE0CD.21225301032008@newsgroups . com cast . net >,
____ <internetphobic@deletedmail . com > wrote:
>In article <fqcr34$1ca$1@panix5.panix . com >,
> tls@panix . com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>>
>> Time to plug in the densitometer again and hope it's still working, I
>> suppose. I wonder what exactly Kodak is up to: did they revert production
>> to how (and where?) it used to be before the first set of changes?
>
>They probably didn't bother to rewrite the data sheet,...just rename it.

No -- they made a dramatic change in their development recommendation for
the second version of the film, but now seem to have changed it back.

The densitometer seems to work, so we'll see...

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls . com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky

Re: "New" TMY: same as it ever was?

On Mar 2, 10:00 am, t...@panix . com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
> In article <internetphobic-CCE0CD.21225301032...@newsgroups . com cast . net >,
>
>  <internetpho...@deletedmail . com > wrote:
> >In article <fqcr34$1c...@panix5.panix . com >,
> > t...@panix . com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>
> >> Time to plug in the densitometer again and hope it's still working, I
> >> suppose.  I wonder what exactly Kodak is up to: did they revert produ=
ction
> >> to how (and where?) it used to be before the first set of changes?
>
> >They probably didn't bother to rewrite the data sheet,...just rename it.
>
> No -- they made a dramatic change in their development recommendation for
> the second version of the film, but now seem to have changed it back.
>
> The densitometer seems to work, so we'll see...
>
> --
>   Thor Lancelot Simon                         =
               t...@rek.tjls . com
>
>   "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is =
to
>    be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem."         =
   - Noam Chomsky

Very interested in what you learn; please let us know.

Re: "New" TMY: same as it ever was?


"Thor Lancelot Simon" <tls@panix . com > wrote in message
news:fqcr34$1ca$1@panix5.panix . com ...
>I happen to have all three sets of Kodak rotary-processing
>recommendations
> for Tmax 400 in front of me: the old (prior to move to new
> coating facility)
> Publication F-32, the "new" (first generation at new
> coating faciity) F-4016,
> and the "newest" (current production, "finer grain!")
> F-4032.
>
> Kodak claims that the "finer grain" TMY -- the newest
> stuff -- has "slightly"
> different processing times than the generation immediately
> prior. If their
> table is to be believed -- nonsense.
>
> The data in the newest -- F-4032 -- publication, for the
> "finer grain"
> film appear, for rotary processing of sheet film, to
> exactly match the
> data in the oldest -- F-32 -- publication, for the "old
> coating facility"
> film.
>
> Time to plug in the densitometer again and hope it's still
> working, I
> suppose. I wonder what exactly Kodak is up to: did they
> revert production
> to how (and where?) it used to be before the first set of
> changes?
>
> --
> Thor Lancelot Simon
> tls@rek.tjls . com

The data sheet you want is F-4043 for the "new"
400T-Max, I have no idea what 4032 is. The latest T-Max data
sheet covering all of the films is F-4016 dated October
2007, however F-4043 is later and covers only the ISO-400
film.
My memory is that a new data sheet was issued when
production of B&W film was moved to the same plant that
coats color film. At that time it was stated that while new
datasheets were issued T-Max films had always been coated in
this plant and there were not major changes. The "new" film
is evidently actually coated on a different machine and had
some adjustments made to the emulsion and to the
overcoating. The overcoating affects development times
because it affects the penetration of the developer into the
emulsion. It has the greatest effect on "induction time"
that is, the time it takes for the image to begin appearing,
but this also shifts all times somewhat and is not
consistent with temperature.
I don't know why Kodak made these changes but suspect
that the production quality had begun to drift too much.
When the films were moved to the color plant it was reported
that Tri-X films, which really were moved to new machines,
had finer grain than before and some found the grain finer
than 400T-Max. This last should have been the case and may
be an indicator that the T-Max line had drifted. It is also
possible that changes in the formulation of the emulsion
were made. I find the suggestion in the new datasheet that
edge sharpness is improved to be interesting because it
suggests such a change.
I don't think Kodak ever just re-writes datasheets for
no reason. However, since the development charts are based
on sensitometric measurements and since these measurements
are made on a continuing basis for tracking the production
quality, its quite possible that at some point there is
enough change to warrant new overall measurements and an
amended datasheet.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com

Re: "New" TMY: same as it ever was?

In article <13sls4va3ee7509@corp.supernews . com >,
Richard Knoppow <dickburk@ix . net com . com > wrote:
>
> I don't think Kodak ever just re-writes datasheets for
>no reason. However, since the development charts are based
>on sensitometric measurements and since these measurements
>are made on a continuing basis for tracking the production
>quality, its quite possible that at some point there is
>enough change to warrant new overall measurements and an
>amended datasheet.

I am a little surprised to see Kodak actually rewriting datasheets
at all any more, and I wonder if they are using an outside contractor
as they do for a number of other technical services they used to handle
in-house. Have a look at the big rotary-processing table in J-109
(the Xtol datasheeet) and you'll see clear evidence they stopped work
on that document in the middle -- the entries in the table for new
Tmax 100 ("100TMX") are mostly left empty, and the values which are
present are highly suspect (almost everything else in the table I have
checked matches my measurements very closely; the 100TMX times, as far
as I can tell, are just wrong).

Speaking of J-109, for EI 400, Kodak has the same row of numbers for
"old" and "older" TMY there:

XTOL STOCK 1:1
65=7.5 68=6.25 70=5.25 75=4 68=8.25 70=7.25 75=5.75 80=4.75

Now, F-32 (the "oldest" TMY datasheet) has:
XTOL STOCK 1:1
68=6.25 70=5.5 72=5 75=4 68=8.25 70=7.25 72=6.75 75=5.75

The only difference is at 70F, and from other data in the charts (the
data for "old TMX") one can deduce that actually this data point must
just be about half way between 5.5 and 5.25, as different Kodak charts
list it as one or the other consistently.

F-4016 (the "old" TMY datasheet) has:
XTOL STOCK 1:1
68=6.25 70=5.5 72=5 75=4 68=8.25 70=7.25 72=6.75 75=5.75

F-4043 (the "new" TMY datasheet) has:
XTOL STOCK 1:1
65=7.25 68=6.5 70=6.25 72=5.75 75=5.25 65=10.75 68=9.25 70=8.5 72=7.75 75=7

I was wrong: these are *not* the times from F-32 (which were almost exactly
the same times as F-4016, the only difference being the one noted above).
I think I confused myself last night because the numbers in the F-4016
table do not include 65F, so my data were off by one column. These are a
whole new set of times.

Here is an interesting and perhaps useful fact -- if you trust the numbers
for 100TMX from J-109/F-4016, which I personally do not (see above): at 68
and 70F the new 400TMX times are only 15 seconds off the new 100TMX times,
for XTOL 1:1, D-76, and HC-110 -- it may be that Kodak has deliberately
retuned 400TMX so that 100 and 400 can once again be run in the same tank
in commercial applications. However, this will most assuredly not work
with TMAX RS or XTOL stock -- the data are all over the chart for those
two.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls . com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky

Re: "New" TMY: same as it ever was?

Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> I happen to have all three sets of Kodak rotary-processing recommendations
> for Tmax 400 in front of me: the old (prior to move to new coating facility)
> Publication F-32, the "new" (first generation at new coating faciity) F-4016,
> and the "newest" (current production, "finer grain!") F-4032.
>
> Kodak claims that the "finer grain" TMY -- the newest stuff -- has "slightly"
> different processing times than the generation immediately prior. If their
> table is to be believed -- nonsense.
>
> The data in the newest -- F-4032 -- publication, for the "finer grain"
> film appear, for rotary processing of sheet film, to exactly match the
> data in the oldest -- F-32 -- publication, for the "old coating facility"
> film.
>
> Time to plug in the densitometer again and hope it's still working, I
> suppose. I wonder what exactly Kodak is up to: did they revert production
> to how (and where?) it used to be before the first set of changes?
>
If anyone here needs I have an ESECO Speedmaster B&W densitometer Model
T-80BD and a Bessler 45 MXT enlarger4 looking for a new home.

Also have a couple of Componon S lenses, carriers and other goodies also
looking.

Best,
Dave