Can Anyone Confirm Removal of UV Blocker in TMAX 100

[Sevo]

Can anyone tell me if 120 Fuji acros 100 has a UV blocking layer? I am interested in using 120 snapshots to influence the interpretation of a larger print, if I ever get there.

Doing a quick transmission/fluorescence test, it does not seem to, at any rate not the batch I tried.

YMMV, though. I have no TMX to test, but from the descriptions it sounds most likely that the blocking dye is in the base. That is, it may be something the negative film manufacturers have no influence over other than watching out that they do not accidentally request UV hardened base films from their suppliers. Indeed it may even be something they aren't made aware of before the fact, and they may have to create awareness among the upper management that there are negative implications if all film is standardized to use the "best" base improved for long-term display/projection, or if bases are assigned by cost or availability rather than after an assessment of optical properties.

[Mark Sampson]

Sevo, Kodak designs and manufactures its own film base. I don't know why they put a UV-blocking layer in the base of TMX, but I'm sure there's a good reason. Perhaps for anti-halation purposes, but that's only a guess. I've known and worked with a few of Kodak's film designers; believe me, the design and production of film, b/w or color, is an enormously complex subject.

[Fragomeni]

Well folks I just spent a wonderful day printing pt/pl here in sunny Phoenix and printing with TMAX 100 (4x5, 5x7, and 8x10) negatives gave me no added difficulty and my exposure times were no different then the exposure times for people printing through Ilford HP5, Delta 100, Kodak TMAX 400, and Kodak Tri-X. One other gentleman was printing with TMAX 100 4x5 negatives and he had the same results as I did. The unique difference that we did notice was that the pt/pl seemed to want lower contrast negatives in the case of TMAX 100 rather then higher contrast negatives in the case of the other films. The copy negs I made with higher contrast did not successfully print and the other gentlemen made negs of higher contrast by extended development but when we went to negs that were made for regular silver printing they popped right out on the paper with very little trouble. We used a medium-contrast solution of 3 parts Palladium to 1 part Platinum with 1 drop of Gold Chloride. Exposures throughout the day using various films ranged from 7 minutes to 15 minutes for just about everyone regardless of film.

TMAX 100 did seem to behave differently to some degree as described above regarding normal contrast negs printing better then higher contrast negs but we saw very little evidence of the supposed impossibility of printing with TMAX 100 that so many have stated as fact. I have no idea why we've experienced different results then others but I can confirm that we saw no problem printing TMAX in 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. Also our film was the one labeled 100TMAX if that matters to anyone.

Just wanted to update you all with my experience as I said I would.

[BarryS]

I've made cyanotypes and gum prints using TMAX 100 and I've also never noticed the need for any additional exposure compared with other films. My gum prints expose in 50 seconds, so TMX is terrific as far as I'm concerned. I have a mix of fresh to very old TMX, but I think most of the gum prints have come from recent batches of film.