Lovely shot Ken.Originally Posted by Ken Lee
Nuttin' bad about it.
Fine grain + linear response: what else do you need ?
Lovely shot Ken.
Nuttin' bad about it.
Fine grain + linear response: what else do you need ?
For years many photographers complained that the old-time films afforded more flexibility in terms of plus and minus development, push/pull, etc. than the newer films. So Kodak came out with TMax, which is very sensitive to minor changes in temperature, time, and agitation (i.e. it has a lot of flexibility for plus and minus development, push/pull, etc.). So then photographers said TMax was no good because it was sensitive to minor differences in time, temperature, and agitiation (i.e. photographers decided they really didn't want to take the time and effort necessary to deal with the sensitivity and flexibility they thought they wanted).
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
All great comments so far. For 8x10, I found that the TMAX 400 was plenty fine grained - much more fine grained than my experiments with Efke 100; but then again, it's more like "what grain?" in 8x10. And yes, for speed in dimmer light - the 400 is very nice to have. For alt process I like Acros and Efke 25 for my POP printing as well as my other silly experiments. It's just that I happen to like the spectral sensitivity, fine grain, and ability to use in contrasty light of TMAX 100. I thought "how could this be?, a 100 film finer grained than a 25?" But then again, that's without much special in the way of processing. I like the tonality possibilities of the two TMAXes very much so far. So far, in a half dozen boxes of each of the stuff (400 on 8x10, 100 ReadyLoad on 4x5), I find the films to be quite forgiving, especially compared to slide film!. I do use a Jobo if that helps.
One aside regarding 4x5 holders - I did have a mishap by using a Fuji Quickload holder for some shots in a pinch - all of those shots came out neatly as 4x4", apparently due to a band on the Kodak Readyload, which hung up inside the Quickload holder when pulling the "dark slide" for exposure. Otherwise, it did work. I know that most people would not try using a Readyload in a Quickload holder, but I was in a bind and had heard that it works. Perhaps the other way around works, but I'm not going to try it.
Interesting to hear other's comments, and Ken, nice photo. Thanks so much to all. Anyone care to specifically and completely bash the stuff? Can you spot a print made from TMAX a mile away?
Hello! I'm not sure how much pull/push ability TMax has. At 1:7 dilution at 68 degrees or 1:9 at 75 degrees, I can push it 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 stops with 16 minutes of development with continuous rotary development and pull it about 1 1/3 to 1 1/2 stops with four minutes of continuous rotary development. Even with 1:3 at room temperature, I can get about 1 2/3 stop, (the insert lists two stops push/pull ability). I don't bother about the couple of degrees that the house may differ in temperature from one day to the next - that may equal about 1/4 (?) stop, at least, from the time/temp curves that Kodak published for the film.
At least with continuous rotary agitation with a reversing continuous speed unicolor drum, the film seems a no-brainer wit development. Best regards.
Mike
I am a color negative photographer, but I am exploring b&w for a project that I am considering. I use Portra 160VC, and it has this wonderful straight line characteristic curve which produces excellent detail from the deepest shadows to the brightest highlights. This is an attribute of the film that I have come to love.
I would think if TMX also exhibits a similar straight line characteristic curve when developed in TMX RS developer, then this is good rather then bad. Films with CCs that have pronounced shoulders and heals result in loss of detail at the extreme values. I am personally drawn to images with deep rich shadows and brilliant highlights all having subtle passages of detail. Only films with straight line CCs permit these kinds of images.
I want to add a couple of my observations to the above statement from Willard.
First, each and every B&W film inherently has unique (beginning) toe and (ending) heel H&D characteristics that defines each emulsion. But the same film in one developer (or developing technique) that exhibits its characteristic straight line density curve could affect the middle section between the toe and the heel to be anything but a straight line with another developer. For example Pyrocat in TMY 1:1:100 or 2:2:100 will be the well documented straight density curve mentioned. However, TMY when using extreme mininal agitiation with Pyrocat or with pyro the middle section of the density curve drops and the toe gets modestly extended. The important point here is that the film curve does not "top out" but continues to build density at the heel end. The difference in the two curves from the same film with different developers (or developing techniques) is the visual "esthetic" that each photographer finds works for them. Just another tool in the tool box for the B&W photographer to explore and utilize.
Second point that I want to make is that your selection of a film is dictated by the requirements of your printing materials (silver, Azo or alt process) and the exposure and developing your photographic subject requires to meet these requirements for density range. The marvel of both T Max 400 and 100 are that they simply do not top out at the high density end and have enormous "potential" for the photographer to work with if they need it. FP4+, Efke PL100 and Efke 25 along with Tri X are also great films relative to these variables. It is my personal experience that Bergger 200 and HP4 fall short when you need to reach high into the curve for usable density.
Cheers!
Hello! During my astrophotography days, I seem to recall that TMax was considered to have a high blue sensitivity, much like Tech Pan was considered to have a high red sensitivity. Best regards.
Mike
T-Max 400 is possibly the best film ever made. Learning how to use it in T-Max 1:4 developer unleashes amazing potential. I have shot the 400 anywhere between 100 and 6400 with predicitable results. Anyone who tells you otherwise is the kind of person who does not persist with it.
In terms of LF. It is a real shame 3200 TMZ isn't available same with rollfilm as the grain is really the most spectacular found. Pictorial not intrusive. The 100 can be almost chromogenic looking as the grain is so small.
All in all if you have a lightmeter with incident reading capabilities, exposing for B&W is easy and all you need to do is work out whether you push or pull slightly for the print you want to make, or if to be scanned do exactly as it says on the tin, most scanners like a punchy neg due to aliasing of digital etc .. which T-Max normally is.
I would hand on heart say if I could be left with only one film for the rest of my days it would be Tmax 400 and the T-Max developer. It is simply that good.
Steven
I have never found TMX difficult to process or nearly as picky as some would have you believe.
If you can follow a recipe to bake cookies, you can process TMX...
I also don't know what to make of this comment:
Most people like a low contrast neg for easier scanning...and where does aliasing come into play here?
The best thing to do when you hear tales of this film being difficult and that developer doing whatever, is to just try them out for yourself, read as much as you can online, read the data sheets, use your common sense and then go to work and shoot some pictures...and learn from your experience. There are so many variables in the processing game that you have to do it for yourself and see how it works under your conditions
All I can say here with any certainty is that using T-max100, rated at ASA 50, developed in trays using HC-110 (diluted 1:60 from the concentrate) gave me excellent negatives to print 16x20 on Ilford Gallery and Agfa Portriga Rapid 111. But that was 15+ years ago.
Vaughn
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks