backpack and B&W film

[Ugo]

Hi everybody,
I use TXP320 for my B&W work. I am very happy with it but I am considering to reduce the weight of my backpack using TMAX100 readyloads. Do you think I will notice the difference between the two films? I mean, it is worth for me to change?

Anyway, do I need to use TMAX100 in TMAX-RS only with continuous agitation?

Thank you

[Donald Hutton]

Briefly, Tmax100 is a very different film. It requires much more care in metering and in development. The real advantage of developing Tmax100 with a rotary processor is exact, repeatable conditions which I think are essential for success with this film. It is excellent stuff, but requires more care than most B&W emulsions. I would not be switching for the sake of a little extra weight in your pack. TXP320 is very forgiving; TMax100 is not...

[Dave Moeller]

You do not need to use TMAX-RS with TMAX films...almost any developer will do, but some will do better than others. I much prefer D-76 1:1 to any other developer for this film. But, as Don said, this film is very unforgiving. Your metering, developer temperature, development time, etc. must all be very consistent. Smaller changes make bigger differences with this film.

If you really want to go to pre-loaded film, Fuji Acros 100 in Quickloads is a good choice. It's not as forgiving as TXP, but then few things are. It is, however, more forgiving than TMX, and responds well to a much wider range of developers. Acros in Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100 is fantastic. Acros is also great in Pyrocat-HD. Like the TMAX films, Acros has improved recipricatory characteristics over "standard" films like TXP. (Two downsides to Acros: every sheet has a small hole punched in the corner for hanging dryers...it's in the image area, and it's a hard film to find in the US in any form other than Quickloads, so you might want to check availabiliy where you are if you're a "one film" kind of person.)

How much weight you'll save depends on how much shooting you really do. If you shoot 10 or less frames per outing, I'd just stick with the TXP in regular film holders. More than that and you enter the realm of significant savings in both weight and bulk by using Quickloads/Readyloads. But be careful of the temptation to take along 20 quickloads in a box if you're only planning 5-10 shots...I've seen photographers who ended up carrying a whole lot more film than they used, and that kind of defeats the whole purpose.

[Henry Friedman]

Not yet discussed are three very real advantages to Readyloads: First is the ability to shoot unlimited numbers of sheets without the need to reload filmholders, and therefore no need for a changing tent. Second is the improved cleanliness of the film, leading to fewer 'insurance' shots. Finally, if you do much air travel, Readyloads are much easier to present for hand inspection.

[David A. Goldfarb]

These two films are both capable of producing fine prints, but they look completely different. If you are used to the Tri-X look, you're not going to get it from TMX. Run some side-by-side tests before deciding.

I've always liked D-76 (1+1) for TMX, but I've seen some good results with Xtol and would consider trying that if I were planning to shoot a lot of TMX at some point. I prefer Tri-X, Efke 100, and Classic/ClassicPan/FortePan 400 to TMX, personally.

[Neal Wydra]

Dear Ugo,

Why not just find out for yourself before you go? Much better to determine if the product will work for you before you go than to find out it didn't after you return.

[Paul Butzi]

Lots of good comments for you here.

I believe, though, that Fuji Acros is more tolerant of processing variation than TMX, mostly because it seems to require much shorter development times.

See the development table at www.butzi.net/articles/tmxacros.htm (http://www.butzi.net/articles/tmxacros.htm), where I compare TMX and acros. Note that to go from N-2 to N with TMX, a time change of 2.25 minutes is required, while going from N-2 to N with Acros, a time change of only 1.16 minutes does the trick. Likewise going from N to N+1: 2 minute change for TMX, only 50 seconds for Acros.

It seems to me that Acros is about twice as sensitive to development time changes (in Tmax-RS 1+9 at 75F) as TMX is.

[Tom Westbrook]

Paul, don't you mean that Acros is less tolerant of processing variations? It seems that if it takes less time to effect a noticeable change that Acros would be even harder to control than TMAX, esp. if not using machine processing.

In RE the original question: I actively carry both films around and use them for different things. They do look entirely different and, I think, complement each other. I tend to prefer the Tri-X 'look', myself for a lot of images, but I find TMAX a better general purpose film (it's that long, straight-line behavior). I only wish Tri-X was available in Readyloads. I tried Acros (in Xtol 1:1 and TMAX RS 1:9), but it didn't really twist my knickers to any great extent (and that hole in the corner is really annoying).

[Paul Butzi]

Yes, less tolerant. Jeez, when will I learn to not post before that first cup of tea in the AM.

[Will Strain]

I wish even TMY was available in readyloads... did it used to be, or is my mind playing tricks on me?

[Tom Westbrook]

Paul: I didn't notice it untial after my usual 6-shot iced esspresso, so you're doing pretty good on just tea.

I don't belive TMY was ever available in readyloads, sadly. That's another great film that would be nice to have. I wonder what the big deal is with Kodak and Readyloads? Surely it's a value-added thing they make extra profit on.