Poll: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which do you favor more?

[StoneNYC]

Mods please move if in the wrong place, thanks.

I was thinking about how Ilford has stated that one of the reasons that they don't produce Delta400 in sheet film is because the market would be low and it would most likely reduce the use of HP5+ and cause that to increase in price (unfavorably) because of the volume being split between the two films, so they decided to stick with HP5+ as their only 400 speed in sheet film, also not competing with TMY-2 I suspect.

This made me think about kodak, their sales volume for their large machine is low and they have stated they can't downsize. This made me wonder if they stopped producing 320TXP and only produced TMY-2 if the cost of TMY-2 could be reduced by a higher volume. But this also made me wonder which one sells and is used MORE? Now I don't know if there is this data on the web, but I figured I would poll the LFF and see who uses which more. Now some may use both, but to keep the poll simple, all other variables asside, we will have to work on the honor system here.

Please only click the poll if you regularly still buy and use TMY-2 or 3200TXP NEW FROM THE STORE.

If you buy it used second hand, or have old stock from 10 years ago, please DO NOT submit to the poll, because that will throw off the data for those that will still be buying it, and this is a per-person poll not a volume of units bought poll.

I do wish the poll allowed for secondary questions like "if kodak discontinued one film but continued the other (with an announcement explaining that it was about volume and asking customers who enjoyed one film to stick with kodak and buy the other) how many would stick with the other film, or go to a different film." But the poll doesn't allow secondary questions, perhaps in a month I'll ask that question after the results are in for this poll.

Finally, this is about SHEET FILM not roll film use, so whether you get it from Keith Canham or buy from B&H Photo etc, we are only talking 4x5 and up sheet film usage.

So which do you FAVOR MORE in your ACTUAL REAL WORLD USAGE, not "well if TMY-2 were cheaper I would use it more but right now I use 320TXP more for my 400(ish) speed films.

This is my first poll, I hope I did this right.

Thanks!

(Edit: maybe kodak won't REDUCE the price of one but perhaps keep it steady for longer if volume is increased)

[Michael R]

Stone - I voted TMY-2 because it's a better film for my pictures (and it is the film I use when I need the speed), but they are not really the same type of film. TXP is relatively unique in its curve shape among current medium/high speed films.

[StoneNYC]

Stone - I voted TMY-2 because it's a better film for my pictures (and it is the film I use when I need the speed), but they are not really the same type of film. TXP is relatively unique in its curve shape among current medium/high speed films.

Thanks, yes I know they are different, many have argued a good photographer can get the right results they want from any film with technique. But this was purely about the usage per person right now, I'll see what the results say in 30 days. Thanks for your input.

[Michael R]

I would have to agree in the grand scheme of things the choice of film within a speed category is a relatively minor one, particularly in LF. There are things about TMY-2 which make it an easier film to work with under my conditions when I need a fast film, but I could certainly use TXP if I had to.

[Sal Santamaura]

There's one thing about 320TXP that makes it unique among sheet films, namely the retouching layer on its base side. While physical retouching is almost never done today, that layer provides an immense benefit. Whether making contact prints in a frame, enlarging in a glass negative carrier or scanning on a flatbed, Newton's rings, a maddening problem, cannot form. Bliss!

[Michael R]

I thought I was the only one using TXP anti-newton ring spacers :)

[jp]

I'd be happy if tmy2 replaced 320txp and were priced like 320txp, but all hell would break loose because tri-x is a sacred film to many people and tradition and familiarity make it so.

tmy2 is more sensitive to changes in development and takes longer to rinse, but I like it.

[Corran]

What pray tell does it matter if one buys it new or not? There's a lot of un-shot film out there still well within the expiration date or kept well enough to be the same. Might as well use it, and save money too.

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but, now that I think about it, I have never bought new, fresh sheet film, since starting LF a few years ago. But all good things come to an end, and if I were to buy new film...I'd probably buy HP5+ before any Kodak offering (specifically speaking of fast film). I don't use fast film in LF enough to bother with the expense of overpriced Kodak products. That said, I generally prefer TXP to TMY. Having tried a dozen different developers with TMY, I still don't like it much.

[Drew Wiley]

Tri-who ?

[Tin Can]

I can't vote.

I use both for different reasons in equal amounts.

I have an 11 X 14 TMAX order in with Kieth.

The poll is tied and I bet it stays that way.

Kodak doesn't listen to anybody.

[jnantz]

the only new film i buy is tmy2 because clients requested it ..
I don't like tab grained films .. if I could only ust trix I would

[IanG]

I voted Tmay-2 but I don't use Kodak films any more. The availability outside North America and the UK and some of the larger European countries is almost none existent.

In all the countries I visited in South America and also Turkey & Greece Ilford .and Foma films (and papers) are easy to find and if out of stock it's next next day delivery. Sure you can find Kodak consumer colour films easily but not Kodak B&W films. and no LF So I switched back to Ilford and love HP5 for LF work.

Ian

[StoneNYC]

I voted Tmay-2 but I don't use Kodak films any more. The availability outside North America and the UK and some of the larger European countries is almost none existent.

In all the countries I visited in South America and also Turkey & Greece Ilford .and Foma films (and papers) are easy to find and if out of stock it's next next day delivery. Sure you can find Kodak consumer colour films easily but not Kodak B&W films. and no LF So I switched back to Ilford and love HP5 for LF work.

Ian

Ian, why did you vote if you aren't buying either? This poll is only for those currently consuming one or both of the films, and which they use more.

Only those who actually buy this film currently (within, say, the last year or so and who plan to continue to buy more).

So far interesting results assuming most understood the voting.

[Doremus Scudder]

I use both films about equally, so I won't vote (since I can't vote for both...). Often I have the two films loaded back-to-back in the same holder.

I like the long straight line of TMY for some things, but end up printing a lot of the TMX negs when I have duplicates. It's a great film for many subjects. The long toe keeps some shadow detail, even without a lot of separation, and the mid-tone separation is then often gratifyingly good.

Best,

Doremus

[IanG]

Ian, why did you vote if you aren't buying either? This poll is only for those currently consuming one or both of the films, and which they use more.

Only those who actually buy this film currently (within, say, the last year or so and who plan to continue to buy more).

So far interesting results assuming most understood the voting.


I voted because Tmax 400 was my fast film choice, and I used to use it in all format, I might still if Kodak sorted out their distribution which is something that needs lighting.

Ian

[welly]

I've got a box of 320TXP in the freezer that's been there for about 2 years now. I've still got loads of TMY left though. I'm pretty keen on checking out the TXP but I've been very happy with Kodak for the last however many years. That been said, when I run out of Kodak film, I'm going 100% Ilford.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

I voted. I don't currently buy either. I saw the poll and it made sense for me to vote since I have used both films in the past. Then I read your long string of rules. Next time you might consider including a note in the title; something along the lines of "please read rules first."

[jnantz]

o
I voted because Tmax 400 was my fast film choice, and I used to use it in all format, I might still if Kodak sorted out their distribution which is something that needs lighting.

Ian

I know exactly what you mean ian.. their distribution chain is something else
my last purchase of any new film was tmy2 (4/5 )
i used to love tmy when it first came out in the 1980s, but after 20+ years 1000s sheets ( and hundreds of rolls )
my favor switched to tri x.. I have remnants of a 2000 5/7 sheet purpose ( i bought the same amount in tmy 4/5 back in the day )
and i would rather use TRI x. i don't mind finicky exposures and know how to expose and process and
while I have devised a way to extract grain from tab grained film ( so it doesn't look mushy )
I'd rather use a 5 or 7 stop latitude film with a retouching "tooth" ... that won't
block my highlights if I use a flash... tmy&tmt2 enjoy getting blocked ...
recently i threw caution to the wind and bought 100 sheets of tmy2 ... like it even less than the older version.
and don't plan on buying it again.

horses for courses as they say ...

[Jody_S]

I voted for 320TXP because it's the only one the local photo shops actually stock, so when I do buy, that's what it is. But I'm not an everyday user. It is, however, my favorite film for night shooting around town.

[IanG]

o

I know exactly what you mean ian.. their distribution chain is something else
my last purchase of any new film was tmy2
i used to love tmy, but after about 1000 sheets ( and a few hundred rolls )
my favor switched to tri x.. I have remnants of a 2000 5/7 sheet purpose ( i has the same amount in tmy4/5)
and would rather use TRI x. while I have devised a way to extract grain from tab grained film
I'd rather use a 5 or 7 stop latitude film with a retouching "tooth" ... that won't
block my highlights if I use a flash... tmy&tmt2 enjoy getting blocked ...

horses for courses as they say ...

I think when Kodak outsourced distribution some distributors Cherry picked and concentrated on the C41/RA4 market which is strong everywhere. it's worse in some countries than others I'm talking from experience and there's an irony the Ilford & Foma films & papers are everywhere.

Ian

[Sal Santamaura]

...I like the long straight line of TMY for some things, but end up printing a lot of the TMX negs when I have duplicates...I suspect Doremus meant to type "320TXP" and not "TMX" in this part of his post.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I haven't votes yet but I enjoy the look and results I can repeatably get from Tri-x. Tmy2 is a great film but I will be sticking with tri-x for the long haul

[StoneNYC]

I use both films about equally, so I won't vote (since I can't vote for both...). Often I have the two films loaded back-to-back in the same holder.

I like the long straight line of TMY for some things, but end up printing a lot of the TMX negs when I have duplicates. It's a great film for many subjects. The long toe keeps some shadow detail, even without a lot of separation, and the mid-tone separation is then often gratifyingly good.

Best,

Doremus

Wait you mean you make dupes using TMX? Thanks!

[Sal Santamaura]

I suspect Doremus meant to type "320TXP" and not "TMX" in this part of his post.


Wait you mean you make dupes using TMX? Thanks!No, he was likely referring to the procedure he described, i.e. having TMY-2 and 320TXP loaded back to back in the same holder and, therefore, ending up with two negatives of the same scene (one on each film). His typing TMX was probably a typo.

[StoneNYC]

I voted. I don't currently buy either. I saw the poll and it made sense for me to vote since I have used both films in the past. Then I read your long string of rules. Next time you might consider including a note in the title; something along the lines of "please read rules first."

Sorry, I expected people would be prudent and read the first post before voting on the poll. Alas I forget people get excited about polls, well it happens, it's not like I work for Kodak, just generally curious, hopefully the resulting data will be mostly accurate from enough current users of the film that we will have some idea about who is buying kodak fast films in sheet form and still consuming it, and which they prefer. Thanks for the honest post.

[StoneNYC]

No, he was likely referring to the procedure he described, i.e. having TMY-2 and 320TXP loaded back to back in the same holder and, therefore, ending up with two negatives of the same scene (one on each film). His typing TMX was probably a typo.

OH! Yes that makes sense, I thought he was saying "dupes" in a different way. That's actually not a bad idea... Hmm, maybe I'll do that with my Acros100 shots, dupe them on Delta100 haha! Then I can Dupe my TMY-2 shots on HP5+ for a different contrast, interesting thought. Expensive, but so is ending up missing a shot with only one frame taken instead of having a backup!

Or just buy even more TMY-2! Haha

I'm glad we still have options even though they may be hard decisions it's still good to have options while they last.

[Drew Bedo]

FWIW:

I like Tri-X more.

[StoneNYC]

I owe Jeff an apology and have corrected my above statement on the subject of reading the info before voting on a poll, I have offended him unintentionally and wanted to publicly apologize for that.

I'm often told my harsher NY/CT online demeanor doesn't translate the same for those from other parts of the country/world, I meant no insult but I did offend and so I wanted to apologize to Jeff and any others I inadvertently offended.

~Stone

[Andrew O'Neill]

Tri-X and TMY-2 are difference creatures. If one were dropped by Kodak, which would be missed more? That would've been a better pole. I would miss TMY-2. Which one is more expensive to produce? I suspect TMY-2 is and that may be reason for Kodak to eliminate it. But what do I know...

[jp]

Tri-x is more expensive in roll film, and less expensive as sheet film. Makes no sense to me. Except maybe (speculating) tri-x is more popular as roll film so they charge more, and tmy2 is more popular as sheet film so they charge more. Look at Canham's orders; for B&W film it's been tmax.

[Andreas]

TXP, since TMY is not available in 5x7

[Sal Santamaura]

...Look at Canham's orders; for B&W film it's been tmax.That's because B&H keeps 320TXP in stock at a lower price than Canham can offer it.

[Peter Gomena]

I did not vote, but I'm interested in this topic. I like TMY, but it's a bit expensive. I've used Tri-X 320 for years, and am now out of stock short of a couple of loaded film holders. It's not cheap, either, but less expensive than TMY. I like the look of HP5+, and it's readily available in all the formats I use, so I think that's where I'm headed. All three are beautiful films, and all are different. It's nice to have a choice. Most of my LF work these days is on FP4+, but I do like to have a few holders loaded with 400 ISO film for those times when the wind is blowing.

[Drew Wiley]

Keith has single customers who buy entire cuts of 8x10 TMX. I know this because he tells me if there's a a few leftover boxes. In other words, there's a distinct
degree of demand out there beyond the kinds of people on this forum, who probably rarely even buy TMX. 5x7 is more esoteric. Way back when these films first came out, Kodak figured that their two TMax products were going to make a tag-team one-round knockout of Plus-X, Super-XX, and Tri-X, along with certain graphics films like Color Separation Film. And I'm still surprised there is a "versus" still in the ring. Maybe Tri-X was staggering around dazed somewhere, while the others including Tech Pan were dragged to the morgue, and then stumbled back into the ring just for the sake of nostalgia, awaiting the final punch. Let's just hope that last punch doesn't land on the entire Kodak show first.

[jp]

That's because B&H keeps 320TXP in stock at a lower price than Canham can offer it.

For the cost issue, I was thinking of 4x5 films where it's always at least $114 for tmy2 and <$100 for trix and tmx.

[jnantz]

Keith has single customers who buy entire cuts of 8x10 TMX. I know this because he tells me if there's a a few leftover boxes. In other words, there's a distinct
degree of demand out there beyond the kinds of people on this forum, who probably rarely even buy TMX. 5x7 is more esoteric. Way back when these films first came out, Kodak figured that their two TMax products were going to make a tag-team one-round knockout of Plus-X, Super-XX, and Tri-X, along with certain graphics films like Color Separation Film. And I'm still surprised there is a "versus" still in the ring. Maybe Tri-X was staggering around dazed somewhere, while the others including Tech Pan were dragged to the morgue, and then stumbled back into the ring just for the sake of nostalgia, awaiting the final punch. Let's just hope that last punch doesn't land on the entire Kodak show first.

drew

i remember calling the folks at kodak and asking them about separatoin film, copy film and everything else under the sun
and their main line was "tmx / tmy" was a direct replacement for everything... and the whole run of film ...
years ago photo warehouse was supposed to buy master rolls of eastern films before the dollar tanked ...
and they had a client or two of theirs who tested the film for them (because they were going to basically buy most of it) ...
the rest is history ... ( they were the same people who bought lots and lots and lots of their "made in england 100 and 400" film )

[RodinalDuchamp]

What does happen if Kodak goes under?

[Kirk Gittings]

Kodak is not the only game in town.

[Sal Santamaura]

What does happen if Kodak goes under?Ilford. Or, for color, a smattering of Fuji via direct import, or digital.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Just think of all those photogs who've nailed down a workflow with either film and what losing those films would mean. For most starting from scratch.

[Tin Can]

Kodak will go under, they are simply too sick to live.

A giant felled by ignoring it's own invention.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/avidan/2012/01/23/kodak-failed-by-asking-the-wrong-marketing-question/

[Michael R]

@RodinalDuchamp:

It really doesn't take all that much to get comfortable with a film. Those who claim it takes years and hundreds of sheets to "nail down" a film are likely overstating the degree of control they think they can gain. TXP has a long toe and "upswept" gradation by design. Barring extremes, most other current films are relatively homogeneous in sensitometric characteristics.

Particularly in a LF context where image structure is less important than it is with small formats, switching films is not as big a deal as some people make it out to be. And there are some excellent photographers/printers who will use whatever film they can easily get. In the end, printing is where the power is.

[Drew Wiley]

There is no realistic replacement for what's left of the current Kodak color film lineup. If that domino falls, so might Fuji's contribution to professional films, in the sense of what we need. Advanced color darkroom printing requires a number of quality things. All the sheet films have to be dimensionally stable, for one thing, which excludes acetate base. Likewise, you can't use just any black and white film as an ideal masking film, much less for high-quality color separations. TMX100 was engineered to do these things well in the first place, although most people here are not aware of that fact. And even recalibrating a set of color separations onto a whole new film regimen can tie up months, if successful at all. Of course, I've got a lot of chromes and color negs on hand already to work on, and a good reserve of relevant film in the freezer. By my post-apocalytic plan to Kodak would be to simply print black and white. I've already made lots and lots of color prints in my life.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah... "all films are homogenous". I guess if you figure a fox terrier, a rottweiler, a doberman, a chihuahua, and a Pekinese are all dogs with bad temperaments; but I rather be bitten by certain breeds than others.

[Michael R]

I said films are relatively homogeneous in their sensitometric characteristics. This is a fact. You can argue about things like long-toed Delta (not true) and how you use each film at a specific elevation with your own special this and that etc. etc. But you have no evidence to support any of the things you say.

Most of us have our favourite materials. There is nothing wrong with that. TXP and TMY-2 are indeed different. TMY-2 is essentially the most technologically advanced film around, with a speed/grain utilization unmatched by any film. I would hate to see it, or TMX go. But if I had to use different film, I could. I know, for example, that when developed in XTOL, TMX and Delta 100 have nearly identical characteristic curves. I could also use FP4 without much fuss. Grain will be bigger, but that's the way it goes. If I lost TMY-2, I guess I'd use HP5 and live with the bigger grain and longer exposure times in reciprocity failure territory. As far as the prints go, unless I made huge enlargements that showed grain, it would be hard to tell the difference. From a "tonal" perspective all these films can yield spectacular results.

[bob carnie]

Maybe its just me but I prefer the films where I can see grain, when Tmax came out I found it too clean and never liked the look.. I also am from the camp
where I add noise to some digital files to give me a certain feel..... FP4 right now is my favourite film , I really like the look of prints in the 16 x20 to 30 x40 size..

A lot of choices of film types are personal for specific uses... for me its all about how the image looks on the wall at around 24 x30 size....

[Tin Can]

And just to boggle this thread some more.

On the X-Ray thread Angus is of the opinion that Kodak has stopped producing 14X17 Ektascan, which both he and I have bought together. Actually he bought a case of 5 boxes twice and I got a couple boxes from him, 200 sheets. I now wish I had gotten more. 8X10 Ektascan remains available and I have a larger supply of it, about 450 sheets. I cut the 14X17 to 11x14 and the 8x10 is cut to many sizes.

I add this info, as Kodak is closing down lines while Stone attempts to divine their game plan...

I agree with Drew, dump Color now and make B&W film even if it is only one product.

As TMAX is really color technology film, it will be the loser with other color products.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Maybe its just me but I prefer the films where I can see grain, when Tmax came out I found it too clean and never liked the look.. I also am from the camp
where I add noise to some digital files to give me a certain feel..... FP4 right now is my favourite film , I really like the look of prints in the 16 x20 to 30 x40 size..

A lot of choices of film types are personal for specific uses... for me its all about how the image looks on the wall at around 24 x30 size....
I can cosign on this. I like my film to look like film. Tmax loses some of this for me.

[StoneNYC]

And just to boggle this thread some more.

On the X-Ray thread Angus is of the opinion that Kodak has stopped producing 14X17 Ektascan, which both he and I have bought together. Actually he bought a case of 5 boxes twice and I got a couple boxes from him, 200 sheets. I now wish I had gotten more. 8X10 Ektascan remains available and I have a larger supply of it, about 450 sheets. I cut the 14X17 to 11x14 and the 8x10 is cut to many sizes.

I add this info, as Kodak is closing down lines while Stone attempts to divine their game plan...

I agree with Drew, dump Color now and make B&W film even if it is only one product.

As TMAX is really color technology film, it will be the loser with other color products.

Randy,

We heard you, you're done with Kodak, but let's not make this a "death to that evil Kodak who hurt me so badly" thread.

As an aside, Kodak hasn't made Ektascan for some time now, it's owned and made by Carestream now, from what I've been told (by a Carestream rep) it's produced somewhere else with other Carestream films and no longer in the Kodak factory. This MAY be why you can't get it in 14x17 but if you DO manage to do another order, PLEASE let me know. I'm in for 1-2 boxes ;)

[StoneNYC]

TXP, since TMY is not available in 5x7

Keith Canham just received a shipment of TMY-2 in 5x7 last month. It's still available through him.

[Tin Can]

Randy,

We heard you, you're done with Kodak, but let's not make this a "death to that evil Kodak who hurt me so badly" thread.

As an aside, Kodak hasn't made Ektascan for some time now, it's owned and made by Carestream now, from what I've been told (by a Carestream rep) it's produced somewhere else with other Carestream films and no longer in the Kodak factory. This MAY be why you can't get it in 14x17 but if you DO manage to do another order, PLEASE let me know. I'm in for 1-2 boxes ;)

I'm not done with Kodak at all. I buy their products all the time, especially TMAX, in all sizes.

I bet Carestream simply packages Kodak X-Ray, nobody else has the manufacturing line for huge amounts of film anything. X-Ray WAS a huge market, I bet bigger than LF for some time.

[StoneNYC]

I'm not done with Kodak at all. I buy their products all the time, especially TMAX, in all sizes.

I bet Carestream simply packages Kodak X-Ray, nobody else has the manufacturing line for huge amounts of film anything. X-Ray WAS a huge market, I bet bigger than LF for some time.

Possibly, rep's can certainly be misinformed, might be prudent to say it's not made by kodak so that people feel safe investing money in it without fear of the ball being dropped.

I've changed my view of kodak recently as they made some smart film decisions lately like partnering with Lomography etc, I think it will work out in the end.

Someone mentioned cost, I went from using the most inexpensive sheet films to the most expensive because I shoot in environments where the lesser stuff was making it hard, it had nothing to do with charts or curves etc and had everything to do with reciprocity on the slow film end and sharp grain on the faster film end. I'm really a sunrise/sunset/after-sunset shooter so I run into reciprocity issues a LOT.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I bet Carestream simply packages Kodak X-Ray...You'd lose that bet. Carestream makes its own X-ray film. Here's an excerpt


"...Carestream — which makes everything from traditional X-ray film to room-sized digital X-ray setups..."

from one article


http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/11/26/carestream-hoping-touch-lightning/19546557/

among many links I found that indicate Kodak sold Carestream a separate X-ray coating facility as part of the business. Most likely location of the line is near Toronto.

[StoneNYC]

You'd lose that bet. Carestream makes its own X-ray film. Here's an excerpt


"...Carestream — which makes everything from traditional X-ray film to room-sized digital X-ray setups..."

from one article


http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/11/26/carestream-hoping-touch-lightning/19546557/

among many links I found that indicate Kodak sold Carestream a separate X-ray coating facility as part of the business. Most likely location of the line is near Toronto.

Thanks Sal, good to know the Rep I spoke with was correct.

[Tin Can]

You'd lose that bet. Carestream makes its own X-ray film. Here's an excerpt


"...Carestream — which makes everything from traditional X-ray film to room-sized digital X-ray setups..."

from one article


http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/11/26/carestream-hoping-touch-lightning/19546557/

among many links I found that indicate Kodak sold Carestream a separate X-ray coating facility as part of the business. Most likely location of the line is near Toronto.

I'm not exactly wrong , if Carestream bought a Kodak facility. It's not like Carestream made a new factory.

However, wet film X-Ray does seem to be an end of life business. Perhaps Carestream wanted the distribution network for their new products. Those MBA's are good at that sort of flip.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I bet Carestream simply packages Kodak X-Ray, nobody else has the manufacturing line for huge amounts of film anything...


You'd lose that bet. Carestream makes its own X-ray film...


I'm not exactly wrong , if Carestream bought a Kodak facility. It's not like Carestream made a new factory...No, you're exactly wrong. :D:D If you had money on it with someone who 'knew someone,' you'd pay up or else. You bet that Carestream packages Kodak X-ray film, not that "Carestream made a new X-ray film factory." ;)

[Tin Can]

So shoot me, I welch.

Gad's! So seriously right always.

LOL

[Fred L]

Not sure where Carestream's Ektascan might be made around Toronto since the Kodak site that was off Eglinton Ave. West is now a pile of rubble afaik.

[Sal Santamaura]

...So seriously right always...No, frequently wrong. But I try not to post unless certain. Also, I'm very proud of saying "I don't know" when I don't. :)

[Sal Santamaura]

Not sure where Carestream's Ektascan might be made around Toronto since the Kodak site that was off Eglinton Ave. West is now a pile of rubble afaik.Then it might be in the Colorado coating facility which Kodak also spun off. That was also mentioned in some Carestream articles.

[axs810]

Tri-x is more expensive in roll film, and less expensive as sheet film. Makes no sense to me. Except maybe (speculating) tri-x is more popular as roll film so they charge more, and tmy2 is more popular as sheet film so they charge more. Look at Canham's orders; for B&W film it's been tmax.


Roll film could be more expensive because it's more popular to shoot or perhaps it could be because of different film bases? Maybe one costs more than the other...I dont know.


I favor 320txp more than any other black and white film. And on a side note I really dislike Ilford film and will only ever use it if Kodak stops making film...I still use their fiber paper though ;)

[Corran]

Regarding Tri-X in roll vs. sheet, technically you can't get the "same" Tri-X for both.

Tri-X 320 is only made in sheet film.
Tri-X 400 is only made in roll film.

So it's not really fair to compare costs. What the true difference between them is I couldn't tell you off-hand. I personally don't really distinguish between them when shooting but I'm sure there's some subtle differences I don't really pay attention to. But I've shot way more Tri-X 400 than 320. I tend to use Tri-X (and fast film generally) in roll form much more often than sheet.

[Bruce Watson]

I quit shooting Tri-X the day I developed my first sheet of TMY-2. Still got the half empty box of Tri-X.

TMY-2 is the best B&W film ever produced IMHO. Life is too short, and photography trips too expensive, to waste time using second best films. Just sayin'.

That said, new Coke won all the double blind testing against old Coke. Coke marketing focus grouped the heck out of it and was absolutely sure they had a winner. But when they put it in the stores, people continued to buy the battery acid old Coke. The backlash was huge. I'm just sayin' that there's more to this than the quality of the product, or the quality of the images produced with the product. There's a huge amount of "we've always done it this way" out there. Which is why Kodak continued to make Tri-X even when their original plan was to supercede it with TMY-2. In the 1970s IIRC.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I really dislike Ilford film and will only ever use it if Kodak stops making film...You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I wonder if you can explain why you "dislike" Ilford film. Objective information is helpful.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Kodak continued to make Tri-X even when their original plan was to supercede it with TMY-2. In the 1970s IIRC.Kodak introduced TMX and TMY (not TMY-2, which didn't appear for another two decades) around 1987. I cannot recall ever hearing a formal announcement that Kodak planned to have Tri-X be completely replaced by TMY, although that might have been an internal intent.

[Andrew O'Neill]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I wonder if you can explain why you "dislike" Ilford film. Objective information is helpful.

Curious to hear why, too.

[IanG]

Kodak introduced TMX and TMY (not TMY-2, which didn't appear for another two decades) around 1987. I cannot recall ever hearing a formal announcement that Kodak planned to have Tri-X be completely replaced by TMY, although that might have been an internal intent.

I seem to remember that was Kodak's intent but TMY was intensely disliked by many people, there were also speed issues as it gave poor shadow detail at box speed in D76 so Kodak had to rapidly come up with solutions to counter this, the 1st were Tmax developers, the 2nd Xtol. Back around 1987 there was a very definite gritty Tri-X look and it was polar opposite to more tonal finer grained results from TMY.

A friend who worked freelance for education authorities & magazines here in the UK said the picture editors much preferred the Tri-X images and he never changed.

I also remember that photographers/magazines lobbied for a long time to get Kodak to use T-grain technologies for B&W films, it had made huge improvements with colour films and we felt being left behind.

Modern Tri-X has been improved since then and some say it's much finer grain than it was.

Ian

[StoneNYC]

Regarding Tri-X in roll vs. sheet, technically you can't get the "same" Tri-X for both.

Tri-X 320 is only made in sheet film.
Tri-X 400 is only made in roll film.

So it's not really fair to compare costs. What the true difference between them is I couldn't tell you off-hand. I personally don't really distinguish between them when shooting but I'm sure there's some subtle differences I don't really pay attention to. But I've shot way more Tri-X 400 than 320. I tend to use Tri-X (and fast film generally) in roll form much more often than sheet.

First time I think I've seen you say what I would have said (about the differences) I actually do like 400TX and would probably shoot that if also available in sheets, the difference to me in the 320TX is huge and I don't like it, so because I prefer (these days after lots of trial and error) to shoot all the same films in all formats, I prefer TMY-2, I didn't like it until I started printing in the darkroom, the subtle blacks for models is incredible on the skin, and it's available in all formats that I shoot except 127 (120,4x5,8x10) it's available in 35mm but I rarely shoot that, but it is an option obviously.

Ok enough about my opinion, and Sal thanks for giving us more reality checks on the X-Ray bit.

I also can see people liking Tri-X as a "grainier" film for some work, but in sheet film it ALMOST becomes mute except in mural printing.

[edit-added below]

I actually prefer HP5+ for landscape work BTW except that the point (FOR ME) is that sharp detail for intended big prints, so while I can get it, I'll be shooting TMY-2.

I prefer Acros100 for landscapes for when wind isn't an issue, and for long exposures, but honestly Delta100 is EXCELLENT and I think just as good (to me) as TMX, the gain with TMX for my workflow isn't as big a deal, but I can see for masking etc that having it available could be preferred over Delta100.

Since everyone is commenting on other films I thought I would add that thought, however let's not go crazy off topic haha :)

[RodinalDuchamp]

First time I think I've seen you say what I would have said (about the differences) I actually do like 400TX and would probably shoot that if also available in sheets, the difference to me in the 320TX is huge and I don't like it, so because I prefer (these days after lots of trial and error) to shoot all the same films in all formats, I prefer TMY-2, I didn't like it until I started printing in the darkroom, the subtle blacks for models is incredible on the skin, and it's available in all formats that I shoot except 127 (120,4x5,8x10) it's available in 35mm but I rarely shoot that, but it is an option obviously.

Ok enough about my opinion, and Sal thanks for giving us more reality checks on the X-Ray bit.

I also can see people liking Tri-X as a "grainier" film for some work, but in sheet film it ALMOST becomes mute except in mural printing.
Stone my experience is quite limited but the grain structure is pronounced on my tri-x stuff whereas with Tmax I sometimes had trouble grain focusing.

[jnantz]

I also can see people liking Tri-X as a "grainier" film for some work, but in sheet film it ALMOST becomes mute except in mural printing.

that is a very big almost.
because I contact print grainy 4x5 and they are far from mural prints...
and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other people here and other places
get grain and tonal/ grain from their 4/5 and larger sized negatives
and they aren't printed very large. no grain really isn't everyone's cup of tea, some,
like clinical looking imagery, but not everyone.

===
ian I remember doing publication work in the 80s
and people I was friends with HATED tmy with a passion.
everything about it .. the look, grain, developers, and unretouchable surfaces..
as far as they were concerned it was a total waste..
I don't think they used it soon after they expressed their dislike ( close to 30 years? )

[StoneNYC]

Stone my experience is quite limited but the grain structure is pronounced on my tri-x stuff whereas with Tmax I sometimes had trouble grain focusing.

Are you talking 400TX or 320TX?

I agree TMY-2 has much tighter grain do for grain focussing it could be more difficult with old eyes, but making say a 16x20 print side by side TMY-2 vs 320TX I don't think you would see a big difference from a 4x5 negative. That's what I meant. Sure you'll definitely see a difference in a 35mm or even 120 negative printed to 16x20 (even if 320TX (new version) were made in roll) and certainly with 400TX

[Michael R]

Tri-X 320 was designed primarily for low flare/controlled lighting use (studio use, for example). It has a relatively long toe (compared with most other current medium/high speed films) and will generally exhibit higher contrast in upper mid-tones and highlights. This is one reason why it was/is popular as a portraiture film. It was also designed to accept retouching on both the emulsion and base sides.

Tri-X 400 has a more "standard" characteristic curve, with a relatively short toe, and long straight line.

I was under the impression both TXP (320) and Tri-X 400 were still available in medium format rolls but I could be wrong about that.

More information here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf


Regarding Tri-X in roll vs. sheet, technically you can't get the "same" Tri-X for both.

Tri-X 320 is only made in sheet film.
Tri-X 400 is only made in roll film.

So it's not really fair to compare costs. What the true difference between them is I couldn't tell you off-hand. I personally don't really distinguish between them when shooting but I'm sure there's some subtle differences I don't really pay attention to. But I've shot way more Tri-X 400 than 320. I tend to use Tri-X (and fast film generally) in roll form much more often than sheet.

[StoneNYC]

Tri-X 320 was designed primarily for low flare/controlled lighting use (studio use, for example). It has a relatively long toe (compared with most other current medium/high speed films) and will generally exhibit higher contrast in upper mid-tones and highlights. This is one reason why it was/is popular as a portraiture film. It was also designed to accept retouching on both the emulsion and base sides.

Tri-X 400 has a more "standard" characteristic curve, with a relatively short toe, and long straight line.

I was under the impression both TXP (320) and Tri-X 400 were still available in medium format rolls but I could be wrong about that.

More information here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

Nope they discontinued 320TX in 120 some time ago...

[Michael R]

Oh well.

Also too bad (just my opinion) they don't make Tri-X 400 in sheets. If TMY-2 went away (and I hope it never does), for a fast sheet film Tri-X 400 would be my preference. Since that ain't happening, I'd go for HP5 if I lost TMY-2.

[Corran]

Thank you Michael for reminding me about what the differences were between the films. I found that the TXP I shot was beautiful at about EI 200 or 250 in dilute Rodinal. Despite liking TMX, I still don't get along well with TMY. I always find the tones rather flat and boring. Sure, right here you can tell me to shoot it at X and develop it with Y, but that's an irrelevant statement since one can't predict what I want or like in a film. The silky-smooth blacks I am getting in HP5+ and delicate highlights are very nice (in SPUR HRX). TXP in Rodinal as I mentioned was very nice in a different way. Open shadows but not flat - a feeling of "light" rather than just lifted shadows. Just my opinions on it.

[axs810]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I wonder if you can explain why you "dislike" Ilford film. Objective information is helpful.



Curious to hear why, too.


The reason I don't like Ilford black and white films is because of how the shadows/blacks look compared to 320txp or 400tx. It just seems much contrastier or as if they clip easier in the shadows/blacks. The contrast and grain of 320txp or 400tx is more to my liking. I've tried Ilford FP4/ HP5 and found fp4 a little too contrasty for me. HP5 was somewhat similar to 320txp but the contrast can be slightly different for various types of lighting conditions and the grain is more apparent in an ugly way IMO. I don't have examples on hand comparing differences between the films side by side, but when I'm out shooting I know what I could expect from Kodak films vs when I shot Ilford films (shadows seem to fall off quickly/get too contrasty). I know an adjustment in my workflow would be necessary to maybe get better results but even when I look at flickr groups comparing films every elses work seems to show what I dislike about ilford films. The only person who shoots HP5 that gets results that I like is Ben Rains but he mainly only shoots in the same type of lighting conditions (soft window light)

Again, for me 320txp is my absolute favorite because I have a solid workflow with it and know how to control the contrast and grain (when pushing film I can get very little grain up to ISO1600). I've only shot HP5 in 35mm-4x5 and while I found it sort of similar to 320txp in terms of contrast the grain is just much more apparent and crunchier even at box speed.

To stay on topic I also don't really care for TMAX films because of the grain structure. I really prefer the look of 320txp more... Not saying I like a "lower quality" or more apparent grain but TMAX grain is almost too good...sometimes it looks digital to me because I don't even notice the grain and for me the film "look" (contrast/grain) is really the only reason why I shoot film. Honestly I don't care if I had to choose between TMAX and TXP but if given the choice I would always choose 320txp.



(This is just the stubborn opinion of a TXP fanboy)

[StoneNYC]

The reason I don't like Ilford black and white films is because of how the shadows/blacks look compared to 320txp or 400tx. It just seems much contrastier or as if they clip easier in the shadows/blacks. The contrast and grain of 320txp or 400tx is more to my liking. I've tried Ilford FP4/ HP5 and found fp4 a little too contrasty for me. HP5 was somewhat similar to 320txp but the contrast can be slightly different for various types of lighting conditions and the grain is more apparent in an ugly way IMO. I don't have examples on hand comparing differences between the films side by side, but when I'm out shooting I know what I could expect from Kodak films vs when I shot Ilford films (shadows seem to fall off quickly/get too contrasty). I know an adjustment in my workflow would be necessary to maybe get better results but even when I look at flickr groups comparing films every elses work seems to show what I dislike about ilford films. The only person who shoots HP5 that gets results that I like is Ben Rains but he mainly only shoots in the same type of lighting conditions (soft window light)

Again, for me 320txp is my absolute favorite because I have a solid workflow with it and know how to control the contrast and grain (when pushing film I can get very little grain up to ISO1600). I've only shot HP5 in 35mm-4x5 and while I found it sort of similar to 320txp in terms of contrast the grain is just much more apparent and crunchier even at box speed.

To stay on topic I also don't really care for TMAX films because of the grain structure. I really prefer the look of 320txp more... Not saying I like a "lower quality" or more apparent grain but TMAX grain is almost too good...sometimes it looks digital to me because I don't even notice the grain and for me the film "look" (contrast/grain) is really the only reason why I shoot film. Honestly I don't care if I had to choose between TMAX and TXP but if given the choice I would always choose 320txp.



(This is just the stubborn opinion of a TXP fanboy)

Thanks for the answer, all good points.

I know this is going to sound ludicrous but my favorite shots on HP5+ are always only from the 127 (46mm) special bulk order that I re-roll. The grain seems better somehow, tighter, I know that's ridiculous but it always seems better.

Anyway I agree about the grain, I just happen to like HP5+'s "look" and IMO low contrast so good for contrasty scenes. It also really pushes well even to 3200, but ultimately I prefer lesser grain other those other benefits, hence my switch to TMY-2 after a LOT of resistance. Lol.

Sucked me in...

[jp]

Not going to judge anyone for being a fanboy of any film. Fp4+ can be easily tamed with a little effort and testing. It has a slightly different spectral response than tmy2 (shows freckles better) and is less fine grained compared to tmy2. Outside of those situations and where reciprocity and extreme lighting are absent fp4+ can be a fair substitute for tmy2 for me. I don't care much about grain. Choices are good and so is sticking with one film.

[RodinalDuchamp]

The reason I don't like Ilford black and white films is because of how the shadows/blacks look compared to 320txp or 400tx. It just seems much contrastier or as if they clip easier in the shadows/blacks. The contrast and grain of 320txp or 400tx is more to my liking. I've tried Ilford FP4/ HP5 and found fp4 a little too contrasty for me. HP5 was somewhat similar to 320txp but the contrast can be slightly different for various types of lighting conditions and the grain is more apparent in an ugly way IMO. I don't have examples on hand comparing differences between the films side by side, but when I'm out shooting I know what I could expect from Kodak films vs when I shot Ilford films (shadows seem to fall off quickly/get too contrasty). I know an adjustment in my workflow would be necessary to maybe get better results but even when I look at flickr groups comparing films every elses work seems to show what I dislike about ilford films. The only person who shoots HP5 that gets results that I like is Ben Rains but he mainly only shoots in the same type of lighting conditions (soft window light)

Again, for me 320txp is my absolute favorite because I have a solid workflow with it and know how to control the contrast and grain (when pushing film I can get very little grain up to ISO1600). I've only shot HP5 in 35mm-4x5 and while I found it sort of similar to 320txp in terms of contrast the grain is just much more apparent and crunchier even at box speed.

To stay on topic I also don't really care for TMAX films because of the grain structure. I really prefer the look of 320txp more... Not saying I like a "lower quality" or more apparent grain but TMAX grain is almost too good...sometimes it looks digital to me because I don't even notice the grain and for me the film "look" (contrast/grain) is really the only reason why I shoot film. Honestly I don't care if I had to choose between TMAX and TXP but if given the choice I would always choose 320txp.



(This is just the stubborn opinion of a TXP fanboy)
I have uttered the words Tmax looks like digital before. Bravo. 320txp fanboys unite.

[Sal Santamaura]

...my favorite shots on HP5+ are always only from the 127 (46mm) special bulk order that I re-roll. The grain seems better somehow, tighter, I know that's ridiculous but it always seems better...Do you perhaps develop that 46mm stock to a lower contrast index than you do the sheet film version?

[Andrew O'Neill]

It has a slightly different spectral response than tmy2 (shows freckles better)

That's due to spectral sensitivity differences. TMY-2 is sensitized to 700nm.

[StoneNYC]

Do you perhaps develop that 46mm stock to a lower contrast index than you do the sheet film version?

I've ruled this out by developing, 120,127, and 35mm in the same tank. The 127 just had tighter grain. I can't explain it. It COULD have something to do with the exposure being better somehow, but the densities were similar.

It's not a scientific test so I make no claims about me being correct, these observations made with non-tech equipment (V750 scanner) I have printed some too but not the test shots.

Either way it was still too grainy overall for my current work, the future may be different, but then when printing I wasn't satisfied with 4x5 FP4+ printed on 11x14, was horribly grainy, vs a shot with PanF+ on the same 11x14 paper was super sharp. Totally different film, but it's pretty bad when 120 film at 11x14 can completely blow away 4x5 film, 11x14 isn't even that much of an enlargement.

So HP5+ is only slightly worse than FP4+ yet much faster. So if I'm going to use a grainy film it's going to be the faster one haha.

Anyway, Neopan400 was my ideal. *sigh*

[Corran]

If you are having "horrible grain" with a 3x enlargement on 125 speed film, something is wrong with your process.

I printed a 120 negative from FP4+ to 11x14 just recently and there is no grain to speak of in the print.

[StoneNYC]

If you are having "horrible grain" with a 3x enlargement on 125 speed film, something is wrong with your process.

I printed a 120 negative from FP4+ to 11x14 just recently and there is no grain to speak of in the print.

I should say "muck" just unsharp edges, my wording is poor, but my "requirements" are stringent. Someone else printed two of my FP4+ 4x5 negatives to 11x14 with the same "grain", so I know it's not my printing, it's hard to describe because it isn't grain exactly, just a look I don't like that has to do with the way the grains clump or something. Anyway it's just not for me, it's ok, I do like Delta100 and I do like HP5+, I even think Foma100 looks better than FP4+, not "sharper" and not "less grainy" just less "mucky".

Ok we are way off topic, if you want to continue this path feel free to make a new post about it and link to it and we can discuss it there.

So back to it, I find the even-ness of the poll so far interesting and a little surprising (to me). But it does explain why kodak has kept 320TX for so long.

Someone commented earlier that they thought that it was more expensive to produce TMY-2, but I was under the impression that the T grain films had less silver in them and more of some kind of dye of some kind to replace the silver, that helped them to be sharper yet cost less to produce. Is that NOT true?

[Bruce Watson]

Kodak introduced TMX and TMY (not TMY-2, which didn't appear for another two decades) around 1987. I cannot recall ever hearing a formal announcement that Kodak planned to have Tri-X be completely replaced by TMY, although that might have been an internal intent.

Of course I mean Tmax films, not TMY-2, which is a quite recent film. T-grain tech was announced in 1982 IIRC. I'm not at all sure when TMX came to market though. Kodak used to produce and mail out a monthly tech. bulletin, I've forgotten what they called it. One of the guys in the model shop / lab in the factory I used to work in showed it to me; I think that's where I read Kodak's plan to replace Tri-X with Tmax 400 / TMY / whatever they called it then.

[Sal Santamaura]

...my favorite shots on HP5+ are always only from the 127 (46mm) special bulk order that I re-roll. The grain seems better ...


Do you perhaps develop that 46mm stock to a lower contrast index than you do the sheet film version?


I've ruled this out by developing, 120,127, and 35mm in the same tank. The 127 just had tighter grain. I can't explain it. It COULD have something to do with the exposure being better somehow, but the densities were similar...Even developing the same-named film in a common tank at the same time doesn't ensure similar contrast indices. The different bases of 35mm and roll film can result in varying required development times. And, despite your observing that "the densities were similar," it's easy to be fooled by different film base + fog and still not have the same contrast index.

Most importantly, though, my question was about contrast index compared to the sheet film version, not 120 or 35mm.


...It's not a scientific test so I make no claims about me being correct, these observations made with non-tech equipment (V750 scanner)...You've introduced way too many possible variables with a "very-tech" scanner, especially a flat bed type comparing sheet film to 46mm roll film. Check again after ensuring you've developed both films to the same contrast index by using an actual low-tech approach, i.e. light box and a loupe. Given the weather lately where you are, if no light box is available, use the grey sky. :)


...Either way it was still too grainy overall for my current work, the future may be different, but then when printing I wasn't satisfied with 4x5 FP4+ printed on 11x14, was horribly grainy...Based on your past posts, remembering particularly what you wrote in some Rodinal threads, I suspect you're grossly overdeveloping this film. Instead of more lenses and camera equipment, I strongly suggest you obtain a densitometer and get your process under control.


...vs a shot with PanF+ on the same 11x14 paper was super sharp. Totally different film, but it's pretty bad when 120 film at 11x14 can completely blow away 4x5 film, 11x14 isn't even that much of an enlargement...You're confusing grain and sharpness. They're different characteristics. Also, once again, the only valid comparison would be if both films were developed to the same contrast index and, as I noted above, you're probably not doing that.

[Corran]

I should say "muck" just unsharp edges, my wording is poor, but my "requirements" are stringent. Someone else printed two of my FP4+ 4x5 negatives to 11x14 with the same "grain", so I know it's not my printing, it's hard to describe because it isn't grain exactly, just a look I don't like that has to do with the way the grains clump or something. Anyway it's just not for me, it's ok, I do like Delta100 and I do like HP5+, I even think Foma100 looks better than FP4+, not "sharper" and not "less grainy" just less "mucky".

I just want to say real quick that your printing process isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your developing process, which must be out of wack for you to call FP4+ grainy, especially in LF.

That said, the rest of this paragraph also clarifies what you are talking about. I also found Ilford films a bit clumpy with the grain using typical developers. It wasn't till I tried other developers and found a good fit that the film started to grow on me. I'm sure there's a dozen posts out there where I say HP5+ has clumpy grain. If you are developing in Rodinal, as I did, you would probably say that. The image I was referring to was developed in Acufine and I am now developing HP5+ in SPUR HRX, which is exceedingly fine grained. If you are interested, I will show you some examples privately, because I'm a nice guy.

You should also listen to Sal in his posts above.

[StoneNYC]

Even developing the same-named film in a common tank at the same time doesn't ensure similar contrast indices. The different bases of 35mm and roll film can result in varying required development times. And, despite your observing that "the densities were similar," it's easy to be fooled by different film base + fog and still not have the same contrast index.

Most importantly, though, my question was about contrast index compared to the sheet film version, not 120 or 35mm.

You've introduced way too many possible variables with a "very-tech" scanner, especially a flat bed type comparing sheet film to 46mm roll film. Check again after ensuring you've developed both films to the same contrast index by using an actual low-tech approach, i.e. light box and a loupe. Given the weather lately where you are, if no light box is available, use the grey sky. :)

Based on your past posts, remembering particularly what you wrote in some Rodinal threads, I suspect you're grossly overdeveloping this film. Instead of more lenses and camera equipment, I strongly suggest you obtain a densitometer and get your process under control.

You're confusing grain and sharpness. They're different characteristics. Also, once again, the only valid comparison would be if both films were developed to the same contrast index and, as I noted above, you're probably not doing that.

Thanks Sal,

Yes it was Rodinal for FP4+, it was DD-X for HP5+

I'm also using rotary tanks not inversion or dip-dunk.

I can justify DD-X's cost for the high speed gain with HP5+ and its "pushability" but when other films are available that work better with Rodinal in a rotary at the same speed as FP4+, then it's not worth fussing over.

I did say my process was NOT scientific. But I appreciate the extra info you've shared, thanks.

Ultimately TMY-2 works for me now for my fast film and Acros100 for my medium speed film.

For me, I find HP5+ and Acros100 to expose well at box speed, vs other films you have to over expose and pull to get a seemingly proper exposure, (TMY-2 @320) which matches 320TX anyway so it works well enough. Plus the benefit that both work well for me in Rodinal means one developer in stock for everything which is nice.

But again this thread isn't about me or what I like, nor about sorting out grain issues with FP4+

I'm basically good guys, I don't need any more testing etc or trying new things, I'm set. But thanks for trying to help, I'm sure others who haven't quite tweaked their shooting will benefit from your info.

[StoneNYC]

I just want to say real quick that your printing process isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your developing process, which must be out of wack for you to call FP4+ grainy, especially in LF.

That said, the rest of this paragraph also clarifies what you are talking about. I also found Ilford films a bit clumpy with the grain using typical developers. It wasn't till I tried other developers and found a good fit that the film started to grow on me. I'm sure there's a dozen posts out there where I say HP5+ has clumpy grain. If you are developing in Rodinal, as I did, you would probably say that. The image I was referring to was developed in Acufine and I am now developing HP5+ in SPUR HRX, which is exceedingly fine grained. If you are interested, I will show you some examples privately, because I'm a nice guy.

You should also listen to Sal in his posts above.

Thanks, I'm good for now, if I can't get TMY-2 in 8x10 when I run out, I'll just use it in 4x5 or go back and use HP5+ in DD-X if I truly need the extra speed over Acros100.

Appreciate the offer but I'm good on developers, I've got my preferred in the bag, Rodinal (for T-grain) and DD-X(for traditional grain), and when I'm poor or run out of DD-X and haven't ordered more, HC-110 works in a pinch. That's all I need.

[Drew Wiley]

If you're not getting high acutance with FP4 with good edge effect, I'd take a second look at how you're developing it. No, it won't be quite as fine as ACROS; but
it shouldn't be that different from TMY400. Mushy it's not. Or it could have something to do with your scanning. But we adults can legally drink pyro.

[StoneNYC]

If you're not getting high acutance with FP4 with good edge effect, I'd take a second look at how you're developing it. No, it won't be quite as fine as ACROS; but
it shouldn't be that different from TMY400. Mushy it's not. Or it could have something to do with your scanning. But we adults can legally drink pyro.

I saw an image recently on the forum with the same issue that bugs me, done by someone else, perhaps it's a combination of factors, who cares so long as you use what you like and that works for you :)

[Drew Wiley]

It's hard to imagine how any large format film test could could be fairly evaluated over the web. Yeah, you can blow up this part or that. But paper often sees film
differently than scanners. And the web itself is an extremely crude way of viewing things in general - kinda like trying to fell a tree with a fingernail file! So ya gotta define your end use before qualifying the other parameters.

[Tin Can]

It's hard to imagine how any large format film test could could be fairly evaluated over the web. Yeah, you can blow up this part or that. But paper often sees film
differently than scanners. And the web itself is an extremely crude way of viewing things in general - kinda like trying to fell a tree with a fingernail file! So ya gotta define your end use before qualifying the other parameters.

That, I agree on! The art must fit the delivery form.

[StoneNYC]

Well the results are in.

It's actually quite telling, if the numbers here are the same as the numbers for Kodak (or at least similar) it explains a lot as to why both are still being offered and one hasn't gone to the chopping block.

Thanks all for participating, I know the LFF isn't the global buying power as a whole, but at least we can perhaps glean some amount of info from the numbers.

Thanks again.

[Sal Santamaura]

Here's yet another point in favor of 320TXP over TMY-2 in 8x10.

B&H still has 43 boxes of TMY-2 in stock from the last batch it ordered, which was many, many months ago


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533811-USA/Kodak_1930106_TMY_8_x_10.html

with a unit price of $103.50. I check daily and can't recall the last time a box was sold.

Meanwhile, 320TXP moves fairly quickly and regularly sells out, with new shipments typically arriving in less than one week. The latest batch of 99 boxes came in recently


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533812-USA/Kodak_8179707_TXP_4164_8x10_Tri_X.html

and ten boxes were sold today. Most notable thing about this recent shipment is that the unit price went down from $76.50 to $74.95. That's not something one can often write about any Kodak film.

[Pere Casals]

So which do you FAVOR MORE in your ACTUAL REAL WORLD USAGE, not "well if TMY-2 were cheaper I would use it more but right now I use 320TXP more for my 400(ish) speed films.




It depends on the shot...

And also it depends on development, but in general:


TMY is better for low light because reprocity failure is lower.

A river shot at 1/8, with TX rock shadows will be lost becasue falling in reprocity failure and rendering too much contrast.


TX is better for higlights:

If the scene has shadows that do not fall in reprocity failure with TX but there is also strong higlights it will work better than TMY because TX needs more overexpsure to reach DMax, and it will render a better highlight roll-off, if when printing we want that additional highlight detail that TX can render.

This highlight capability of TX vs TMY can be seen in the Kodak datasheets showing Density vs Lux*Second. TX has shoulder and TMY goes linear.


Also TMY is more sensitive to blue than TX (see graphs) so to both match tonality TMY needs a pale yellow to work like TX, and TX need a pale blue to work like TMY. This has an impact with skin tones.


Also I like the TX grain structure than can be seen a bit in 4x5 and not in 8x10. TMY do not show much grain.


Also I think that TMY is easier to make big print because a TMY normal negative is thinner than with TX. A big mistake (IMHO) is to try to obtain same density with TMY than with TX, a good TMY negative is thinner.


At the end I prefer TX, but if there is low light I prefer TMY.

[Drew Wiley]

Now combine strong filter response to long-exposure issues, and TMax products come into their own. They're quite predictable for technical as well as pictorial
usage. And obviously much finer grain relative to speed. I never did care for the gritty salt and pepper look of TX. And the popularity of overexposing TX for the
sake of expanded shadow gradation in contact prints sometimes takes one right onto the top of the shoulder. TMY, IF carefully metered, allows excellent shadow gradation without overexposure because of its relatively short toe and long straight line. Yeah, it's a tad expensive; but any film that does what you want without second guessing might be the cheapest choice in actual use.

[Pere Casals]

Now combine strong filter response to long-exposure issues, and TMax products come into their own. They're quite predictable for technical as well as pictorial
usage. And obviously much finer grain relative to speed. I never did care for the gritty salt and pepper look of TX. And the popularity of overexposing TX for the
sake of expanded shadow gradation in contact prints sometimes takes one right onto the top of the shoulder. TMY, IF carefully metered, allows excellent shadow gradation without overexposure because of its relatively short toe and long straight line. Yeah, it's a tad expensive; but any film that does what you want without second guessing might be the cheapest choice in actual use.


With roll film TX is 25% more expensive than TMY, with sheets it's the counter.

I guess TMY sheets are more expensive because have lower production runs than with TX sheets, just guessing. Ilford even don't offer ISO 400 tabular option: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/productlist.asp?n=9&t=Black+%26+White+Films And think that Ilford is prone to offer everything it can be sold, ULF cuts, for example.




IMHO it hapens that TMY is not better or worse than TX, it's different. You may want a shoulder in the curve or not.

IMHO with TX shoulder we obtain 1.5 Stops of additional highlight latitude, an this is very well shown in the graphs, and with the linear TMY we obtain better highlight textures while we don't arrive to TMY DMax that's reached with less light.

Of course it depends also on process, etc, etc, etc.

It is true that TX has a drawback with reprocity failure... But really if we want very low reprocity failure we can go Neopan.


So we are privileged because in these digital days we have both, those two magnificient tools: TMY & TX. :)

[Sal Santamaura]

There are no 400TX sheets. Only 320TXP is made in sheets. 400TX and 320TXP have completely different characteristics. Discussion of 400TX belongs in the Lounge; it's not large format.

[Pere Casals]

There are no 400TX sheets. Only 320TXP is made in sheets. 400TX and 320TXP have completely different characteristics. Discussion of 400TX belongs in the Lounge; it's not large format.

This is very well known...

I was comparing MF film prices to LF film prices to show a contradiction and to guess a reason related to sales volumes: It also concerns LF, and not for the lounge.

When I say TX sheets (for short) I mean Tri-X 320 Pan, there is no possible confussion...


So let me reformulate it to I say it better:

TX 400 was the "consumer" version while the TXP 320 was the "professional" one when both where made in 120/220, and with rolls "professional" TMY is cheaper than "consumer" TX400 , while in sheets "Professional" TMY is more expensive than also "Professional" Tri-X 320Pan.

This is contradictory !

A reason may be there, perhaps TMY sheets is less sold than Tri-X (320P). Ilford even do not offer a ISO 400 "Tabular Grain" option for sheets... Why?


Also next do not belong to the lounge as it can concern LF photography because it shows the way to get TX400 tonality with available TXP320 sheets:

Salgado wanted to use TX400 for Genesis (until 2007 digitalization) but used TXP320 becasue it was available in 220, Philippe Bachelier used Calbe A49 for Salgado to obtain the TX400 look with TX320P.

I find TXP320 and TX400 pretty similar, being a difference in the toe, medium vs long toe. Also there are more differences curve up, but TX400 and TXP320 are brothers in arms. If for 320 sheets one wants the 400 look... then a way is what Bachelier did.

http://www.fotoclub.org.uy/Articulos/sebastiao-salgado-y-la-fotografia-digital-ii.html (google translator can be used if desired)

[Oren Grad]

When I say TX sheets (for short) I mean Tri-X 320 Pan, there is no possible confussion...

Please be careful with the terminology, Pere. In Kodak catalogs, TX refers to the ISO 400 roll film only. The ISO 320 sheet film is always TXP (or, prior to the recent reformulation, TXT).

[John Kasaian]

I can't comment on TMY-2 as I could never come up with the coin, but I really liked the original TMY.

[Pere Casals]

Please be careful with the terminology, Pere. In Kodak catalogs, TX refers to the ISO 400 roll film only. The ISO 320 sheet film is always TXP (or, prior to the recent reformulation, TXT).

ok

[Drew Wiley]

One flaw in this kind of discussion is that you don't even know the retail pricing strategy of the key dealers who offer Kodak 8x10 films. Different films might not
carry the same percentage of markup. So you'd have to be an insider to know what Kodak is really charging for the respective batch cuts. But that it is drifting upwards is pretty obvious.

[Pere Casals]

One flaw in this kind of discussion is that you don't even know the retail pricing strategy of the key dealers who offer Kodak 8x10 films. Different films might not
carry the same percentage of markup. So you'd have to be an insider to know what Kodak is really charging for the respective batch cuts. But that it is drifting upwards is pretty obvious.

What looks clear is that TMY has a higher price than TXP because Ilford doesn't sell Delta 400 in sheets.

Yes... drifting upwards is pretty obvious.

In the past when film was a $ multi billion issue there were a lot of suspicious market practices, some of them prehaps are still used, perhaps one manufaturer stop making some product in exchange the other stop making another one, so both have no competition in a profitable product with twice the sales while before they both had 2 products with losses.

We see that Ilford makes no tabular ISO 400 Sheets while Kodak don't make ISO 100 cubic film. In color Kodak do not make transparencies and Fuji has no Ektar equivalent, but both make portrait film.

Perhaps it is the evolution of the market and only best choices remain, or pehaps they talk sometimes. But, this is: we have to cross fingers and to hope that important films will stay.

Anyway the fact that Ilford has no TMY equivalent for sheets (no Delta 400) it has 2 possible reasons, one is that one drops one product line in exchange for the competitor will drop another one, the second is that in general LF practitioners prefer classic cubic for the ISO 400 range, or both, or prehaps something else... we don't know.

[Drew Wiley]

Delta 400 was a completely different animal anyway, and certainly no substitute for the specific qualities of TMY. Nor was it anywhere near a true 400 speed film
by the time you exposed the film high enough on the toe to get reasonable shadow gradation. TMY digs way down there. Besides, Ilford has HP5, different from
either of these, but is relatively popular.

[Pere Casals]

Delta 400 was a completely different animal anyway, and certainly no substitute for the specific qualities of TMY. Nor was it anywhere near a true 400 speed film
by the time you exposed the film high enough on the toe to get reasonable shadow gradation. TMY digs way down there. Besides, Ilford has HP5, different from
either of these, but is relatively popular.

TMY sheets has a 40% price increase from TMX that is not seen with roll film, this can be linked to Ilford competition.

Yes... not the same. Toes are a bit different, and Delta 400 has a shoulder. Also TMY is more blue sensitive, and Delta has some extended red sensibility (25nm) vs TMY. Also Delta 400 reaches much lower densities.

But at the end Delta 400 sheets would be the TMY's competitor in the Ilford range, as the ISO 400 tabular type film counterpart, this happens in the roll film market share. Ilford sells quite a lot of Delta 400 rolls in competition with Kodak TMY rolls, being different, but this competition is not seen in the sheet product range.

Also it happens that Delta 400 rolls are very expensive in the USA but in the EU TMY and Delta 400 have similar price, with sheets TMY has no competition as a tabular grain ISO 400 option.


With TMY:

A TMY 35mm roll is 4.95$ this is 80sq inch (B&H)

A TMY 8x10 sheet is 10.35$ (and you have to buy 10 units) 80sq inch

The sheet is 2x the price, well the sheet it has a thicker plastic, not worth 20 cents


With TMX:

A TMX 35mm roll is 4.99$ this is 80sq inch

A TMX 4 4x5 sheets is 7.2$ 80sq inch (B&H had no 8x10 TMX)


This unjustified 40% price increase ($7.2 to $10.35) in TMY sheets vs TMX sheets it may be linked to lack of competition from Ilford Delta 400 sheets.

Note that with TMX sheets Kodak has competition from Ilford's Delta 100.

[Sal Santamaura]

It's important to recognize that markets set prices. Costs of production, packaging and distribution are relevant only to the extent that, if market price won't cover them plus a profit the manufacturer deems acceptable, production will cease.

Attempts to "analyze" retail prices based on costs are doomed to failure.

[Pere Casals]

It's important to recognize that markets set prices. Costs of production, packaging and distribution are relevant only to the extent that, if market price won't cover them plus a profit the manufacturer deems acceptable, production will cease.

Attempts to "analyze" retail prices based on costs are doomed to failure.

This was a retail price analysis based in competition, not in production costs. TMX sheets have a competitor that TMY has not.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd disagree with that. I can't think of any real substitute for TMX sheets, not if you are aware that it still has volume industrial users with distinct technical or
scientific rather than pictorial applications, people who simply don't show up on the radar in forums like this. They are known to order entire custom cuts at a time. What they do with it, I don't know; but I do know some of the relatively unique characteristics of TMX which might mandate it. Remember, the TMax line was originally engineered to potentially replace not only color separation films but many of the forensic applications of Tech Pan (not the extreme contrast line copy applications). I don't know if it still has astrophography use with vacuum backs; but for awhile TMX emulsion was still being offered on traditional glass plates for astrophotography. What we ordinary photographers get is largely the leftover sheets. But even I use it more for technical lab applications than general shooting.

[Tin Can]

Legacy Inkjet is pulling downward on film, but movie film is helping regain.

Today.

http://seekingalpha.com/pr/16573893-kodak-returns-profitability-driven-improvements-income-continuing-operations

[Pere Casals]

But even I use it more for technical lab applications than general shooting.


My reasoning was empirical as TMX sheets has a price increase (equal surface) VS TMX roll film than is much lower than with TMY sheets. The single link I found is that TMY sheets have no Ilford product than can compete, I agree that TMX is different than Delta 100, but it is clear that both are in competition as fine grain tabular type ISO 100 films, even the price is just the same in EU.


TMX may have beter technical application than TMY, just guessing.

Salgado's Genesis team printed digital images (2007+) taken with Canon DSLR over TMX film, to further make optical prints for exhibitions and perhaps for collectors.

I'd like to know in what technical lab applications do you use TMX... (I plan to use it to make WB slides by using a low contrast developer... ) just to know other applications it can have....

[Pere Casals]

Legacy Inkjet is pulling downward on film, but movie film is helping regain.

Today.

http://seekingalpha.com/pr/16573893-kodak-returns-profitability-driven-improvements-income-continuing-operations


Interesting...

I do not understand completely the roles of Kodak Alaris vs CFD (Consumer and Film Division)....

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - this can get a bit involved, and I certainly don't care to get into another useless debate over why somebody chose DLSR versus film, especially on a large format forum where sheer size trumps all else when it comes to the amount of sheer information than can be captured per shot. But people who do serious copy
work don't use DLSR's anyway, but extremely expensive scanning cameras, or even large format cameras; so DLSR just sounds either cheesy or cheapo for alleged exhibition work, and really doesn't make sense if the print output is going to be optical anyway. Any old print shop with a stat camera could have done a better job ...But back to your own intended application. What TMX will do better than any other current film is hold a straight line down into the toe with special low-contrast developers, and hence retain excellent overall gradation even at low contrast. I use highly dilute HC-110 with a pinch of benzotriazole (as a toe cutter) for this kind of thing. Benz, of course, lowers overall film speed, so you'll need to experiment a bit. But once mastered, results become very predictable.

[Drew Wiley]

... Or maybe I just misunderstood what they were doing, which was perhaps DLSR capture in the first place? Then why print them optically at all? Anyway, there
are crisper 35mm films than TMX. New toy syndrome, maybe... "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence".

[Oren Grad]

... Or maybe I just misunderstood what they were doing, which was perhaps DLSR capture in the first place? Then why print them optically at all? Anyway, there
are crisper 35mm films than TMX. New toy syndrome, maybe... "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence".

Drew, Salgado was faced with a specific technical problem on his Genesis project, of how to maintain a tolerably consistent look-and-feel in his prints when his original captures were a mix of film (both 35mm and 645) and DSLR capture. Exactly what he did and how effective the results are is a controversial topic in its own right - we should start a separate thread on that in the Lounge if people want to pursue it.

[Pere Casals]

... Or maybe I just misunderstood what they were doing, which was perhaps DLSR capture in the first place? Then why print them optically at all? Anyway, there
are crisper 35mm films than TMX. New toy syndrome, maybe... "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence".


Drew, Salgado was faced with a specific technical problem on his Genesis project, of how to maintain a tolerably consistent look-and-feel in his prints when his original captures were a mix of film (both 35mm and 645) and DSLR capture. Exactly what he did and how effective the results are is a controversial topic in its own right - we should start a separate thread on that in the Lounge if people want to pursue it.


I consider to comment next because it makes sense for LF hybrid process. (Anyway moving it to a new thread can be an idea... but just I'd like to add this single information...)


This would be an example workflow :

Take a 4x5 film negative -> Scanner + PS -> Print the digital file a on a TMX film negative with a Kodak LTV Rhino (it can print 20 x 25 cm, 2540 dpi), -> develop this new negative -> and then make an optical copy with an enlarger.

The Sebastiao Salgado's team used a part of that process, Salgado shot a DSLR since 2007 but result was not consistent with darkroom prints of work done until 2007 from MF TXP320.

So the team digitally processed Salgado's 2007+ digital shots (made with a Canon DSLR) and later they printed groups of 4 images over a single 8x10" Delta 100 sheet, so a near 4x5" Delta 100 negative was used for each image, then with the 4x5 negatives they printed (Dominique Graniere) optical darkroom copies on FB paper, and I guess they added selenium or gold sauce. The LTV Rhino job was superintended by Gonzague Perney.

To me, at the end it was a pretty consistent result, general public did see no difference, perhaps some experts did...


This is a bit far from what is traditional LF photography, but as scanning+PS is a popular workflow also there is the less popular possibility to go back from pixels to analog. This may be a tool for some...


For hybrid process there is another way I'm using, this is scanning and sending the digital file to Ilford guys, (Ilford Lab Direct) and they print the image on "true argentic" silver gelatin paper by using a Frontier or (beyond 10") a LightJet. A problem is that (until I know) they only print on RC as standard job, Pearl or Glossy... Then good soft proofing is mandatory...

[Christopher Barrett]

Is the poll closed? I love Tri-X, it has such a beautifully organic round grain. I never warmed to the T-Max films. The grain is so harsh, so fractal... practically digital. Neil Young said listening to vinyl was like slipping into a warm bath where cd's were like having a bucket of ice cubes dumped on you. I feel the same way about tri-x versus t-max.

I could be disqualified, though, as I only like slow films nowadays. If I'm gonna take the time to set up a big heavy camera on a tripod, why would I sacrifice resolution for speed? I'm all FP4+, especially since I can get in 4x10.

[jp]

The Competition theory seems plausible for 400 speed film prices.

My idea is that Kodak makes more money by pricing one film size affordable and one size very expensive as a way to profit from people who want to use the same film in various formats including large. They can sell me affordable 120 tmy2 and make their money back on the LF options... Sort of like walmart selling a printer at cost and making money on the unobtanium plated USB cable, or ink refills. The reality is probably more likely that few photographers are hardcore consistent enough to demand the same film in all formats.

[Pere Casals]

I love Tri-X, it has such a beautifully organic round grain. I never warmed to the T-Max films. The grain is so harsh, so fractal... practically digital. Neil Young said listening to vinyl was like slipping into a warm bath where cd's were like having a bucket of ice cubes dumped on you. I feel the same way about tri-x versus t-max.

I could be disqualified, though, as I only like slow films nowadays. If I'm gonna take the time to set up a big heavy camera on a tripod, why would I sacrifice resolution for speed? I'm all FP4+, especially since I can get in 4x10.


Of course, Tri-X has an impressive imaging subculture on its back, based a lot on its grain. But grain has less importance in LF than in MF, with LF even in the case we enlarge to 10x we have to view the picture from farther, and grain is little seen in theory, but as Tri-X grain grows in the dark greys it shows there, at least in 4x5.

I'd like to post these links:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/kesakurpitsa/16151812923/in/photolist-oqsFjE-riXu4K-ayhouc-bEPod1-mKn48P-qG34if-qBhgga-qijb75-qWiZpR-oUyvfF-mRk64E-oSnwtL-r4KNm4-eeff1G-rYUczG-qjQb6d-rFs34K-jzCVvu-qeUxK5-eeshE5/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/kesakurpitsa/16205623588/in/photolist-oqsFjE-riXu4K-ayhouc-bEPod1-mKn48P-qG34if-qBhgga-qijb75-qWiZpR-oUyvfF-mRk64E-oSnwtL-r4KNm4-eeff1G-rYUczG-qjQb6d-rFs34K-jzCVvu-qeUxK5-eeshE5/

that impressed me because Tri-X exploit.


T-Max has a very different spectral response, more sensitive to blue. This has an impact to skin texture, daylight or tungsten, and filters, can make one to look like the other about skin texture, IMHO.

Both are exceptional tools, but aesthetical usage it is very different.

It comes since 1950, but IMHO 90% of aesthetical capabilities of Tri-X are still to be discovered :) so if it remains in the marked a couple of generations of photographers to come will be busy with it ;)

[Pere Casals]

The Competition theory seems plausible for 400 speed film prices.

My idea is that Kodak makes more money by pricing one film size affordable and one size very expensive as a way to profit from people who want to use the same film in various formats including large. They can sell me affordable 120 tmy2 and make their money back on the LF options... Sort of like walmart selling a printer at cost and making money on the unobtanium plated USB cable, or ink refills. The reality is probably more likely that few photographers are hardcore consistent enough to demand the same film in all formats.

It's annoying that TMY price, one feels abused, but if it's for the sake Kodak film remains we cannot complain. Anyway I see a bad market practice for long term, as they discourage film usage. Perhaps a bad manager is there. Kodak had excellent technicians and not as good bussiness managers.

[jnantz]

It's annoying that TMY price, one feels abused, but if it's for the sake Kodak film remains we cannot complain. Anyway I see a bad market practice for long term, as they discourage film usage. Perhaps a bad manager is there. Kodak had excellent technicians and not as good bussiness managers.

they have good business managers, good films, high prices and it seems people will pay to get their product.
im glad someone is buying their film. while it is first rate product, they have priced themselves out of my wallet.
they have been raising their prices annually for decades, it is nothing new ... the thing that is new is
non-professionals buying what used to be top tier LF gear that used to cost thousands of dollars, now for a song and a dance,
and expecting the film to be equally inexpensive ;) photography has always been expensive, the original "KODAK" cost 3 months salary
for the average person back in the 1880s.

[Pere Casals]

they have good business managers, good films and high prices that it seems people will pay to get their product.
im glad someone is buying their film. while it is first rate product, they have priced themselves out of my wallet.
they have been raising their prices annually for decades, it is nothing new ... the thing that is new is
non-professionals buying what used to be top tier LF gear that used to cost thousands of dollars, now for a song and a dance,
and expecting the film to be equally inexpensive ;) photography has always been expensive, the original "KODAK" cost 3 months salary
for the average person back in the 1800s.

As a non professional, I think that film photography is not expensive at all, today. Problem is that sometimes we have GAS, "Gear Acquisition Syndrome" :)

If one needs to make money from photography it is another thing, or if one wants to add 100 to 1000 pictures to the computer disk every weekend. But for people that want to enjoy "presonal art" hobby... film price is not a problem, if it is more expensive you shot less pictures, and perhaps better pictures. Anyway one detects if somebody is chiseling you with film price.

I think I'm not able to shot more than one 8x10 sheet in a weekend, I would not have the spare time to process all as it deserves. If one weekend I shot 3 sheets I'll employ 2 additional weekends to process and print it. One has to know if by firing then one is to get the shot he wants.

Kodak comes from a multi billion industrial cartel bussiness, and his management structure does not suit the current market requirements, they are not close enough to every market niche. For example Ilford cuts ULF sheets in a yearly time window and Foma offers every format possible.

I feel that this 40% TMY price missmatch will finally kill the product, people will shot more TMX or Delta 100 (or HP5+ / TXP) and with the lower production run it will increase unit cost and it will drive the product to unprofitable state.

Perhaps with a 15% price missmatch they would get better results. That 40% increase looks like they are chiselling you (Thanks Bob, for the class :) ) and then you go to alternatives. This +40% looks from a novice marketing shark looking for inmediate results, not being aware of what he is to destroy. Will see what will happen with TMY sheets if this price continues...

[jnantz]

Perhaps with a 15% price missmatch they would get better results. That 40% increase looks like they are chiselling you (Thanks Bob, for the class :) ) and then you go to alternatives. This +40% looks from a novice marketing shark looking for inmediate results, not being aware of what he is to destroy. Will see what will happen with TMY sheets if this price continues...

i dont' think it is a mismatch in pricing at all.
some who use it believe it is the best film on the market, hands down.
it has very tight quality control and years of improvements made to it.
if it was a mismatch in pricing / too expensive no one would be buying it.

still it is a bargain if you want that film.

[Drew Wiley]

OK. Thanks for the tips on Salgado. But I still don't know how they combined them onto sheet film unless it was with a film recorder, which were still common
around then, though all this still seems like some sort of workflow and budget compromise, or perhaps limited by the skill set of the personnel. I don't have any
personal interest in follow-up research on his methodology. I have seen a fair amount of black and white ink printing done from drum scanning MF film that looks a lot better to me than direct MF digi capture. Maybe it competes better in color; but I doubt it. And I still hate Tri-X - not necessarily Tri-X images made by others - I love many of those, but relative to my own preferred image look.

[Pere Casals]

i dont' think it is a mismatch in pricing at all.
some who use it believe it is the best film on the market, hands down.
it has very tight quality control and years of improvements made to it.
if it was a mismatch in pricing / too expensive no one would be buying it.

still it is a bargain if you want that film.

There is a mismatch !!! With roll film it happens taht TMX and TMY have same price, with sheets TMY 40% more expensive than TMX. So why ? This is not a 10% or 15%, this is a 40% more. And TMY is not as good as TMX.

Yes, still is a bargain if you want that film, anyway most of the time TMX or Delta 100 is a better choice as a tripod is normally there... if one desires TMY then price won't be an obstacle...

[Drew Wiley]

That pricing discrepancy does not exist here, so we must be talking about distribution and not manufacture. It will probably reach equilibrium anyway once inventories turn over. But Ilford sheet film in general is much more affordable here than Kodak. Then there's Fuji ACROS, which has recently itself skyrocketed in sheet film pricing, but remains quite affordable in roll version.

[StoneNYC]

OK. Thanks for the tips on Salgado. But I still don't know how they combined them onto sheet film unless it was with a film recorder, which were still common
around then, though all this still seems like some sort of workflow and budget compromise, or perhaps limited by the skill set of the personnel. I don't have any
personal interest in follow-up research on his methodology. I have seen a fair amount of black and white ink printing done from drum scanning MF film that looks a lot better to me than direct MF digi capture. Maybe it competes better in color; but I doubt it. And I still hate Tri-X - not necessarily Tri-X images made by others - I love many of those, but relative to my own preferred image look.

He said they used a LightJet drew. So the PS file was grouped as a 4 image shot and then exposed onto the 8x10 as a single exposure.

[jnantz]

tmy has always been more expensive than tmx

[Pere Casals]

OK. Thanks for the tips on Salgado. But I still don't know how they combined them onto sheet film unless it was with a film recorder, which were still common
around then, though all this still seems like some sort of workflow and budget compromise, or perhaps limited by the skill set of the personnel. I don't have any
personal interest in follow-up research on his methodology. I have seen a fair amount of black and white ink printing done from drum scanning MF film that looks a lot better to me than direct MF digi capture. Maybe it competes better in color; but I doubt it. And I still hate Tri-X - not necessarily Tri-X images made by others - I love many of those, but relative to my own preferred image look.


There was no budget compromise there. Salgado didn't want to carry (IMHO, I guess) 600 TXP320P rolls of 220 size for each trip and all that gear with assistants around at remote locations. That was pharaonic, I guess that more than 100,000 shots and less that 250,000. A lot for a film project.

For Genesis digital shots beyond 2007: Salgado's team used a KODAK LTV Rhino ( 2540 dpi capable) to print groups of 4 images over 8x10" Delta 100 sheets, so a near 4x5" Delta 100 negative was used for each image, then with the 4x5 negatives Dominique Graniere printed optical darkroom copies on FB paper, and I guess they added selenium or gold sauce. The printing of digital images on Delta 100 sheets with the KODAK LTV Rhino was superintended by Gonzague Perney.

Dominique Graniere a superp printer, he had the challenge to obtain consistency, but from hybrid process I guess he saved a lot of burning/dodging labour.

There were a lot of skilled imaging technicians that worked out the Canon DSLR vs TXP consistency, and unsing Delta 100 as internegative !!! I guess that these were of that class of thecnicians that have the Beyond The Zone System book on the desk all day long... :)

About Tri-X... it is elastic... we can do a lot of things with it...

[Drew Wiley]

Still sounds half-baked compared to what properly equipped repro-print houses do around here for famous-name images. But I also know what they charge, which
really needs to be discussed is astronomical terminology. I also know what I once charged to do copy and repro work on small scale, which would have been unrealistic for any project this size but did deliver exceptional quality.

[bob carnie]

No they are using a LVT recorder using most likely FP4 on 8 x10 sheet and if smart include a grey scale.
A lightjet is an image setter that indeed can make fibre prints, but no one to my knowledge is making film off these large image setters other than my shop or shops with a LVT Recorder.
Two very different animals - the LVT has been around since the early 90's and people are still using them, you can make, silver negs, C41 negs or Transparancies.
the Lambdas and Lightjets are from about a 4-5 year time difference, and they indeed can make stunning silver gelatin prints, and have the potential for negative.


We are using a Lambda for making direct silver film which cannot be put in an enlarger, but the good thing is we can make the film to final size for beautiful contact prints.
We are also making Fiber silver direct prints from any source originals and these prints are extremely sharp and rival enlarger prints.


He said they used a LightJet drew. So the PS file was grouped as a 4 image shot and then exposed onto the 8x10 as a single exposure.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob, you should look up Jim Browning, who made his own 8x10 film recorder. But since he was the key engineer behind the Chromira for ZBE you might be prejudiced. Don't be. He had nothing to do with the business side or warranty fall-out.

[Pere Casals]

No they are using a LVT recorder using most likely FP4 on 8 x10 sheet and if smart include a grey scale.
A lightjet is an image setter that indeed can make fibre prints, but no one to my knowledge is making film off these large image setters other than my shop or shops with a LVT Recorder.
Two very different animals - the LVT has been around since the early 90's and people are still using them, you can make, silver negs, C41 negs or Transparancies.
the Lambdas and Lightjets are from about a 4-5 year time difference, and they indeed can make stunning silver gelatin prints, and have the potential for negative.



Tha Salgado's team seriously estimated Durst Lambda, pretty nice prints with barited. At the end they concluded that beyond 50x60cm it was better for them to print a 4x5 Delta 100 negative with the LTV Rhino (in fact 4 images in a 8x10) and printing with the enlarger, it "looked" sharper, (Bachelier said) I guess that if the viewer see it at reading distance it is perceived the more.

(LightJet is used by Ilford Lab Direc, beyond 10"...)





We are also making Fiber silver direct prints from any source originals and these prints are extremely sharp and rival enlarger prints.

I understand... sometimes you print ULF cuts (FP4 I guess) and then make a contact print...

[Drew Wiley]

Note my contact above (Jim B.) who uses exclusively TMX for recorder purposes, for very logical reasons, which I happen to know but don't care to get in an argument about here. Why anyone would choose Delta instead (even over FP4) bewilders me. Yeah, you can torture and reshape the curve digitally, sorta. Maybe
someone cut them a deal on it.

[Pere Casals]

Still sounds half-baked compared to what properly equipped repro-print houses do around here for famous-name images. But I also know what they charge, which
really needs to be discussed is astronomical terminology. I also know what I once charged to do copy and repro work on small scale, which would have been unrealistic for any project this size but did deliver exceptional quality.

Not half-baked, Taschen there... I think that was not about cost, I guess that an additional reason to make optical enlargements was to sell prints to collectors.

[Drew Wiley]

I can understand trying to kill two birds with one stone: a LOT of images to catalog or post, with a secondary application of selling repro prints. But it would make
more sense to select out that relatively limited number likely to sell in print and more seriously handle those with a better technique. Collectors don't want copies
anyway, but the real deal. Otherwise, I call em posters, fancy or not, and not prints.

[bob carnie]

Pere

I know quite a bit about this topic, actually my Lab was the first lab world wide to make fiber base mural prints via a Lambda. This was 2002 four years before Ilford introduced their product. Many labs that have taken on this approach have failed due to good technicians- Picto being a classic case as well a well known lab in California that basically low balling the product.

You are speaking second generation (Bachelier said) right now on this thread or quoting other peoples words. I would really trust my own eyes since I am one of 10 labs doing this and not speaking from second hand knowledge. Kind of like he said - she said.
I have seen these LVT neg to prints and though good they not as sharp, by a long shot as a direct Lambda print. Remember you are going to a second generation original, and putting it through enlarging optics.

No I do not use FP4 cut then make a contact print, I am working off rolls of Ortho 25 for this purpose .

Bob


Tha Salgado's team seriously estimated Durst Lambda, pretty nice prints with barited. At the end they concluded that beyond 50x60cm it was better for them to print a 4x5 Delta 100 negative with the LTV Rhino (in fact 4 images in a 8x10) and printing with the enlarger, it "looked" sharper, (Bachelier said) I guess that if the viewer see it at reading distance it is perceived the more.

(LightJet is used by Ilford Lab Direc, beyond 10"...)




I understand... sometimes you print ULF cuts (FP4 I guess) and then make a contact print...

[bob carnie]

Drew is he doing this commercially? as Jim has a good name in the industry.

Larry G here does LVT and also a dude out of New Rochelle NY both members here who know these machines very well.


There are
Note my contact above (Jim B.) who uses exclusively TMX for recorder purposes, for very logical reasons, which I happen to know but don't care to get in an argument about here. Why anyone would choose Delta instead (even over FP4) bewilders me. Yeah, you can torture and reshape the curve digitally, sorta. Maybe
someone cut them a deal on it.

[Drew Wiley]

His business is Digital Mask, and it seems most of his income comes from big display transparencies printed on his own Chromira (which he has the ability to maintain and repair himself). But as many already know, he is also a key player in the revival of dye transfer printing and offers recorder-output separation negs for this purpose, along with various other special lab services. The German couple are doing it completely differently - scan directly to blue-laser exposure of the matrices, but via the headache of having to own multiple laser devices for the sake of spare parts, official service of those having been discontinued long ago too. It's all quite interesting, even though I still do everything myself old-school, strictly darkroom. I could hypothetically understand copy work of b&W PRINTS being done with Delta due to its upswept curve. But back when I sometimes did that kind of thing myself, I too used dedicated ortho film.

[Pere Casals]

I can understand trying to kill two birds with one stone: a LOT of images to catalog or post, with a secondary application of selling repro prints. But it would make
more sense to select out that relatively limited number likely to sell in print and more seriously handle those with a better technique. Collectors don't want copies
anyway, but the real deal. Otherwise, I call em posters, fancy or not, and not prints.

Well, until 2007 shots it was optical copies from TXP negatives. This has a value. Since 2007 it was emulated Tri-X grains on digital 1D Mark-III shots, with DXO Film Pack (at least Bachelier mentions it as the good solution, to be used with moderation) then LVT printed on Delta 100, and then printed with enlarger. Not the same... but still printed optically, so you don't see the printer DPIs with a magnifier. Not an argentic digital print, nor a true optical print...

[Pere Casals]

You are speaking second generation (Bachelier said) right now on this thread or quoting other peoples words. I would really trust my own eyes since I am one of 10 labs doing this and not speaking from second hand knowledge. Kind of like he said - she said.
Bob

Bachelier developed the Salgado's negatives, and he explains all that in this interview http://www.fotoclub.org.uy/Articulos/sebastiao-salgado-y-la-fotografia-digital-ii.html (Spanish, sorry...)

He was an insider and I don't think he is misleading... the other sources I have also confirm it all, I've been long pursuing the techinques to obtain the Genesis look, to me it's the Mr Graniere look, it is not my style, but I want to master that in order to achieve my desired style...



Pere
I know quite a bit about this topic, actually my Lab was the first lab world wide to make fiber base mural prints via a Lambda...


I know... I'll be asking you some topics in the near future...




I have seen these LVT neg to prints and though good they not as sharp, by a long shot as a direct Lambda print. Remember you are going to a second generation original, and putting it through enlarging optics.
Bob

Well... but think that 2007+ pictures had synthetic grain added to 1D Mark III shots by software, with DXO Film Pack. One option was to make a digital file with a pixel for each dot of the Lambda. Then you have to render "fake" TXP grains with dots.

The other option was to print the synthetic grain on Delta 100 sheets with the Rhino and then enlarging those "fake" grains. You know, more grain is not less resolution... perhaps it was the way the grain it was rendered and how this was related to perceived sharpness, I really don't know for sure the reason, but they selected the internegative way in front of light printing of paper, but I'm suspicious it was because grain rendering... Bachelier said "sharper" but this has to be interpreted. It's an opinion, I can be wrong...






No I do not use FP4 cut then make a contact print, I am working off rolls of Ortho 25 for this purpose .
Bob

I understand... it can be worked with red light... cheaper for those big enlargements... and finest 25 grain... the best option...

[StoneNYC]

No they are using a LVT recorder using most likely FP4 on 8 x10 sheet and if smart include a grey scale.
A lightjet is an image setter that indeed can make fibre prints, but no one to my knowledge is making film off these large image setters other than my shop or shops with a LVT Recorder.
Two very different animals - the LVT has been around since the early 90's and people are still using them, you can make, silver negs, C41 negs or Transparancies.
the Lambdas and Lightjets are from about a 4-5 year time difference, and they indeed can make stunning silver gelatin prints, and have the potential for negative.


We are using a Lambda for making direct silver film which cannot be put in an enlarger, but the good thing is we can make the film to final size for beautiful contact prints.
We are also making Fiber silver direct prints from any source originals and these prints are extremely sharp and rival enlarger prints.

Sorry Bob, I was going off what I thought Oren had said.

Why can't a LightJet / Lambda expose any kind of light sensitive material? Isn't it just basically a projector like any other enlarger device?

I always assumed it was like that. I haven't a clue about the mechanics nor have I seen one (even though I should have looked at Dwayne's Photo's one when I was there in 2010, but I was too focused on the Kodachrome processing machine).

[Drew Wiley]

Think of the inverse of a drum scanner, with the laser beam going the other direction. They have their idiosyncrasies. There are several of them in use in this very
neighborhood, and without attempting to make any technical explanation, it's obvious that not every lab knows how to use them correctly.

[bob carnie]

Stone -
A Lambda/Lightjet can indeed expose most kinds of light sensitive material. Yes I compare it to an enlarger all the time, same colour density curve controls, just using a digital file.
Also the 400 ppi print is so well defined that if you are looking at a print with loop you actually see the grain of the film rather than dots, or pixels. When I saw this feature I immediately went into a life long debt to get one of these machines.

In 2001 I put Agfa Classic fibre paper in a Durst Lambda and the prints are hanging in my space.
Ilford Galerie works in a Lambda and it is the paper all of the other labs and myself are using - this paper was introduced in 2006.
In 2005 three of the owners of Ilford made a surprise visit to my shop , they actually came from UK unannounced because they had just coated a master
roll of paper to use in a digital device like mine, and they were surprised to here a lab in Toronto was already doing it. At that point they had no real proof that the idea would work, and
at that point they did not have a machine, now they have a Lightjet and funny enough they are offering these prints online, ??bit of a headscratcher that a manufacturer will compete with their own clients. Not sure how the other labs feel,I know how I feel about it.

Lucky for me the day that they showed up I was printing Agfa Classic Murals and the beauty part was that I could use safe light with this paper, and when they walked
into the darkroom I had Dylan Ellis pick up a print in the fix and one of the directors almost passed out in joy, so it seemed, since they had just coated a master roll and did not have
proof it would work. They sent me a roll and it worked, lots of good Karma from them to me at that time, didn't pan out though for me because if you google digital fibre paper you will see credit
to Metro Imaging and Ilford 2006 for being the innovators, this kind of pisses me off as I was five years ahead of the loop. But today I am launching it back in batch runs for clients and as long as they make the paper I will buy. I think the Adox paper will work as it is the Agfa Classic emulsion which I know works.

RC Black and white was going through these machines, but nobody though a fiber paper would work as well the name (FIBRE) kind of scared the owners of Durst Lambda;s as they did not want to screw up their investments.. A lambda is the price of a home in Toronto during this period and the thought was the paper would shred and screw up the system. It does not btw.

Ilford Warmtone does not work by the way so its a bit of a dilemma as the sensitivity of the emulsions have a very big impact on the lasers and you basically have to test. I will always test
different papers as our photo-world is shrinking and the need for good material sources is important to have options.


Film recorders like LVT do make high resolution for enlargers.
Lambdas like mine do make high resolution for contact.

Both methods are viable I just happen to have the second version.

With a negative - the door is open to any process, any paper, silver, pt pt, gum, cyanotype the list is endless and this is where great strides will show themselves over the years.

Bob


Sorry Bob, I was going off what I thought Oren had said.

Why can't a LightJet / Lambda expose any kind of light sensitive material? Isn't it just basically a projector like any other enlarger device?

I always assumed it was like that. I haven't a clue about the mechanics nor have I seen one (even though I should have looked at Dwayne's Photo's one when I was there in 2010, but I was too focused on the Kodachrome processing machine).

[Tin Can]

While we run off topic, I have used http://www.ilfordlab-us.com/page/91/Black-and-White-Prints-from-Digital.htm

For digital file to analogue using the same exact file with LF Epson printers.

The Lambda RC print Ilford makes in California is superior to the inkjet, but limited to 10X15" max.

Bigger is done in Brexitland by Ilford but I have not sailed that ship.

Good to know Bob is much closer.

Added, I also have contact printed and enlarged the same negative.

[Tin Can]

And somebody needs to make a new thread.

I'm just adding this for Bob Carnie and all others that are following the divergence. I have already gotten PM's about this.

Ilford price list for Lightjet Digital to analogue up to 50X50 inches in England I assume. (http://www.ilfordlab.com/page/61/Black-and-White-Prints-From-Digital.htm)

I consider these prices cheap.

[StoneNYC]

Stone -
A Lambda/Lightjet can indeed expose most kinds of light sensitive material. Yes I compare it to an enlarger all the time, same colour density curve controls, just using a digital file.
Also the 400 ppi print is so well defined that if you are looking at a print with loop you actually see the grain of the film rather than dots, or pixels. When I saw this feature I immediately went into a life long debt to get one of these machines.

In 2001 I put Agfa Classic fibre paper in a Durst Lambda and the prints are hanging in my space.
Ilford Galerie works in a Lambda and it is the paper all of the other labs and myself are using - this paper was introduced in 2006.
In 2005 three of the owners of Ilford made a surprise visit to my shop , they actually came from UK unannounced because they had just coated a master
roll of paper to use in a digital device like mine, and they were surprised to here a lab in Toronto was already doing it. At that point they had no real proof that the idea would work, and
at that point they did not have a machine, now they have a Lightjet and funny enough they are offering these prints online, ??bit of a headscratcher that a manufacturer will compete with their own clients. Not sure how the other labs feel,I know how I feel about it.

Lucky for me the day that they showed up I was printing Agfa Classic Murals and the beauty part was that I could use safe light with this paper, and when they walked
into the darkroom I had Dylan Ellis pick up a print in the fix and one of the directors almost passed out in joy, so it seemed, since they had just coated a master roll and did not have
proof it would work. They sent me a roll and it worked, lots of good Karma from them to me at that time, didn't pan out though for me because if you google digital fibre paper you will see credit
to Metro Imaging and Ilford 2006 for being the innovators, this kind of pisses me off as I was five years ahead of the loop. But today I am launching it back in batch runs for clients and as long as they make the paper I will buy. I think the Adox paper will work as it is the Agfa Classic emulsion which I know works.

RC Black and white was going through these machines, but nobody though a fiber paper would work as well the name (FIBRE) kind of scared the owners of Durst Lambda;s as they did not want to screw up their investments.. A lambda is the price of a home in Toronto during this period and the thought was the paper would shred and screw up the system. It does not btw.

Ilford Warmtone does not work by the way so its a bit of a dilemma as the sensitivity of the emulsions have a very big impact on the lasers and you basically have to test. I will always test
different papers as our photo-world is shrinking and the need for good material sources is important to have options.


Film recorders like LVT do make high resolution for enlargers.
Lambdas like mine do make high resolution for contact.

Both methods are viable I just happen to have the second version.

With a negative - the door is open to any process, any paper, silver, pt pt, gum, cyanotype the list is endless and this is where great strides will show themselves over the years.

Bob

Wow thanks for those details! Awesome read! Sorry about the non-credit that's frustrating. Glad that machine is still working and continuing to be utilized so well.

[Pere Casals]

Stone -
A Lambda/Lightjet can indeed expose most kinds of light sensitive material. Yes I compare...


That reply was for Stone, but I also give thanks to you for that feedback.

Classic darkroom craft will always have its interest and its own space, but Hybrid process is powerful a lot.

I also think that it is not fair that a manufacturer competes with their own clients, ...but, well at least they do not offer high quality FB jobs and they mostly are in the low end segment.

:) by now we are well out of topic... but sometimes insteresting discusions appear are out of topic.