[LargeFormat] F.S. 50-Sheet Box Tmax 100 8x10

[Schuyler Grace]

Well, you just never know what the Kodak folks will do next...witness that,
upon calling them for a second time, I got a rep who knew all about the UV
problem and arranged for me to ship the film back to them (sorry guys, it's
not for sale anymore).  Dick Arentz prodded me to hold Kodak's feet to the
fire, and it worked!  So, after many happy years of using Tmax 100, I guess
I'm going to give Tmax 400 a try.  I hear it's good stuff, and I can stop
down on days when there is more than the breeze from a mosquito's wings
blowing.

Now, I'm off to see if I can print through all those negs I made on the new
Tmax 100 using the arc from my MIG welder as a UV source...

-Schuyler

-----Original Message-----
From: largeformat-bounces at f32.net [mailto:largeformat-bounces at f32.net] On
Behalf Of Vince Dobson
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:30 AM
To: f32 Large Format Photography Mail List
Subject: RE: [LargeFormat] F.S. 50-Sheet Box Tmax 100 8x10

I'm wondering if they will do the same with Tri-ex?  For safety I'm staying
away from the yellow dog and think to only use Efke in the future when
current inventory runs out.

Vince Dobson
Visions In Nature
www.visionsinnature.com

-----Original Message-----
From: largeformat-bounces at f32.net [mailto:largeformat-bounces at f32.net]On
Behalf Of Schuyler Grace
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:17 AM
To: 'f32 Large Format Photography Mail List'
Subject: RE: [LargeFormat] F.S. 50-Sheet Box Tmax 100 8x10

Well, I hadn't realized there was a problem until someone on the Alt Photo
list mentioned it, and then I saw reference to it, again, in Dick Arentz's
revised Pt/Pd printing book.  To make a long story a little shorter, Kodak
apparently changed the Tmax 100 (8x10 only, to the best of my understanding,
even though it makes very little sense the 4x5 version wasn't affected) base
to include a UV blocker for some reason known only to the little yellow
people (Kodakers, that is, not the Simpsons).  Anyway, it finally dawned on
me that every one of a bunch of negatives I was having trouble printing in
Pt/Pd was done on the newer film, even though the negatives looked fine to
the naked eye.  However, these same negatives are apparently very dense in
the UV domain, so that was what was causing me so much trouble.

The changeover in specs came when Kodak changed the film boxes to read "100
Tmax" from having read "Tmax 100."  However, to my knowledge, Kodak has
never actually stated there was any such change or a reason for it.

Oh and, I do know how to spell "refrigeration," but Outlook both mangled my
first e-mail and undid all my spelling changes.  Hmmm...I wonder if
Microsoft has bought out Kodak...

-Schuyler

-----Original Message-----
From: largeformat-bounces at f32.net [mailto:largeformat-bounces at f32.net] On
Behalf Of Frank Filippone
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:49 PM
To: f32 Large Format Photography Mail List
Subject: RE: [LargeFormat] F.S. 50-Sheet Box Tmax 100 8x10

Can you expound on your findings?  This sounds quite interesting.....

Frank Filippone
red735i at earthlink.net


 they can't be used as
I intended to make platinum prints-Kodak has apparently added a UV inhibitor
to the new Tmax 100 formulation.


_______________________________________________
LargeFormat mailing list
LargeFormat at f32.net
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat

_______________________________________________
LargeFormat mailing list
LargeFormat at f32.net
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat

_______________________________________________
LargeFormat mailing list
LargeFormat at f32.net
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat