Heads up -- today B&H lowered its price on 8x10 TMY-2:
It had been $104 per box.
Printable View
Heads up -- today B&H lowered its price on 8x10 TMY-2:
It had been $104 per box.
Anyone remember what it cost in 2010? I didn't get any In 2010, I was using expired boxes of 50 I got from ebay at $2/sheet. Back in the day when ebay expired film was priced below fresh film prices.
That was then and this is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ic-racer
IMHO T Max 400 2 is without doubt the best sheet film that has ever been manufactured. Why? Straight line density relationship with minimal toe in partnership with resolution in the stratosphere and the resulting combination is in a class all by itself. My issue is that clearly, T Max 400 2 has been pushed and held in place into an untenable price point by a small number of deep pocketed buyers. This condition can continue as long as the deep pockets keep greasing the purchasing process. My question. Is B&H taking the sales price hit to move product or is this coming from Aleris? Hope it is Aleris. The baseline realistic price point is $4.25/sheet (FP4+ in 8x10). I have concluded that as good as it is TMax 400 2 is not twice as good as FP4. Is it 40% better @ $6.00/sheet? I believe it probably is. Anything beyond that cost the increased film speed and resolution improvement is not worth it as I see it.
The realistic baseline price is what the market will pay. Each time B&H has run out, it places a new order and gets somewhere around 150 boxes into stock. They typically sell out gradually over the course of four to six months. The market speaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak
If you review MTF curves in datasheets you will realize that TMX is way sharper than TMY. TMX is way a better film (technically speaking) if you don't need the ISO 400.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak
If this is useful or not it depends on the scene, the lens and the photographer...
Also Delta 100 should be technically better than TMY. And from D100 to TMX there is an slight difference in the TMX favor (if slightly finer grain and lower LIRF are an advantage).
All those differences may be slightly perceived in 35mm, but it is difficult that those differences can make a difference in MF or LF.
FP4+ has no direct equivalent in the Kodak product range. TMX and TMY can be better compared to D100 and D400, but D400 is not offered in sheets...
With TMX, TMY, D100 and D400, note that measuring resolving power at 1:1000 contrast does not make much sense for pictorial usage, in those conditions we see the performance of the very low speed cubic layer that it is useful for extreme highlights, but the layer that is interesting regarding resolving power is the tabular grain layer that makes the most of the scale for pictorial usage.
And when you make photographs you realize that an MTF curve and $4 may get you a fancy cup of coffee, not much more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pere Casals
TMX is great if you have a JOBO and are willing to process it in T Max developer or D76. It is cranky as hell with any other process and mandates critical temperature consistency and precise rotation through the development process. TMX also has a UV coating which eliminates it for any alt process work.
TMY (2) the improved version on the other hand is tremendously flexible in any process and developer and even sings in ABC pyro tray developed. The tonalities it exhibits are wonderful in print form. I like flexibility.
Speaking of flexibility, FP4 is a unique emulsion that exhibits the most latitude of error and still produced tremendous results at the other end of the scale with TMX. Delta 100 is a middle of the ftexibility pack with TMY(2). Plus I have purchased FP4 and Delta 100 in ULF sheet film sizes. Unless your last name is Vanderbilt you may have a problem paying $25 a sheet for ULF from anything from Kodak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak
Beyond the UV blocking issue of TMX for alternative, I see no flexibility difference of TMX vs TMY-II, I find same response, anyway I don't use stain. With TMX/Y and HP5 I find high densities in highlights, while FP4 has a clear shoulder, but this is seen at 1.8D. Until 1.8D (with N dev) all behave near the same, IMHO.
The real practical difference I find with all those films (for LF) is spectral response, requiring slight different filtering to obtain the same, I see this clearly with skin tones under daylight. Beyond sensitization related spectral response the pink juice from TMax works as a partial self-screening, no doubt with that. Until I know, sensitizing dyes can be washed from emulsion without any loss, so IMHO if coloured juices are shipped with film this should be to act as incorporated color filters.
With HP5 I find I can record textures of extreme highlights (glares) like with TMax, With FP4 and Delta I feel less highlight latitude, 1 stop less perhaps. Anyway with HP5 and TMax texture of those extreme highlights are really difficult to print...
As you know the density capabilities of a film can be "adjusted" to greatly enhance this by both the developer and the process. Yes, FP4 + in some developers and processes can have a tendency to roll over in the highlights. Yet when you process it in highly diluted Pyrocat using Reduced Agitation Development (RAD) it goes on to N+2 and beyond without a hitch. Yes, TMX like Tri X is known to display skin tones optimally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pere Casals
My experience with HP5 is exactly the opposite of yours. Your last comment above I do not understand. You say you can record highlights with HP5 and then at the end say they are difficult to print. Why? I bought a box of 11x14 HP5 a few years back and processed half a dozen sheets and learned pretty quickly that it can be a nice film as in normal scenes long as you do not ask it to do too much. The highlights can go into no mans land without even trying. I want film that I can use all the time so I gave the HP5 to a friend.
Here is my rule of thumb using factual information on a films density capabilities. Ask an alt processes printer what they use? HP5 is rarely if ever in that response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak
Hello Michael,
What you do is great... from ULF to Pt/Pd optically... I'd like to learn that !!! pure authenticity, that requires a true photographer...
Of course all films can be developed playing with local developer exhaustion to limit higlights...
I find negatives with +2.0D densities difficult to print, if it is HP5, TMX or TMY.
This is the second 8x10 sheet I shot 2 years ago, with densities anotated in the image, I find difficult to print it, I don't obtain the optical print I'd like:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/
Now I'm finishing tests with selective masking and I'll try with that:
http://phototechmag.com/selective-ma...onal-darkroom/
FP4 has a very clear shoulder (see FP4 datasheet), thus limiting Max density, while TMX and HP5 builts more and more density with extreme highlights. IMHO, with FP4, a contrasty negative is easier to print because the film itsef makes the highlight compression in the shoulder. Linear films do record better highlight detail, but at higher densities, then we need to use advanced darkroom techniques to locally control exposure and contrast. This is IMHO...
All this comes from grain formulation, I think it is not "high technology at all". If emulsion includes a share of very small and low ISO grains, this builts more and more density instead showing a shoulder.
There are people around using HP5 for pt/pd. It is true that before 1998 HP5 had a higher fog+base that was not convenient for Pt/Pd, but since 1998 base+fog of HP5 is around 0.1D, making it suitable for Pt/Pd, with also very proportional stain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak
Anyway most may prefer FP4 because the curve shoulder, or other I don't know.
Silver halide paper is offered in Variable Contrast ,allowing for split grade printing, etc, so it is possible to print difficult negatives. With Pt/Pd we have an straight printing process with way less flexibility so (IMHO) it is critical having the scale adjusted in the negative itself, taking advantage of shoulder and toe footprint.
For this reason some peope use digital negatives to print Pt/Pd, they do all local exposure/contrast control with photoshop !!!!!
In that case result is accurate, but IMHO it has not the same "merit" than cooking a precise negative that will perform as one wants on the Pt/Pd media, or using masking (UM,SCIM,CRM, etc). This is also IMHO. Nothing aganist digital negatives, just saying it makes it way easier (beyond adjustable contact print size).
...but I feel way more merit in the way you do it, and also love the implicit authenticity involved.
Regards,
Pere
There were only five boxes left in stock when I posted that, and they sold out quickly. Today it came back in stock; there are 148 boxes available as of this moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura