Let's start a petition for Pan-F in 4x5! [Archive]

Lenny Eiger

26-Dec-2006, 19:30

I'm not sure how to set it up technically, but just thought we could let Simon Galley at Ilford know how many people would buy PanF in larger formats if it were available. I'll post something on APUG as well, and perhaps we can consolidate lists. Just add your name to this thread, show your enthusiasm, and we'll make sure Simon sees it.

I tried to talk to Ilford and got some initial response, but not enough. I want to have real film back - I'm with you... Something nice - double coated, with lots of midtone separation.

I don't care if it is pan f or the old FP4 - or something new. I think there are a lot of us who would like a "premium" film. Most everyone I talk to is very unhappy with current film.

Rakesh Malik

27-Dec-2006, 07:15

I like Ilford's Delta and XP2 films... been shooting them in 6x6 and 35mm, and the only reason I don't use themin 4x5 is that Ilford doesn't sell them in Quickloads... :)

sanking

27-Dec-2006, 08:37

David Luttmann

27-Dec-2006, 10:39

Why would you want Pan F in larger formats? Across, Delta 100 and Tmax-100 all have smaller grain and higher resolution.

Sandy King

Actually Sandy,

I confirmed with Ilford a while back that Pan F has finer grain than Delta 100, but Delta 100 is a sharper film. I've noticed this when working with MF 6x7 negs.

David A. Goldfarb

27-Dec-2006, 15:42

Pan-F has a more attractive tonality than Delta 100 (too bottom heavy for my taste) or T-Max 100 (that plasticky B&W video look). Alas, it cannot be.

Bruce Watson

27-Dec-2006, 15:56

As the resident heretic, I've got to say that I'd never use a film that slow in 5x4. OTOH, I'd love to see Delta 400 in 5x4, and I'd sign a petition to get that. Somehow I think we're both doomed to disappointment.

domenico Foschi

27-Dec-2006, 16:52

What about lowering the price of the MGWarmtone?
A 50/box of 16x 20 $172.00 plus tax! :eek:

Lenny Eiger

27-Dec-2006, 18:27

Why would you want Pan F in larger formats? Across, Delta 100 and Tmax-100 all have smaller grain and higher resolution.
Sandy King

They only have smaller grain where it's sharp. If you look at areas of sky, the grain is very large. These films are made with silver chloride vs silver bromide and it isn't anywhere as sensitive as traditional film. They have half the number of tones available to them. It's like playing a piano with 88 keys but in the back there are only 44 strings to strike.

If you make prints with only 44 tones it doesn't matter - as in fairly contrasty. But if you don't they are horrible. Those of us who like a full, rich tonal range find them quite lacking.

Lenny

Ted Harris

27-Dec-2006, 18:37

What about efke/ADOX 25? I've used it for years in rolls and sheet and quire like it?

sanking

27-Dec-2006, 19:35

They only have smaller grain where it's sharp. If you look at areas of sky, the grain is very large. These films are made with silver chloride vs silver bromide and it isn't anywhere as sensitive as traditional film. They have half the number of tones available to them. It's like playing a piano with 88 keys but in the back there are only 44 strings to strike.

If you make prints with only 44 tones it doesn't matter - as in fairly contrasty. But if you don't they are horrible. Those of us who like a full, rich tonal range find them quite lacking.

Lenny

That may be your opinion, but some of the best traditional work I have ever seen was done with Tmax-100 and roll film.

I don't personally have any need for a slow ASA sheet film, but if one is looking for optimum quality in 4X5 or 5X7 with large enlargment Tmax-100 is the path to success in my opinion.

Of course, this assumes that one takes the time to learn how to expose and develop the film to optimize results. T-grain films do not have as much latitude in exposure and development as traditional films.

Sandy

Lenny Eiger

27-Dec-2006, 21:01

That may be your opinion, but some of the best traditional work I have ever seen was done with Tmax-100 and roll film.
I don't personally have any need for a slow ASA sheet film, but if one is looking for optimum quality in 4X5 or 5X7 with large enlargment Tmax-100 is the path to success in my opinion.
Of course, this assumes that one takes the time to learn how to expose and develop the film to optimize results. T-grain films do not have as much latitude in exposure and development as traditional films.
Sandy

I tried a lot of developers, probably 30 or so, even invented one of my own to try and get the most out of TGrained films. (I did figure out what the agent was that made TMax and others develop out.) I know a lot about development, different developers and how they interact with silver grains. I've been photographing for more than 40 years and have taught the zone system to a ton of people so I think I know how to expose by now.

It is my opinion, but in my opinion, these films really stink. That said, it has a lot to do with what one is after. I want a full tonal range, as I have said. If you print contrasty like good 'ol Ansel, it doesn't matter what film you use. However, if you want to print like a platinum printer the TGrained films will fail you. Every time.

I scan my images on a drum scanner and print with custom mixed six dilution b&w inks. This medium has far more range than a silver print, and even a bit longer range than a platinum print. The more tones you get in your image, the more 3D it appears - just ask any platinum printer. When you hit it right it is the difference between what things look like and what they feel like.

It is a much different thing than a journalist is after, for instance. Lots of kinds of art in photography... all valid

Lenny
eigerphoto.com

Lenny Eiger

27-Dec-2006, 21:07

What about efke/ADOX 25? I've used it for years in rolls and sheet and quire like it?

I think Efke is the current winner. It's slow... and that's difficult. There has been much said on this forum about it. I think the Efke of 2005 was fabulous - when they got it right. I had great results, then a few bad boxes. The late 2006 Efke is ok, but I am not as happy as I would like to be. They changed the formula. I also test every box now before I use it...

I used to love to shoot in those lighting situations thta stretched the film - low light inside a dark forest, etc. I don't think any film made today can stetch. I'd settle for some 1970's era Tri-X or FP4. SuperXX...

sanking

27-Dec-2006, 21:17

I tried a lot of developers, probably 30 or so, even invented one of my own to try and get the most out of TGrained films. (I did figure out what the agent was that made TMax and others develop out.) I know a lot about development, different developers and how they interact with silver grains. I've been photographing for more than 40 years and have taught the zone system to a ton of people so I think I know how to expose by now.

It is my opinion, but in my opinion, these films really stink. That said, it has a lot to do with what one is after. I want a full tonal range, as I have said. If you print contrasty like good 'ol Ansel, it doesn't matter what film you use. However, if you want to print like a platinum printer the TGrained films will fail you. Every time.

I scan my images on a drum scanner and print with custom mixed six dilution b&w inks. This medium has far more range than a silver print, and even a bit longer range than a platinum print. The more tones you get in your image, the more 3D it appears - just ask any platinum printer. When you hit it right it is the difference between what things look like and what they feel like.

It is a much different thing than a journalist is after, for instance. Lots of kinds of art in photography... all valid

Lenny
eigerphoto.com

As you say, it is your opinion. I also know a thing or two about printing in a number of media, including silver, the inkjet thing, and a number of alternative processes, including real carbon transfer and platinum, both with in-camera negatives and digital negatives carefully crafted for these processes, and I don't share your opinion in the least as regards T-grain films.

As for the 3-D effect, well-made carbon transfer prints have more real dimensional qualities than most people could imagine, unless they read brail and understand the potential of real raised relief.

Sandy King

alec4444

28-Dec-2006, 07:07

What about efke/ADOX 25? I've used it for years in rolls and sheet and quire like it?

I haven't shot TMax films yet (a bit expensive for a newbie) but I have been shooting Efke in both medium format & large format for some time now. I love it. In the 120 format you have to be really careful to avoid having light leaks along the edges, but if care is taken the images are stunning. Hell, the negatives themselves are stunning. I typically develop in Rodinal (I paid dearly for a batch and now I'm running out) in 1:100 dilution for about 18 mins.

I've been wanting to pair this film with the Adox Vario Classic paper, but on J&C's site they say that a yellow safelight may fog the film. I use a rental lab in NYC and I don't have the option to use a red safelight...they're also not set up for 2-bath developing. I may give it a go anyway because I'm that intrigued. =)

--A

Ted Harris

28-Dec-2006, 11:03

Glad to hear I'm not the only one shooting the Adox/efke 25. I have been using a bit of it in both 4x5 and 5x7. I have used its precusors (adox KB14 and KB17) extensively in years past. Inf act, one of my fondest 'photo memories' is my first venture into the old Freestyle retail store circa 1972 to buy some long rolls of KB14 to spool. Waht a store that used to be ... :)

Lenny Eiger

28-Dec-2006, 11:41

As you say, it is your opinion. I also know a thing or two about printing in a number of media, including silver, the inkjet thing, and a number of alternative processes, including real carbon transfer and platinum, both with in-camera negatives and digital negatives carefully crafted for these processes, and I don't share your opinion in the least as regards T-grain films.
As for the 3-D effect, well-made carbon transfer prints have more real dimensional qualities than most people could imagine, unless they read brail and understand the potential of real raised relief.
Sandy King

I hope it's ok if we disagree. Further, I have nothing but great respect for all kinds of alternative proceses. I think gravure is truly amazing....

Lenny

Jorge Gasteazoro

28-Dec-2006, 11:46

However, if you want to print like a platinum printer the TGrained films will fail you. Every time.

All of my pictures are made with tmx 400, you might not like them, but let me tell you the film delivers great tonality each and every time....

sanking

28-Dec-2006, 12:25

I hope it's ok if we disagree. Further, I have nothing but great respect for all kinds of alternative proceses. I think gravure is truly amazing....

Lenny

It is fine to disagree, and we all have certain preferences in terms of our films. But in the end the major difference in films for LF is in the shape of the curve and how this translates into tonal values on the print. Grain does not matter much in this size, and developers, dilutions and type of agitation are primarily responsible for apparent sharpness.

Many people don't like T-grain films like Tmax-100 and Tmax-400, and I believe the major reason for this is that they are both very responsive films that require tight control of time and temperature to reach a desired CI, and to the fact that they have very long straight curves that don't compensate for mistakes in exposure or development, as might be the case with films that have long toes and pronounced shouldering. However, the fact of the matter is that these characteristics, when understood, can be exploited. And the proof is in the pudding as they say, because some the most technically proficient photograhers in the world (Sexton, Barnbaum, for example), are making great images with these films, so I just think it not very smart for someone to diss T-grain films merely because they don't work in their experience.

Sandy King

KenM

28-Dec-2006, 19:41

It is fine to disagree, and we all have certain preferences in terms of our films. But in the end the major difference in films for LF is in the shape of the curve and how this translates into tonal values on the print. Grain does not matter much in this size, and developers, dilutions and type of agitation are primarily responsible for apparent sharpness.

Many people don't like T-grain films like Tmax-100 and Tmax-400, and I believe the major reason for this is that they are both very responsive films that require tight control of time and temperature to reach a desired CI, and to the fact that they have very long straight curves that don't compensate for mistakes in exposure or development, as might be the case with films that have long toes and pronounced shouldering. However, the fact of the matter is that these characteristics, when understood, can be exploited. And the proof is in the pudding as they say, because some the most technically proficient photograhers in the world (Sexton, Barnbaum, for example), are making great images with these films, so I just think it not very smart for someone to diss T-grain films merely because they don't work in their experience.

Sandy King

I don't think Barnbaum uses any t-grain films - for 4x5 he uses Tri-X, Techpan and Infrared (still has a cache of the last two...), and in 120 he uses FP4+, HP5 (I think), and Techpan.

Sexton uses TMax....quite successfully too - I received his new book for Christmas. Very, very nice work.

sanking

28-Dec-2006, 20:09

I don't think Barnbaum uses any t-grain films - for 4x5 he uses Tri-X, Techpan and Infrared (still has a cache of the last two...), and in 120 he uses FP4+, HP5 (I think), and Techpan.

Sexton uses TMax....quite successfully too - I received his new book for Christmas. Very, very nice work.

If that is so I apologize for the error. I saw some comparison tests Barnbaum did with pyro staining developers and may have concluded incorrectly that he used Tmax films.

Still, the point still stands as a lot of outstanding work is being done with t-grain films.

Sandy

Lenny Eiger

28-Dec-2006, 21:12

All of my pictures are made with tmx 400, you might not like them, but let me tell you the film delivers great tonality each and every time....

I don't want to get into a discussion of aesthetics on this thread. And I don't ever tell people I don't like their work - whether or not I do. I have taught for many years and I believe one should look at what a photographer is trying to do and help them accomplish it. If you look you can almost always see the intent.

I looked at your images and it may just be the conversion to web, but in your architectural shots there are large areas where tone is missing. I would only know if this was real if I saw the actual prints. If you are happy, that's great.

Lenny

Lenny Eiger

28-Dec-2006, 21:31

And the proof is in the pudding as they say, because some the most technically proficient photograhers in the world (Sexton, Barnbaum, for example), are making great images with these films, so I just think it not very smart for someone to diss T-grain films merely because they don't work in their experience.
Sandy King

I went over this over the last few years with Steve Anchell, Gordon Hutchings and Bud Wilson. They all agree with me. Further, I don't want to print in the style of Sexton or Barnbaum. I like portraying the world as I see it - and I don't see it that contrasty.

Those folks may be your heroes, and that's fine. I would rather look at Paul Caponigro for contemporary, or Stieglitz, Frederick and Walker Evans, O'Sullivan, Cameron, Clarence White, Lange and a host of others. I saw some prints last summer by Sutcliffe that really knocked me off my feet....

Finally, I am trying to be polite here - and I don't think its constructive to suggest people are not smart. You don't know anything about me. I could be very smart, I might even be right about TGrained films. And maybe not. But it's no reason to be rude. I don't think a discussion about film is worth it.

sanking

28-Dec-2006, 22:02

I went over this over the last few years with Steve Anchell, Gordon Hutchings and Bud Wilson. They all agree with me. Further, I don't want to print in the style of Sexton or Barnbaum. I like portraying the world as I see it - and I don't see it that contrasty.

Those folks may be your heroes, and that's fine. I would rather look at Paul Caponigro for contemporary, or Stieglitz, Frederick and Walker Evans, O'Sullivan, Cameron, Clarence White, Lange and a host of others. I saw some prints last summer by Sutcliffe that really knocked me off my feet....

Finally, I am trying to be polite here - and I don't think its constructive to suggest people are not smart. You don't know anything about me. I could be very smart, I might even be right about TGrained films. And maybe not. But it's no reason to be rude. I don't think a discussion about film is worth it.

I did not say, or even suggest, you were not smart. What I said was, "I just think it is not very smart for someone to diss T-grain films merely because they don't work in their experience." My comment re: smart was to something you said, not to you as a person. Some people don't seem to understand this kind of distinction, and you are apparently one of them.

If you really want to be polite you might start by refraining from telling people who probably know a lot more about Pt./Pd. printing than you that T-grain films will fail them every time. That is simply BS.

As for being rude, your snide comments about Jorge's work tells me all I need to know about you.

Sandy King

tim atherton

28-Dec-2006, 22:29

If you really want to be polite you might start by refraining from telling people who probably know a lot more about Pt./Pd. printing than you that T-grain films will fail them every time. That is simply BS.

Sandy King

Hmm this is a guy as I recall who has printed Pt/Pd since the 70's or 80's, run a platinum printing business and taught photography, alt and silver processes at Parsons, Cooper Union etc etc if I'm not mistaken? I certainly remember seeing some stuff about him back in the 80's early 90's - I don't think he's some kind of newbie...?

sanking

28-Dec-2006, 22:39

Hmm this is a guy as I recall who has printed Pt/Pd since the 70's or 80's, run a platinum printing business and taught photography, alt and silver processes at Parsons, Cooper Union etc etc if I'm not mistaken? I certainly remember seeing some stuff about him back in the 80's early 90's - I don't think he's some kind of newbie...?

I think he said on another thread that he had some forty years of printing experience so I was aware of the fact that this guy is not some kind of "newbie."

So what? The issue is that he stated categorically that the T-Grain films would fail with Pt./Pd. printing, "every time". Sorry, but that is simply wrong, regardless of whatever professional credentials he may have.

Sandy King

tim atherton

28-Dec-2006, 22:50

I think he said on another thread that he had some forty years of printing experience so I was aware of the fact that this guy is not some kind of "newbie."

So what? The issue is that he stated categorically that the T-Grain films would fail with Pt./Pd. printing, "every time". Sorry, but that is simply wrong, regardless of whatever professional credentials he may have.

Sandy King

which wasn't what I said - those distinctions again

"So what" -the "so what" appears to be the rather large (and potentially mistaken) assumption that "you might start by refraining from telling people who probably know a lot more about Pt./Pd. printing than you"

that's all

sanking

28-Dec-2006, 23:01

which wasn't what I said - those distinctions again

"So what" -the "so what" appears to be the rather large (and potentially mistaken) assumption that "you might start by refraining from telling people who probably know a lot more about Pt./Pd. printing than you"

that's all

What distinctions? I did not quote you in any way.

However, anyone who thinks that T-grain films will fail you every time with Pt./Pd. does not know much about the process as far as I am concerned. For that reason alone it is reasonable for me to assume that people who have printed Pt./Pd. with good results with T-grain films know a lot more about the subject than Lenny.

Sandy King

Jorge Gasteazoro

28-Dec-2006, 23:06

I don't want to get into a discussion of aesthetics on this thread. And I don't ever tell people I don't like their work - whether or not I do. I have taught for many years and I believe one should look at what a photographer is trying to do and help them accomplish it. If you look you can almost always see the intent.

I looked at your images and it may just be the conversion to web, but in your architectural shots there are large areas where tone is missing. I would only know if this was real if I saw the actual prints. If you are happy, that's great.

Lenny

This is the problem with the web and different monitor calibrations. There is not one picture of mine that does not have detail either on the shadows or the highlights unless it was intended that way. But that is not neither here nor there, there are many in this forum who use tmx 400 succesfully for printing in pt/pd, Michael Mutmansky is one, you can check his web site, Sandy is another one. If Tmx 400 was so horrible for alt processes not many of us would have pushed to have it cut in ULF sizes.

You might not like the way it reproduces tones, and that is all well and good, but to claim that T grain film always fail to produce good negatives for pt/pd is just not accurate, at least in my experience and that of many others here.

In the end who cares? You have your opinion, I and others disagree with it, I guess it is best to leave it at that.

KenM

29-Dec-2006, 08:55

If that is so I apologize for the error. I saw some comparison tests Barnbaum did with pyro staining developers and may have concluded incorrectly that he used Tmax films.

Still, the point still stands as a lot of outstanding work is being done with t-grain films.

Sandy

Hmm, are you sure you're not thinking of Howard Bond? I believe he had an article in PhotoTechniques a while back talking about staining developers...

I showed Barnbaum a Pyrocat-HD developed negative, and his first comment was that he didn't like staining developers because you couldn't increase contrast on the negatives after the fact via selenium toning....so I don't think Bruce would have been doing any comparisons :D

Yes, there is lots of good work being done with t-grain films. Really, it comes down to who's standing behind the camera....

Michael Mutmansky

29-Dec-2006, 09:11

... But that is not neither here nor there, there are many in this forum who use tmx 400 succesfully for printing in pt/pd, Michael Mutmansky is one, you can check his web site, Sandy is another one.

I don't use TMY much anymore because I couldn't get it in the sizes I needed, so I switched to Ilford a while back. I now have some TMY from the last special order, but I'm not planning to convert back to Kodak, as I just don't see them in the market in the future.

Amazingly, TMY works great for pt/pd. Possibly better then most other films due to it's ability to build suitable negative contrast.

---Michael

johnnydc

29-Dec-2006, 09:59

David Luttmann

29-Dec-2006, 10:15

Wow... this discussion is giving me flashbacks to the leica forum at p.n

To address the original question:

like others have said, a number of people (myself included) have approached Ilford, asking them why they don't sell Pan F+ in sheet film sizes. The reason they give is pretty good: when coated on a polyester base (the kind used for their sheet films) the Pan F+ emulsion becomes unstable and slides off when wet. Obviously, this would not make for a very good product, so they don't do it. Makes sense to me.

John,

Would it not be possible for Ilford to use the same base material that they do with roll film for Pan F? I'm not sure what the logistics are with that but I would love Pan F in 4x5. I've always loved its look when shooting MF 6x7.

sanking

29-Dec-2006, 10:19

Hmm, are you sure you're not thinking of Howard Bond? I believe he had an article in PhotoTechniques a while back talking about staining developers...

I showed Barnbaum a Pyrocat-HD developed negative, and his first comment was that ...

Thanks. It was indeed Howrd Bond that I was thinking of. Actually, I don't think Bond cares much for staining developers either, but he did write an interesting comparisoin article on staining versus non-staining developers that was published in DT a few years ago.

Sandy King

Lenny Eiger

29-Dec-2006, 12:36

What distinctions? I did not quote you in any way.
However, anyone who thinks that T-grain films will fail you every time with Pt./Pd. does not know much about the process as far as I am concerned. For that reason alone it is reasonable for me to assume that people who have printed Pt./Pd. with good results with T-grain films know a lot more about the subject than Lenny.
Sandy King

Have you considered the possibility that they got results that I wouldn't be satisfied with? I've tested TMax with at least 20 different developers. I developed a special Pyro/Glycin mixture to get more out of it. It can't hold a candle to Acros, and they both do poorly up against properly Efke in straight PMK.

You are saying people can do art with TMax. OK. Sure they can. I say your examples are not making great prints - by my idea of what a great print is - which is obviously different from what their idea of a great print should be. It doesn't mean I don't know anything.

You just want to be argumentative.

johnnydc

29-Dec-2006, 14:04

John,

Would it not be possible for Ilford to use the same base material that they do with roll film for Pan F? I'm not sure what the logistics are with that but I would love Pan F in 4x5. I've always loved its look when shooting MF 6x7.

David- Unfortunately, no. Polyester has different characteristics than acetate -- most notably that it's stiffer and less likely to bend. Roll films by their very nature have to be able to bend, but that same quality is undesirable in sheet film. You want the sheets to stay as flat as possible, and return to their flat shape if they get bent accidentally. If you've ever seen a sheet of acetate, you know how easy it is to crinkle and bend -- it's far too flexible to use as a base for film sheets.

Further, creating acetate sheets would require Ilford to use special tools that could pour and cut that material to sheet film sizes, which would substantially increase costs, and would only pay for itself with sales of the new product, as all other Ilford sheet films (HP5+, FP4+, Delta 100/400 and Ortho+) use polyester bases.

My best guess as to why Pan F+ is so difficult to coat on polyester is that polyester is much less porous than acetate, and as such the emulsion has nothing to grab on to, and slides right off. But that's only a guess. It could be any number of things.

I'm sorry to be the guy who poopoo's the original suggestion, because I too would love to see Pan F+ in 4x5 and especially 8x10 (can you imagine!?!? -- awesome!), but as of right now I just don't think it's in the cards.

I'm more than willing to put my name on this list if we're trying to give market feedback to Ilford. But at the same time I think people should keep in mind that if we don't see PanF+ sheets in the next 12 months, it doesn't mean Ilford isn't listening to us. Harman-Ilford is one of the only companies out there who seem to genuinely care about the people who use their products, and we should be wary of that and cut them some slack. After all, they did just give us a new selenium toner to play around with -- and how ballsy was that? ;)

sanking

29-Dec-2006, 14:08

Have you considered the possibility that they got results that I wouldn't be satisfied with? I've tested TMax with at least 20 different developers. I developed a special Pyro/Glycin mixture to get more out of it. It can't hold a candle to Acros, and they both do poorly up against properly Efke in straight PMK.

You are saying people can do art with TMax. OK. Sure they can. I say your examples are not making great prints - by my idea of what a great print is - which is obviously different from what their idea of a great print should be. It doesn't mean I don't know anything.

You just want to be argumentative.

So let me figure this out. You state categorically that "if you want to print like a platinum printer the TGrained films will fail you, every time. " I disagree with that statement, and now several other pt/pd printers have stated here that Tmax-400 is a great film for pt./pd. But somehow I am the one who is argumentative, even though you are the one making a claim that no one else is buying?

The issue is not what your idea of a great print may be, nor what you think of the photography of the examples I cited. The question is simply, is TMAX-400 a film that gives good results with pt/pd? And when that is the question the anwer is a definite yes, at least for many people who are accomplished pt/pd printers.

Sandy King

Lenny Eiger

29-Dec-2006, 14:29

The question is simply, is TMAX-400 a film that gives good results with pt/pd?
Sandy King

Let's say we agree that this is the question. The next question is how does one define "good results". Apparently, I define it differently.

Maybe you are taking my statement "will fail you every time" as an indication that I think that you and all the others who use this have failed, or worse, are failures. I certainly didn't mean this. I tried very hard to make this and other modern films work and I found them quite lacking. It's very frustrating to imagine that you don't have film that is usable. What does one do - stop shooting? It is this frustration that I was expressing. I am still not partial to John Sexton's work, I think I have that right, tho' I'm sure he is a nice fellow, and I don't mean to malign anyone, except maybe some of the folks who make decisions about how to manufacture films - that seem to be getting less sensitive every year.

Of course, in fairness to the rest of the gang here, I think the question was something about getting PanF, or some other traditional, full silvered, more luscious film for 4x5 but that's another story...

Lenny

Jay DeFehr

29-Dec-2006, 14:49

sanking

29-Dec-2006, 19:36

Let's say we agree that this is the question. The next question is how does one define "good results". Apparently, I define it differently.

Lenny

I looked at the images in your gallery but did not find any pt/pd prints in there so I don't have any way to understand the kind of look you are after that can not be achieved with modern t-grain films. If you have a pt/pd print somewhere in the gallery that shows the kind of result you are after please direct me to it.

In looking at the images in your gallery it appears to me that you tend to print with a somewhat more compressed tonal scale than most people, but that could be my monitor.

In any event I personally find TMY to be a very good film for printing pt/pd. It has a long straight line curve that tends to comepnsate to some extent for the long toe and shoulder of the process, has good speed and excellent reciprocity characteristics, and has great potential for N expansion and contraction.

Sandy King

lee\c

30-Dec-2006, 02:06

here is some of Sandy's images

http://www.alternativephotography.com/artists/sandy_king.html

lee\c

jshanesy

30-Dec-2006, 10:19

This is funny! For my part, I love Pan F+, but I think the best film currently available (possibly ever available) is TMY. It just does everything a film should do. One could argue that I don't know what a good print should look like, but I could similarly argue that anyone who can't get the highest quality results from TMY doesn't know how to use it. In the end, these kinds of arguments are futile and only serve to draw divisions where none need exist. I hope we all use more film next year!

Jay

Hear, hear! If you look their respective response curves it becomes obvious that TMY is the closest thing we have to Super XX in a modern film. And frankly, even if Kodak were still making Super XX I'd use TMY anyway due to its superior reciprocity characteristics.

I will never understand why LF photographers reject this film. That being said, I should also point out that next to TMY I think Pan F+ is the best film out there and would use it in larger formats were it made.

David A. Goldfarb

30-Dec-2006, 10:34

It might also be that those of us who don't care for TMY have seen work by those who do like it and who feel that it's the best thing since sliced bread (I don't really care for sliced bread, actually), and think--"well, it suits their vision, but that's just not the look I'm after."

Jorge Gasteazoro

30-Dec-2006, 10:48

After seeing how Lenny prints, it is no surprised he does not like Tmx films. Temp and agitation are very important with Tmx films and if they are not consistent it can over/under develop the film. Given that he likes images with little contrast this can be a problem with Tmx. I can see that for his stype of printing an old style emulsion if much better suited.

sanking

30-Dec-2006, 11:50

Hear, hear! If you look their respective response curves it becomes obvious that TMY is the closest thing we have to Super XX in a modern film. And frankly, even if Kodak were still making Super XX I'd use TMY anyway due to its superior reciprocity characteristics.

I will never understand why LF photographers reject this film. That being said, I should also point out that next to TMY I think Pan F+ is the best film out there and would use it in larger formats were it made.

I agree with both your points. First, Super-XX was made, among other things, as a film for making separation negatives, and an important characteristic of a separation negative film is ability to develop to a nice straight line curve. If you develop a TMY and a Super-XX negative to about the same CI their curves will be virtually identical. So I find it ironic that there is so much nostalgia for the old Super-XX film when TMY is so similar in terms of curve shape, though for sure TMY is a much more responsive film than Super-XX and careful control of dilution, temperaure and time of devloment are essential for consistent results.

Second, I have used a lot of Pan F in my life and share your view and that of Jay that it is a very good film. Most of my work with it has been in medium format, but even at this size I find that in comparing Pan F with Tmax 100 grain in moderate size enlargements grain is a wash, but Tmax has much higher resolution and higher speed, even more than indicated since its reciprocity characteristics are much superior to Pan F. So while I agree that Pan F is a nice film I would personally not have any us for it in LF since there are a number of other films that better fit my needs. I would be much happier to see Delta 400 in LF and ULF sizes.

Sandy King

steve simmons

30-Dec-2006, 11:55

TMY does not hold candle to Super XX. To say that similer curves will make a similer prints is absurd and anyone with any experience with both films will know that.

Morley Baer, who used Super XX for 30+ years tried T-Max and did not like it at all. He was given a case and after a few tries sent the film back. Traditional films, including Super XX, have much more depth in the tones than T-Max. You may not be able to see it but don't claim it is not there.

If you truly want to learn how to be a black and white printer, and to learn how beautiful a black and white print can be. spend a few years looking at the work of Bernhard, Caponigro, Gagliani, Tice, Clift, Strand, etc.. I don't mean one or two quick trots through a gallery but really spend time with the work of these people. THen you will know something about black and white. Caponigro, Tice, Clift, etc. can't tell you much about film curves but they can show you a lot about the art and craft of black and white.

Testing about film curves teaches you about testing film curves. It does not teach you how to be an expressive black and white printer.

steve simmons

Jorge Gasteazoro

30-Dec-2006, 12:27

Traditional films, including Super XX, have much more depth in the tones than T-Max.

I have to disagree with this and the rest for that matter, plotting a curve and seeing where the values fall in the reproduction cycle is a very good way to compare films and their printing response.

It is not that Super XX or any other traditional films had "more depth" it is that TMY has different tonalities than what most people who used traditional films are used to. For example the polarizer/red filter trick does not work with TMY, you dont get the deepening of the blue sky like you do in traditional films, red colored items are reproduced a lot lighter than they usually are with traditional emulsion films, if you want to get a tonality with TMY that is closer to a more traditional film slap a green filter and take your pic that way, you will see the response almost like the old style films.

In fact I rarely use a red filter anymore, if I want a deepening of the sky I use an orange filter or polarizer/orange combination, it works much better with TMY.

The problem is not the film, but people who have not spent enough time with it to learn how to use it and get the response they like.

sanking

30-Dec-2006, 12:29

TMY does not hold candle to Super XX. To say that similer curves will make a similer prints is absurd and anyone with any experience with both films will know that.

steve simmons

Actually, I did not say that similar curves make similar prints. Apparent sharpness, grain, resolution and spectral response all play an important role in determining the final look of a print, but shape of the curve is very important.

And as for your comments about Morley Baer, it does not surprise me in the least that someone who used Super-XX for thirty years and then tried TMY was not satisfied. One does the best work with materials they understand the best and the difference in the way these two films respond would require a considerable learning experience, and the response in this type of situation is usually "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

I base my comments on the result on prints, not on curves. Curves confirm results, or suggest reasons for results. I used Super-XX for a decade before ever thinking about curves. And I have seen a lot of very good photography, including original work by Atget, Nadar, Emerson, Demachy, Sudek, Strand, and Weston, to mention a few from past generations whose widely divergent styles and printing techniques suggests that dogmatic opinions about films and developers are among the least important things in making fine work.

Sandy King

steve simmons

30-Dec-2006, 13:21

" If you develop a TMY and a Super-XX negative to about the same CI their curves will be virtually identical. So I find it ironic that there is so much nostalgia for the old Super-XX film when TMY is so similar in terms of curve shape,"

Because Super XX produced a different looking print. That is why this film is missed. Who cares if the curves are similar or different. Baer did not like T-Max because he did not like the tones. To try and claim that he did not know how to use the film is absurd.

steve simmons

steve simmons

Jorge Gasteazoro

30-Dec-2006, 13:26

To try and claim that he did not know how to use the film is absurd.

Why? Should we assume that anybody that can make a great print with one film automagically has knowledge of all films? I never used Super XX, if you gave it to me now I bet it would take a bit of time and testing for me to able to use it to it's best advantage.

At the time Baer got the film, Tmy was very new and little had been written, told about it. It is no surprise to me he did not like it, but that is no reason to say the film is not equal to others when used correctly.

steve simmons

30-Dec-2006, 13:34

sanking

30-Dec-2006, 14:31

Did you know Baer? did you ever spend any time with him? ever look at his prints? did you ever have a conversation with him about black and white photography? Do you know when he got the film?

The answer is No. to all of those questions.

steve simmons

No, I did not know Morley Baer. You mentioned Baer in an attempt to prove your point about a TMY / Super-XX comparison, which I think was in very poor taste given the fact that he died over a decade ago. I regret furthering the discussion with my own speculation regarding why he may have rejected the film, and I won't have any more to say about the subject.

Sandy King

steve simmons

30-Dec-2006, 14:37

I have the utmost respect for Morley. My post was in response to your statement which I have now quoted twice. T-Max and Super XX are not the same film and do not produce the same results, even if you can make the curves look alike.. No one who knew him, who knows me,or is aware of my respect for him would think my mentioning him was in poor taste. He cared a great deal about the art and craft of black and white and would be happy he still has influence with many of us.

steve

william linne

30-Dec-2006, 16:05

What is this a petition for again?

Michael Kadillak

30-Dec-2006, 16:12

Hear, hear! If you look their respective response curves it becomes obvious that TMY is the closest thing we have to Super XX in a modern film. And frankly, even if Kodak were still making Super XX I'd use TMY anyway due to its superior reciprocity characteristics.

I think Jim is absolutely spot on. I would add to his comments that the additional film speed with TMY is a blessing when shooting ULF. However, we need to remind ourselves that Super XX is long gone and any discussion about its capabilities are purely historical and heavily opinionated. Quite honestly WHO CARES? The majority of folks that search and read these posts want to make photographs now with currently available sheet film. That is all that really matters.

IMO photographers come in two models. One type are those that are not the least bit analytical and arrive at their desired results perfectly well through visual go/no go iterations. The other type are those that are comfortable with mathematics and science and simply want to know how the negative is scientifically related to the tonalities within the print. Both should peacfully exist respectful of the other as we are ALL LF photographers. To say that looking at film curves is worthless is as incorrect as one that says that unless you are inclined mathematically to use these algorithms you do not get it.

At the end of the day the diversity of people using different sheet films is what keeps this analog boat in the water and I could not be happier. Hone your craft and make the best possible prints you can respective of how you see the visual world. Along the way continue to purchase the sheet film that you enjoy for whatever reason and call it good. But remember that photography is an art form and the identical materials in five peoples hands will produce five different results and the same number of different opinions as to their merits.

Onward!

Jorge Gasteazoro

30-Dec-2006, 16:58

Did you know Baer? did you ever spend any time with him? ever look at his prints? did you ever have a conversation with him about black and white photography? Do you know when he got the film?

The answer is No. to all of those questions.

He did the work, spent the time, not by plotting film curves but by making photographs. He wasn't unhappy because he used a red filter. That had nothing to do with his dissatisfaction

Once again the following statement shows an academic understanding of film curves but not an understanding of how to make expressive black and white photographs.

" If you develop a TMY and a Super-XX negative to about the same CI their curves will be virtually identical. So I find it ironic that there is so much nostalgia for the old Super-XX film when TMY is so similar in terms of curve shape,"

steve simmons

If you are talking to me, I have seen Baer's work many times over the years. Considering that he died about 6 or 7 years ago and that tmx films were brand new in about 1995-96, it is not hard to figure out that he had the film when it had come out.

So next time, please do not assume you are the only one who has seen the work, knows how to make and expressive print or are the sole guardian of the holy grail and more specifically, do not assume you even know what I have or have not done, you are nobody to even think about telling me what has been my experience. Testing is only the first step and a big one in understanding the film behavior.

This is why it is so hard to have a regular discussion with you, you think you are the only one who know anything and in your arrogant behavior you only look like and ass. In the end just because you or Baer could not use the film it does not mean it is bad, it only means you did and him did not know how to use it.

steve simmons

30-Dec-2006, 18:34

Morley Baer April 5, 1916 to November 9, 1995

From the Kodak milestones web page

1982

utilizing a new T-GRAIN Emulsion Technology, which represented a major break-through in silver-halide emulsions

from 1988

Black-and-white film technology progressed with KODAK T-MAX P3200 film

steve simmons

roteague

30-Dec-2006, 18:43

Morley Baer April 5, 1916 to November 9, 1975

Don't you mean, 1995?

johnnydc

30-Dec-2006, 18:56

Don't you mean, 1995?

So.... how 'bout dem Yankees?

roteague

30-Dec-2006, 20:08

So.... how 'bout dem Yankees?

Sorry, can't say. I'm an "All Blacks" fan.

jshanesy

31-Dec-2006, 20:07

have much more depth in the tones than T-Max.

What in the world can that possibly mean?

steve simmons

31-Dec-2006, 20:17

If you look at the same scene photogrpahed with T-Max and Super XX, which of course now can't be done, the mid tones of the Super XX image will have more depth, more three dimensionality, or guts as we say. This is especially true if you use a staining developer with both films.If you have not seen it that is too bad. Baer sent back the T-Max becasue he did a comparison with some cattle grazing on a hill in the Carmel Valley area His comment was that T-Max gave him cardboard cows which meant they had no depth..

As I suggested earlier, to be a good black and white printer seriously study the work af Stand, Caponigro, Baer, Bernhard, etc. Over time you will be able to see what they accomplished.

steve simmons

sanking

31-Dec-2006, 21:24

What in the world can that possibly mean?

In the old days emulsions were not filtered as well as they are today and the result was small debris of various types, including small particles of ossein gelatin as well as minute piece of such things rat hair, dandruff, etc. made their way into the emulsion. These particles, which tended to assemble deep down there in the depths of the tonal values, had a kind of amorphous look that many began to refer to as guts because of the dimensional qualities they produced on the print.

Hurter and Driffield, who established the standards in the 19th century that lead to modern day sensitometry (the H&H curves) had originally planned to include the term “guts” to describe this condition, but elected against it when it was found that some of the future tabular grain films they tested did not contain guts, and worse, many people could not see the guts at all. Eventually Hurter and Driffield concluded that the use of the term “guts” would probably detract from the credibility of their work in the scientific press ,and they elected to not use it.

In spite of the fact that “guts” never became part of the language of sensitometry a few persons with special insight and understanding continued to use the term to describe this amorphous look in the depths of the tonal values.

Hopefully someone will take the time in the near future to do a full and comprhensive article on guts in photography.

Sandy King

Eric Biggerstaff

31-Dec-2006, 23:09

I don't think I have the guts to do a "guts" article, but I do recall some college professors who would describe certain prints as having "guts" in the tones. I have even had a couple of workshop instructors and gallery owners describe prints as having tonal "guts".

Happy New Year everyone!

Eric

Kirk Gittings

31-Dec-2006, 23:57

I was one of the beta testers on TMax 100 when it first came out. I do not remeber what year it was. I really hated it too and sent it back with some negative comments. However some years later after reading about the use of different and newer developers being used by some clearly competent people, like Sexton, I tried it again using some recomendations offered by the BTZS people. While I never was comfortable with it as my "go to" film (I found it a bit finicky in the high values), I was able to make some great prints with some effort using Tmax RS developer. In the end though I found the film somewhat unpredictable. I think my time and temperature consistency was just a bit too loose to maintain the level of consistency that TMax 100 requires and I gave it up for more forgiving films, right now FP4 and Acros. Using the same methodology I get much more predictable and consistent results with those films.

As for "guts"? I think it has to do more with the skill and aesthetic sensibilities of the artist than a particular film/developer combination. If I have learned anything from years of reading View Camera (and other magazines), it is that great work is possible, with even inferior and odd materials, in the hands of a sensitive, skilled and patient artist. The best materials will not help someone who simply cannot see or feel make a good print.

Colin Robertson

1-Jan-2007, 04:35

Shee-it, boys. Rat Guts in my panF?? Did I drink so much last night I slept longer than usual, and this is actualy APRIL first?

David A. Goldfarb

1-Jan-2007, 07:58

Actually in the case of TMX/TMY and Super-XX, I suspect "guts" is largely a spectral sensitivity issue, rather than a characteristic curve issue. Super-XX fans sometimes say that "it made the skies light up," which I take to mean that it responded well to normal B&W filters to make for good cloud separation.

I shot TMX almost exclusively for several years before I started shooting large format more regularly and stopped thinking like a 35mm photographer (which is not to say that people who shoot TMX are all thinking like 35mm shooters, but just that I was thinking that way), and started noticing other things about the tonality of films aside from grain. I still like TMX for certain things in large format (like scenes with very high brightness range), but the main reason I've largely set it aside is the spectral sensitivity--it looks too much like B&W video or digicam B&W to me.

Andrew O'Neill

1-Jan-2007, 11:03

never used the film. What was so special about it?

John O'Connell

1-Jan-2007, 11:44

It is a short-toe traditional-grained slow speed film. I've got nothing against it, but I don't use it because I wasn't crazy about the highlights I got with it.

DISCLAIMER: I did not plot curves for Pan F. I do not plot curves for any film, although I do use step wedges for evaluating papers. I use TMY in LF because of its reciprocity characteristics. Sometimes I even use a red filter with TMY. I never used Super XX, and I'm not crazy about the work of the only Super XX fetishist I know personally. I also develop Azo in Dektol, use Wollensak wideangles, carry a monorail in the field, run with scissors, like COT320, and only use overexposed HIE in 35mm because I like the soft-focus look.

sanking

1-Jan-2007, 11:52

never used the film. What was so special about it?

If you are talking about Super XX, the most important characteristics for me were.

1. When making separation negatives it had a short toe with a long straight line and almost no shouldering.

2. For regular landscape shooting it had great potential for zonal expansion and contraction.

3. It was also a great film for development by inspection because even with very energetic developers Super XX developed contrast rather slowly, so one had plenty of time to inspect the negative and react to the conditions.

Grain was fairly significant, but that was not an issue with LF, which was where Super XX was most popular.

Super XX was cancelled by Kodak around 1989 or 1990. Sometime shortly thereafter Michael A. Smith purchased all of the remaining stock, and has been using it since then with the ABC Pyro forumla. I had the opportunity to test some of MAS's stock of Super XX a couple of years ago and at that time it still had box speed and excellent potential for N+ and N-. At about the same time a friend gave me a couple of boxes of 12X20 Super XX he had purchased just before it was cancelled. Both the MAS stock and the film I obtained from the friend had rather high B+F, about log .45 or so, but still gave good results for printing with AZO.

Sandy King