TMX vs. TMY: Grain and What else ?

[Ken Lee]

With the currently available versions of Kodak TMY and TMX, how much of an enlargement is required to see a difference ?

What are the qualitative differences other than grain size ?

[edtog]

Sure the technical people will be posting soon with graphs etc.

On my level, I always preferred Tri-X v T-max, it has more bite and just looks more punchy. I like an image with a bit of grain, not sure how big you would have to go to see a big difference in grain.

Tmax for me was always a bit "flat."

[Clint Chadwick]

I believe that TMY has a UV blocking base on the film which makes it difficult to use in alternative processes.

TMX is an "old style" film with larger silver halide crystals.
TMY is a "new style" film with smaller tabular crystals.

I find TMX slightly easier to develop since I have to use an extended wash cycle to wash out the red dye (I believe it's a sensitizing dye) of TMY.

The same difference exists between Ilford FP4+/HP5+ and Delta 100/400.

I hear people say they like the "look" of one over the other, but barring apparent grain I cannot identify prints made from one over the other.

[Greg Blank]

Ken is asking about T max 100 versus T max 400. TMX Versus TMY.

I read that question as difference in sharpness. The extra speed of the four hundred I translate to noticeable differences in tone rendering though which almost have to be a prime consideration as well. I know from practical experience that the difference between an 8x10 print and a 16x20 equates to an increase in contrast to make a similar print at the 16x20 size. I have always said that enlarging opens up tonal values and requires adjustments of contrast and exposure. The assement is more depending on negative to enlargement size - I would say. I would venture to say that using the same T developer for both films at comparible times for 8x10 film you most likely will not see a difference at 16x20 Optically printed and probably not signifigant at 24x30. Maybe at 48x60, if you are scanning the image, the response could be a different answer.

[BILL3075]

Soon after the new version of TMY came out, I think (but not sure) Sandy King did an analysis and comparison of it with TMX. Perhaps Sandy can chime in.

If I remember correctly, there's little or no difference enlarging a 4x5 neg until you get to or beyond 16x20.

BILL

[D. Bryant]

[QUOTE=Clint Chadwick;769928]

I believe that TMY has a UV blocking base on the film which makes it difficult to use in alternative processes.

TMX has the UV blocking coat on the base not TMY.

TMX is an "old style" film with larger silver halide crystals.

TMX is a tabular grain fim.

TMY is a "new style" film with smaller tabular crystals.

I find TMX slightly easier to develop since I have to use an extended wash cycle to wash out the red dye (I believe it's a sensitizing dye) of TMY.

Both films require care to remove the base dye.

The same difference exists between Ilford FP4+/HP5+ and Delta 100/400.

I don't think so.

I hear people say they like the "look" of one over the other, but barring apparent grain I cannot identify prints made from one over the other.

They do have different looks to me especially with TMAX 100 printed from small roll film,

[Mark Sampson]

"qualitative differences" means differences in curve shape and tonal rendition. Things that are apparent in pictures, and much less so in Kodak's (or anyone's) published curves. The only way to find the answer is to shoot a (TM) x-y comparison.

[Ken Lee]

"They do have different looks to me especially with TMAX 100 printed from small roll film"

"qualitative differences" means differences in curve shape and tonal rendition.

Exactly - I am interested in the differences in tonal rendition.

It has been almost 10 years, so I plan to do some fresh side-by-side comparisons. The films have changed, I have changed developer and scanner, and have learned a lot more about sharpening.

Because Forum members often surprise us with helpful insights, I thought I'd ask too.

[jp]

I have only used TMX in 120 and 35mm. I mostly use TMY(2) in 4x5, 120, as well as 8x10 and 35mm; it's my go-to film.

Qualitatively I don't like how TMX renders normal caucasean skin and grass/foliage outdoors. It's a lot lighter and flatter for those subjects, sort of like if you were using a green filter for the grass and a orange filter for the face. I haven't investigated Kodak's charts to see if this is due to a difference in spectral sensitivity or if it's a byproduct of a different curve.

If someone is only scanning, curve shape difference should be very correctable.

For LF, I will stick to films that don't have the UV blocking layer, ruling out serious use of TMX for me. I sometimes print alt-process and like that ability.

[Oren Grad]

Exactly - I am interested in the differences in tonal rendition.

TMX is something of a chameleon. As Phil Davis documented in an article in Photo Techniques quite a few years ago, its curve shape is especially sensitive to choice of developer. It has many different potential "personalities".