Hp5 vs TMY400

[chris_4622]

If you have experiences with these films for portraiture I'm interested in what differences you see, if any. Also are you printing on silver paper?
thanks,
chris

[jp]

I have minimal experience with hp5. tmy2 400 has a faint bit of yellow filtering built in. If you want big freckles and wet plate gnarliness, use a colder light source or filters. tmy2 is a more versatile film that doesn't have any particular look of it's own. Developer choice, lighting, are all more important. If it's artificial light you are using for portraits, use which film you are more familiar with, not what I recommend.

[Drew Wiley]

Very different films. I done lots and lots of silver printing from both. Don't like HP5 in anything smaller than 8x10 due to its graininess. My favorite portrait film is actually TMax 100, but it seems you want speed, and TMY 400 is analogous - both with a long steep line and excellent shadow separation - esp helpful where extreme of fabric contrast or group shots of mixed ethnicities are involved. HP5 has a longer toe.

[Michael Graves]

I like HP5 myself. Having never been a fan of Tmax films, my experience with TMY is limited to a single box I shot, so I can't profess to having learned its ins and outs as well as HP5. I had trouble taming the highlights with TMY, which is why I reverted to using HP5. I also didn't think the TMY dug out shadows as well. However, my understanding is that all of the Tmax films are more sensitive to development variations, so it could well be I simply never found the right exposure/development combination that worked for me.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, distinctly more sensitive, needing more careful exposure and development. But that's the beauty of them. I've got a lovely framed portrait on the wall where taken with a Kern 14in dagor on 8x10 TMX where I deliberately underexp the blacks and expanded the midtone microtanality with overdeveloping, then "snatch" dev a Brilliant Bromide print in glycin, with everything deep black to full white coming out subtle silvery. It's hard to find papers that snatch dev well anymore, except in a "lith" sense; you need high-silver content graded paper. But I've done a newer version ordinary dev using MGWT and triple toning, equally nice but different. People have often asked me if the original print is an etching. It's highly detailed and extremely tonal nuanced, but so subtly that it doesn't look like a studio photo. HP5 would have yielded mud in the lower values in this kind of scenario.

[Pere Casals]

To me, IMHO, most evident difference is price, similar price for rolls, but surprisingly TMY is way more expensive per sheet.

For the rest, one can adjust the photographic process to obtain very similar results. Let's go comparing every point...

Direct match:

The Ilford direct math for TMY is Delta 400, but Ilford only makes Delta 100 in sheets as a direct match to TMX, the closest Kodak match for HP5 is TXP 320 Pan. So the comparison has to account for that.


Grain:

TMax and Delta films are tabular type, fine grained, both have grain without aesthetic personality when it is seen in smaller formats, while HP5 and TXP have nice grain structures, this is having more evident grain in the dark greys (TXP) or in the mids (HP5). Of course grain is always more evident in areas without microcontrast, and seen (MF and 135 especially) much more in washed/OOF areas.

Well, LF don't show much grain, but with HP5 and 4x5 you may want a fine grain developer like Xtol if you don't want grain, in the 8x10 game you won't perceive any grain.


Spectral response:

To get the same skin tonality filtration has to be different, if you look at the spectral response charts in the datasheets you will notice a very different graph, anyway it is difficult to say until what amount because the charts have different vertical units, being the Kodak graph more "scientific".

Mr Sexton said that TMax films are designed to need less a yellow filter... but he makes more landscapes than portrait.


Resolving power:

TMY should have some advantage in theoric resolving power, as we compare a tabular crystal film to a cubic film of same ISO, but IMHO this is completely irrelevant because lenses may work worse than film, specially in portrait conditions.


Linearity:

Both are short toe an completely linear films, TXP is medium toe and it also has a bump in the mids (see curves in datasheets) that helps face volumes (IMHO), but we have to meter in a away that we have that sensitometric bumb in the subjects face's key area (IMHO).

LIRF:

In theory TMY has lower reciprocity failure, this is less a concern for portrait, anyway Ilford recently published more accurate factors stating a lower LIRF.

Washing:

TMax films require extended washing times (not necessary to overfix) to remove the pink dye (is it bare erythrosin ???), in fact it also for shure works as an emulsion incorporated color filter. Sensitizing dyes can be washed out from emulsion while the sensitizing effect completely persists anyway, so (IMHO) if Kodak don't remove the pinky in the film it's because it does some filtration that's useful to obtain the desired spectral sensitivity, or another thing...


So...


To me, in LF, it is possible to get similar results from TMY and HP5, but we need a different filtration for skin tonality and for the 4x5 case we may want Xtol for the HP5 grain.

...and anyway I'd prefer TXP for some conditions, if I want to use the TXP toe (rather an working shadows in the wet print) or if I want the bump in the mids...

[Drew Wiley]

Not quite right, Pere. Other than T-grain technology, T-Max and Delta are opposites. TvMax films have high contrast way down into the shadows; Delta has an upsweep favoring midtone and highlight repro at the expense of shadow values (a nice feature for high-key Caucasian portraiture in white garb). TMax is also spectrally unique in the manner all three primaries can be easily exp and dev to matching gamma - nothing to be concerned with here, except to note a mild YG like Hoya XO or Wratten 11 filter is handy to have around or pink complexions tend to go pasty. The pink stain completely washes out of TMax negs if you use alkaline fixer like TF4 from Photo Formulary, and the fbf will be nearly nil (around .03). With FP4, the residual stain slowly degrades with UV from printing, or simply neg aging.

[Bruce Watson]

If you have experiences with these films for portraiture I'm interested in what differences you see, if any.

I can compare for you some between the differences in a cubic grained film (Tri-X, HP5+, etc.) and a tgrained film (TMY, TMX, Delta, etc.). My experience however is with Tri-X, not HP5+, and TMY-2, the current emulsion IIRC. For context, I'm developing in a Jobo 3010 tank (continuous agitation) using XTOL at 1+3 and 1+1.

I found two main differences. The biggie for me was that TMY-2 has considerably better reciprocity characteristics. This will mean something to you if you're interested in the level of detail you can carry in the shadows, which is really about how you light for portraits. If you're doing the "beauty light" thing where you light with big softlights above or next to the camera and you don't create much in the way of shadows, it just won't matter much. If you are going for more drama, and light at more of an angle so that you create a fair amount of shadows (e.g. Rembrandt lighting, George Hurrell, etc.) then this might be more important to you, IDK. But what I found was that I really struggled to get Tri-X to handle shadow detail well for what I wanted, because the shadow areas were entering reciprocity failure (while 90% of the film was not). When I switched to TMY-2 it was like a veil getting ripped off the scene -- the problem areas were suddenly extremely well behaved and I didn't have to do anything special at all with them to get the shadow detail I was after.

The other big difference for me is that TMY-2's tonality was for me an exact match to what I was seeing. Tri-X wasn't. I couldn't tell you what the actual difference are, all I know is that years of working in B&W developed a part of my brain so that I can see in B&W -- I got to be fairly good at translating from color to B&W and actually seeing the image in B&W, as most photogs do. But it was always just a good translation, never excellent, because what I could see in my head never quite matched what Tri-X delivered. This resulted in printing difficulties, both in chemical printing and ink jet printing. Lots of dodging and burning either way I printed. When I switched to TMY-2, this problem went away for me. TMY-2 is just a better match to what I visualize tonally. I've printed TMY-2 negatives as "straight prints" (no dodging and burning at all) a few times, when everything clicked. That never happened for me with 30 years of Tri-X.

So... once I started using TMY-2 I never went back. Didn't even finished the opened box of Tri-X I was part way through. But as you might expect, YMMV.

[Drew Wiley]

If you're working with moderate contrast or balanced studio lighting around Z3 to Z7 (for you Zone System junkies), you can surf the relatively straight line section of many of these film and use them at least partially analogously. But let's say you're asked to do environmental portraiture where the contrast might change, or some Willie Nelson type shows up who wants a rugged individualist persona and Karsh-style lighting, well, that's where familiarity with TMax becomes an asset.

[chris_4622]

Thanks for all the thought provoking responses. I like using Fp4 but my lights are not quite enough to get the shutter speed faster than 1/8sec at f8 which is workable, I've done it plenty of times but I'd like a little more flexibility in exposures and two more stops would help.

I tried Hp5 without much luck but maybe I'll have to experiment a bit more. I would try TMax but the cost...2 1/2 times the cost of Ilford.

[bob carnie]

HP5 is a lovely film for all types of silver printing needs, I doubt very much anyone here could tell the difference of two prints side by side from the two different films, same subject matter.. We are talking large format right. not minux or spy camera film.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm in the same boat today - wanted to go shoot 8x10, but don't want to thaw an expensive box of TMY400, so have FP4 in the holders. But our March winds have arrived early and I need faster film. Alas, I'll probably have to default to medium format and TMY roll film.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh hi again, Bob. I can sure see a difference, not just in detail, but tonality, specific working approach. I had to mask HP5 a lot more often or risk scrunching the tonality with minus development, which would be a pity given this films exquisite midtone potential. Just like lenses, it's not about point A to point B ala Zone System, but about real personality differences between these various films. I printed you a masked sample, but it might be a few more weeks before I send it. I'm due for a long nap right now. Due to snow delays, my wife arrived at the airport verrrry late last nite.

[bob carnie]

Oh hi again, Bob. I can sure see a difference, not just in detail, but tonality, specific working approach. I had to mask HP5 a lot more often or risk scrunching the tonality with minus development, which would be a pity given this films exquisite midtone potential. Just like lenses, it's not about point A to point B ala Zone System, but about real personality differences between these various films. I printed you a masked sample, but it might be a few more weeks before I send it. I'm due for a long nap right now. Due to snow delays, my wife arrived at the airport verrrry late last nite.

Yes Drew - but you have extraordinary eyes not like us mere mortals, for the rest of us I doubt there is a significant difference, When I first started out in my small Lab, I with our local Agfa and Kodak Reps tested over 40 prints from various films and developers of the same subject matter, then I printed all the negatives to match as close as I a mere mortal could.

I then mounted them all on a huge panel boards and invited a large group of people (photographers) with discerning eyes to view the prints and I as the expert would then talk about the vast differences in the films and developers.
To my ultimate horror, there was not a lot of difference and this is talking about 35mm film to 11 x14 print , I really had to stretch to prove the differences.

If the OP is talking large Format to normal size print I still stand by the comments above that us Mere Morta would not be able to see the difference in two side by side prints.

[Drew Wiley]

Nuance is the name of the game in my world. A little big here, a little bit there ... It all finally adds up to a real difference. Size has little to do with it.

[Pere Casals]

Not quite right, Pere. ..... Delta has an upsweep favoring midtone and highlight repro at the expense of shadow values ....

Drew, I don't see that D400 has an upsweep curve... just the counter, it has an slight shoulder while TMY goes a bit straighter..

175228


TMax is also spectrally unique in the manner all three primaries can be easily exp and dev to matching gamma

At the end you can match the spectral sensitivity of two BW films with the right spectral filtering in one of them... what I was pointing that the different spectral nature of the two films simply require an slightly different filtering to obtain what we want,

...of course with filters we modify spectral response way more than the difference of HP5 vs TMY.

[Drew Wiley]

You have to remember that small differences at the bottom might equate to two stops of printable difference. It's logarithmic, and I have plenty of experience testing. Why do you think old timers cover the return of Super XX, even though it was grainy as heck by modern standards. Or why do you think Kodak replaced it with TMax instead of something resembling FP4 or HP5. Another problem is that these curves are often make using popular rather than ideal developers - Kodak D76 or equivalent Ilford ID11, which put quite a sagging bow in TMax. Use either TMRS dev or the right tweak of HC110 and the straight line of TMax takes off the toe like a rocket (But still not as fast as Super XX or Bergger 200). Pyro is harder to plot due to the tanning stain, but the distinction is present in actual prints of high contrast subjects.

[Drew Wiley]

You also miss what I merely implied by matching gamma. It means getting nearly perfectly overlapping R,G,B curves from the same film developed the same amt, all together. Just did that earlier this wk. Try that with Ilford's best candidate - you'll be in for months of futility. Of course this is applicable to assembly color printing and irrelevant to b&w portraiture, but does inform you have different these films can really be, let's say at long exp with a strong contrast filter, where all your presumed factors go wacky, but TMax stays consistent.

[Drew Wiley]

A practical application in b&w printing: FP4 cannot build as much B gamma (contrast) as R&G. So I use this otherwise flaw to make blue-light low-contrast unsharp masks inverse to pyro stain for b&w printing. It would be less consistent if you used the full pan spectrum.

[Pere Casals]

IMHO, to explore HP5 vs TMY in LF portraiture, regarding OP's question, as you said, differential spectral sensitivity depending on exposure is completely irrelevant. What matters is that each film will just need a custom filtration to obtain what we want for an skin texture, a brighter or darker skin, and a relatively darker lips, depending perhaps on male/female, and also on the specific subject...

IHMO most important practical difference is that HP5 shows some shoulder for extreme highlights while TMY is more linear there, and this matters in how we cook highlights in the print, as glare texture in the face can be of extreme importance in a portrait.




...It means getting nearly perfectly overlapping R,G,B curves from the same film developed the same amt, all together...



Hmmm... this is a very interesting information !!

Thinking about it, I guess kodak had that capability from color film developments, in color film that "perfectly overlapping R,G,B" response you mention it's critical to get color accuracy and neutrality over all exposure range, if not a dark grey would end in another hue than a light grey.

I guess that a possibility to obtain that is to mix different emulsions of different grain formulations and also different dye sensitizations to obtain a final perfect overlap, such a development would had been critical for that massive color film production, but not that interesting for BW film manufacturers.


Dye sensitization usually works with different intensity in an smaller crystal than in the bigger ones, and in a "ball" one compared to a flat (tabular) one, or an epitaxial-growth one. I guess relative surface to crystal volume may have an impact.

Also TMax films (and other), being tabular, under the main emulsion they have another layer of cubic nature and very low speed, IIRC in the TMax films that cubic layer it's orthocromatic, but as that layer records only extreme highlights it's of little importance what spectral response it has, the important thing is if the grain formulation and placement delivers more a shoulder or a line.





... So I use this otherwise flaw to make blue-light low-contrast unsharp masks inverse to pyro stain for b&w printing. It would be less consistent if you used the full pan spectrum...


Regarding pyro with VC papers there is an additional effect, the stain also acts as a color filter that changes contrast, and that effect depends on the amount of stain, so at the end a variable contrast action is applied depending on density: more density, more stain, more filtering, more effect in the VC paper...

So, if using stain developers, the way th film takes the stain it's also important for VC papers...

[chris_4622]

Bob,
Thanks, I'm glad you chimed in. I'll give Hp5 another try in 5x7 before deciding on which film I'll order from Ilford for my Whole Plate size. BTW I make contact prints only.
I'm also planning to add more light.

[interneg]

At the end you can match the spectral sensitivity of two BW films with the right spectral filtering in one of them... what I was pointing that the different spectral nature of the two films simply require an slightly different filtering to obtain what we want,

...of course with filters we modify spectral response way more than the difference of HP5 vs TMY.

In theory, possibly. In reality, it's going to be hugely expensive to get filters made that accurately match the transmission & absorbance wavelengths of the sensitising & acutance dyes of specific films. The light loss would probably be drastic too. If it was possible in reality, the manufacturers would have done it a long time ago - making one film that does it all when correctly filtered would be far more profitable than making many films to handle differences in taste & needs.

[bob carnie]

Bob,
Thanks, I'm glad you chimed in. I'll give Hp5 another try in 5x7 before deciding on which film I'll order from Ilford for my Whole Plate size. BTW I make contact prints only.
I'm also planning to add more light.

Its a great film, I use it , FP4 pretty much exclusively and a lot of my client use it as well. The extra speed you get and the incredible tonal range one can squeeze out with good enlarger practice is limitless.

5 x7 would be a perfect size for this film, be comfortable knowing you are in company with many others using this film.

[Pere Casals]

In theory, possibly. In reality, it's going to be hugely expensive to get filters made that accurately match the transmission & absorbance wavelengths of the sensitising & acutance dyes of specific films. The light loss would probably be drastic too. If it was possible in reality, the manufacturers would have done it a long time ago - making one film that does it all when correctly filtered would be far more profitable than making many films to handle differences in taste & needs.

Well, a custom interference filter would be very expensive, but an absortion filter would be very easy to make, just take a dozen of anilines and let MATLAB play with their spectrums to find an optimal combination of dyes for a close match.

But this is irrelevant, just I was pointing is that for portrait we may want a certain "spectral" effect, and this concerns more the filtration we use than the native spectral sensitivity the film we use film has.

I found interesting the spectrums of Hoya Portrait and Intensifier filters...

175245

[Drew Wiley]

Kodak was attempting to replace several films with just one new superior category. What TMax didn't replace was Plus-X which was popular in portrait and fashion shoots for its "all toe" feature in sheet version. But if you think about it, what I just explained about the tricolor response of TMAX, it means they could also replace Ortho film popular for rugged ole men portraiture with something highly predictable with deep green filtration. How much of this film versatility was ever communicated to end users if a different question, but a first they did try to do this in special tech articles, some of which were never actually tested!

[Pere Casals]

Drew,

IMHO that then new film generation aimed a number of targets.

> Very, very fine grain for 135mm usage

> Extra resolving power also mostly useful for 135 format

> Less silver content

> A very linear curve oriented to work well with VC papers flexibility.


We have to remember that before Variable Contrast paper mass popularization in the very early 1980s (if was invented before WWII) a good way to do things it was using film toe and shoulder to compress shadows and highlights, and to leave the desired range for the mids.

VC introduced an amazing degree of flexibility in the printing process, so for example it was possible to burn certain areas of the print with a different contrast grade than the general exposure.

IMHO this was leading to the trend of capturing everything linear and then using VC flexibility to get the wanted result.

But then it happened that tabular also had drawbacks...

[Drew Wiley]

It was also when dye transfer printing was still "officially" alive for Kodak, so they needed a color separation film to replace Super-XX etc. But Kodak was already getting fickle about their own line of b&w printing papers. Too many divisions too juggle at once I guess, the right hand not knowing what the left was doing. But portraiture was one of the key markets Kodak oriented TMax to. Lots of photographers predictably whined or got the wrong impression when John Sexton was contracted to promote TMAX and did landscape work with it. They contracted studio names too, but it turned out to be a more stubborn market, esp given the fact TMax needs fussier exp and dev.

[Peter De Smidt]

My experience with TMY versus HP5+:
a) TMY has better reciprocity characteristics,
b) TMY is faster in my system,
c) TMY has finer grain,
d) TMY is much better for expansion development.

None of that is to say the HP5+ isn't a fine film. It is.

[peter schrager]

My experience with TMY versus HP5+:
a) TMY has better reciprocity characteristics,
b) TMY is faster in my system,
c) TMY has finer grain,
d) TMY is much better for expansion development.

None of that is to say the HP5+ isn't a fine film. It is.
Plus +1
Two totally different palates..tmy400 is probably the best all around film ever made..and it's not hard to develop..

[faberryman]

Not sure why its an HP5 vs TMY comparison. Wouldn't the fairer comparison be with Delta 400?

[Jerry Bodine]

Not sure why its an HP5 vs TMY comparison. Wouldn't the fairer comparison be with Delta 400?

Delta 400 is not available in sheet film for large format.

[chris_4622]

Not sure why its an HP5 vs TMY comparison. Wouldn't the fairer comparison be with Delta 400?

I never considered it. I was just looking for a way of picking up two stops of speed and my universe of film usage is very small. I'm trying to settle on the film (6 1/2 x 8 1/2) I will order when Ilford has their once a year offering. I asked here since there is a lot of experience, even though some of it is off topic/thread hijacking.

As an example: a box of TMY 5x7 is around $250 for 50 sheets. Fp4 is a little over $100 for 50. That $150 will add up quickly, money that could be spent on other gear. If there was a consensus that TMY was superior for portraiture it would make sense but I'm just not reading that in this thread.

[Drew Wiley]

Was Delta 400 ever made in sheets?

[Drew Wiley]

How big are you printing?

[faberryman]

Was Delta 400 ever made in sheets?
I apologize for starting the whole Delta 400 diversion. I didn't read the OP as carefully as I should have and just saw all the posts comparing HP5 to TMY. I've never used either in LF. I prefer FP4, but everybody has their favorite.

[interneg]

Was Delta 400 ever made in sheets?

I believe the first version of it was available in sheets, but it was subsequently altered (very early 2000s?) and since then I think it's been 135/120 only. It's certainly got the best / most comprehensive data sheet of any Ilford film.

[Oren Grad]

Was Delta 400 ever made in sheets?

Yes, the original version, labeled as "400 Delta" rather than "Delta 400", was available in sheets as well as rolls.

[Peter De Smidt]

Better for portraiture? Well, in my system TMY is twice as fast as HP5+. That allows using a smaller aperture or a faster shutter speed. Both can be important for portraiture.

[Pere Casals]

Better for portraiture? Well, in my system TMY is twice as fast as HP5+. That allows using a smaller aperture or a faster shutter speed. Both can be important for portraiture.

I don't find at all that TMY is twice the speed than HP5+, I see very similar shadow detail using box speed and Xtol.

It would be interesting to know why do you use HP5+ at half the speed than TMY...

[Fred L]

I never considered it. I was just looking for a way of picking up two stops of speed and my universe of film usage is very small. I'm trying to settle on the film (6 1/2 x 8 1/2) I will order when Ilford has their once a year offering. I asked here since there is a lot of experience, even though some of it is off topic/thread hijacking.

As an example: a box of TMY 5x7 is around $250 for 50 sheets. Fp4 is a little over $100 for 50. That $150 will add up quickly, money that could be spent on other gear. If there was a consensus that TMY was superior for portraiture it would make sense but I'm just not reading that in this thread.

Is that the Canham special order price since no one carries 5x7 TMY ? Also would it be more fair, price wise, to compare 320TXP to HP5 ? The price difference isn't as wide then ;)

[Peter De Smidt]

I don't find at all that TMY is twice the speed than HP5+, I see very similar shadow detail using box speed and Xtol.

It would be interesting to know why do you use HP5+ at half the speed than TMY...

Standard Zone System testing using a densitometer.

[Pere Casals]

Standard Zone System testing using a densitometer.

Peter,

My presonal tests with the Stouffer wedge tells me that both TMY and HP5 stamped box speeds are fair, being speed point at 1/10 of the Lux·second of the meter reading.

175280

Here HP5+ it's compared to Kodak TX and not to Kodak TMY, but well, perhaps it's enough to see that Ilford did not stamp an unfair box speed.

https://www.35mmc.com/13/05/2016/finding-go-black-white-film-guest-post-aukje/


One thing that can lead to mistakenly underrate HP5 after a calibration is using a too long exposure of the Stouffer, at 3 second exposure, if exposing for step 11 then step 16 is in fair LIRF, so not telling truth, I mention that because it is a mistake I had made in the past. In those conditions TMY has lower LIRF...

http://www.stouffer.net/T2115spec.htm

[Drew Wiley]

Depends on what you mean by speed. I dev in PMK. I shoot both TMY and HP5 at box speed. But to get HP5 onto the straight line section of the curve, you'd need a speed around 200. My preference is simply to avoid HP5 in high-contrast situations, which probably aren't common in portraiture anyway.

[Pere Casals]

Drew, in this case by speed I mean ISO speed, and this is having the toe beyond 3.3 stops underexposure... I cannot speak about stain developers, but IMHO both HP5 and TMY can deal with extreme contrast, single difference is that HP5 is a bit shouldered in the extreme highlights, this is not good or bad, it's different.

For some kinds of portraits we have glare in the faces, depending perhaps on rim light, in that case having textures in the glare is extremly beautiful, and it also can be a key advantage of film vs digital captures...

I have to say that I've seen awesome highlight textures from both films, I cannot say if one is better than the other, just I realize that anyway the limiting factor it's me, rather than the medium capability...

[Peter De Smidt]

I didn't make any claims about the films in other people's system. Just mine. I test using Fred Picker's method in the Zone VI Workshop, although I use 1/3 stop increments instead of 1/2 stop. I read negative densities using an X-rite densitometer, which I calibrate for each session. I found my EI with TMY + Xtol to be surprisingly high. And so I repeated the test 2 more times, over the course of a couple of weeks. They all matched. I then used the info for a photo trip. The negatives turned out as expected.

[Pere Casals]

I didn't make any claims about the films in other people's system. Just mine. I test using Fred Picker's method in the Zone VI Workshop, although I use 1/3 stop increments instead of 1/2 stop. I read negative densities using an X-rite densitometer, which I calibrate for each session. I found my EI with TMY + Xtol to be surprisingly high. And so I repeated the test 2 more times, over the course of a couple of weeks. They all matched. I then used the info for a photo trip. The negatives turned out as expected.

OK, but did you made the HP5 calibration that shows the ISO 200, would you upload the graph ?

I shot all TMY rolls at ISO 200, and then make an N-1, this is very good in my sunny Mediterranian...

Another key factor is that LF mechanical shutters had, when brand new, a +/- 30% accuracy specs, so 1/30 could be (when new) 1/20 or 1/40, and this is a full stop range. Then we can speak about my really "not new" shutters, the shutter tester oppened my eyes

Well, some say that rating a film 1/3 stop different makes wonders while not using a shutter tester to check real speeds !!!!

Of course, if not being sure about shutter real speeds best is to burn one stop...

but when going to velvia/provia it's a different game... "nail the exposure of waste sheets"

[Peter De Smidt]

I use a shutter speed tester, and I check the shutter of a lens before doing any exposure/development testing. I don't make curves. I check Zone I an Zone VIII densities above film base + fog, ala the Zone VI manual.

[Pere Casals]

I use a shutter speed tester, and I check the shutter of a lens before doing any exposure/development testing. I don't make curves. I check Zone I an Zone VIII densities above film base + fog, ala the Zone VI manual.

This a good practical way, as you measure the shutter speed I guess this implies you do it "in camera", so it accunts for most factors in play in your conditions.

...and of course one can rate each film as he likes, but perhaps to objectively compare films the ISO norm procedure is the best way, IMHO, anyway it has variables.

In fact, a serious manufacturer would do an wrong thing if overrating a film, most of users may use box speed, and if it is wrong then bad results are obtained, so they don't buy it anymore.



Commercial box speed may vary some 1/3 stop from the ISO measurement because it can be rounded to the closest commercial speed, norm states. Another variable is developer, manufacturer is free to make the calibration with any developer, but D-76 equivalent is assumed if developer not mentioned. And another variable is light, because particular spectral sensitivity some films vary more or less depending on the light source...


the x10 lux·second from speed point to meter point is a very well stablished technical parameter that's completely meaningful, we know that a metered spot it is just at the toe start if 3.3 stops underexposed, in standard development conditions, and this has some 1/3 stop variability because rounding, not more in the case of a serious manufacturer.

[Peter De Smidt]

I don't care how a manufacturer rates their film, or how they go about it, since under field conditions I don't use the methods they do to determine film speed. I use a different developer, developed to a different contrast index,...., and I use what I do because it's how I take photographs. Standard Zone System testing is a long-standing system for practical control of exposure and film development. It's not perfect., but it's seemed to work quite well for a lot of people for a long time. How is this quibbling about method helping anyone?

[bob carnie]

I have always used and recommended using HP5 at 200 , some of my clients use it at 160 ISO..

[Pere Casals]

I have always used and recommended using HP5 at 200 , some of my clients use it at 160 ISO..

And TMY, to compare?

[Pere Casals]

I don't care how a manufacturer rates their film, or how they go about it, since under field conditions I don't use the methods they do to determine film speed. I use a different developer, developed to a different contrast index,...., and I use what I do because it's how I take photographs. Standard Zone System testing is a long-standing system for practical control of exposure and film development. It's not perfect., but it's seemed to work quite well for a lot of people for a long time. How is this quibbling about method helping anyone?

Peter, there are a lot of ways to meter and to process, so practical film rating is very personal and elastic,

what surprises to me is that with same metering and (I guess) similar processing you find objectively TMY twice faster than HP5, because (at least with xtol) speed point of HP5 it's very close to the TMY one, in lux·seconds units, and both films are well linear from that point...

I'm confident you know what you do with the meter and with the calibration, but I don't understand how you find such an 1 stop difference...

[chris_4622]

Is that the Canham special order price since no one carries 5x7 TMY ? Also would it be more fair, price wise, to compare 320TXP to HP5 ? The price difference isn't as wide then ;)

Yes it was the price from Keith. As I mentioned earlier, the cost difference is significant.

[chris_4622]

Better for portraiture? Well, in my system TMY is twice as fast as HP5+. That allows using a smaller aperture or a faster shutter speed. Both can be important for portraiture.

Thanks for sharing this Peter.

[Vaughn]

Thanks all for this discussion! I have 100 sheets of 11x14 HP5+ that I will be using in Zion in April (tho it is not my goal to use all of it!). It does not easily build up the density range I like to work with, but should work nicely for me with scenes that already have a large brightness range. I'll be using staining developers and perhaps my standard Ilford PQ Universal Developer in some cases.

I have a limited amount of Efke 100IR in 11x14...as well as quite a few fogged sheets (>30) of it that I can use as 11x11, and I like the square. Expired, I rate it at ISO25 and it behaves well. I have FP4+, Acros, and a few others in 8x10 and smaller LF.

[interneg]

what surprises to me is that with same metering and (I guess) similar processing you find objectively TMY twice faster than HP5

Likely to do with the different toes of both films - TMY-II has a shorter toe than HP5+ & if you want to get definitively off the toe and on to the straight line section, that's going to affect your EI.

[interneg]

Yes it was the price from Keith. As I mentioned earlier, the cost difference is significant.

Quickest way to taste them would probably be to shoot a roll of each, widely bracketed & then process to a contrast index in the 0.52-0.58 range, contact print them well & see which general characteristics you prefer. The differences will be pretty obvious side by side, even on a 35mm contact sheet. TXP & HP5+ will be rather closer in character than TMY-II & HP5+.

[Peter De Smidt]

I have always used and recommended using HP5 at 200 , some of my clients use it at 160 ISO..

Bob, I had the same result.

[Pere Casals]

Likely to do with the different toes of both films - TMY-II has a shorter toe than HP5+ & if you want to get definitively off the toe and on to the straight line section, that's going to affect your EI.

Well, we cannot say that HP5 speed point (3.3 stops underexposure from box speed, at red lines) is completely outside the toe, but it's clearly in the good detail zone yet, in fact much better than (rolls) TX400...

175298

[Drew Wiley]

I prefaced my own comment with "high contrast" applications. HP5 will not yield good shadow gradation below Zone 3, TMY will because it has greater native contrast in the toe. In this respect, Ilford box speeds are routinely overly-optimistic. If you're only talking Z 3 to 8 they aren't. FP4 is steeper than HP5, but almost a zone or EV stop less than either TMax film. The other thing I like about TMax is that you can enlarge it a lot more without getting grainy or mushy. HP5 is a great film, but I don't like enlarging it more than 3X. With TMax I can not only use my 8X10, but if there's a nervous portrait sitter, or they want their dog in the shot, I can have a backup MF camera loaded with the same film, or even 35mm with an analogous perspective focal-length lens.

[interneg]

Well, we cannot say that HP5 speed point (3.3 stops underexposure from box speed, at red lines) is completely outside the toe, but it's clearly in the good detail zone yet, in fact much better than (rolls) TX400...

175298

Without knowing what developer, dilution, temperature or agitation regime these curves represent, there are very few conclusions that can be drawn from them, other than that the TX curve is lumpy enough to doubt the quality of the work that went into plotting it.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't have any experience with Xtol, but under-dev with D76 and its clones will yield enough sag in the TMax curve to superficially resemble several Ilford films. But that's like saying you can drive around with only 15 lbs of tire pressure. Yes you can, but ....

[Michael R]

It's always interesting to see how many incorrect things Drew can fit into each post.

[Drew Wiley]

Dream on. People who have actually done their homework have come to the same conclusions, and right from Day One, Kodak published a family of curves of D76 VERSUS what they recommended in order to get the most out of these films.

[Michael R]

Nice try, but again, totally incorrect.

[Drew Wiley]

Ho hum. I got multiple binders of utterly predictable densitometers plots on TMax under a whole suite of variables. As I mentioned earlier, it was designed to replace certain commercial or industrial film, and not just pictorial or photo studio. More TMY sheet film still probably goes to technical or industrial use. Certain specialty labs stake their whole process standardization on known characteristics which you've probably never thought of, Michael.

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/TMY-D76.png

Does this help ? From the Win Plotter (http://btzs.org/Software/Plotter.htm) collection of BTZS film tests: Kodak TMY in D-76

Is this evidence of a sag with shorter development ? They all look pretty linear to me.

I'm no expert.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, that looks quite characteristic of D76. Certain people, esp Ctein and myself wanted to straighten out the extreme low-contrast sweep which plagued Pan Masking film, while finding a suitable replacement once that specialty film was discontinued. The progressive upsweep in D76 with TMX or FP4 was actually useful in Cuba printing, but a liability in Dye Transfer, and sheer voodoo in color neg masking, which needs to be much more subtle. He published his Muir Softshot formula, and considerably later, I came up with a special tweak of HC-110. Both use toe-cutters. Initially, Kodak recommended HC110 B for the best linearity at normal to high contrast, but then came out with TMRS. The main problem with it is the 75° temp necessary for optimum results, which can lead to edge frilling. It's also expensive to use. But at double-strength, one-shot 75F, TMax launches straight off the toe like a rocket. But for pictorial or portrait use, I greatly prefer the printing control of pyro stain.

[Pere Casals]

Likely to do with the different toes of both films - TMY-II has a shorter toe than HP5+ & if you want to get definitively off the toe and on to the straight line section, that's going to affect your EI.


Better for portraiture? Well, in my system TMY is twice as fast as HP5+. That allows using a smaller aperture or a faster shutter speed. Both can be important for portraiture.

IMHO you are right in that toe is different, and this may lead to a different (longer HP5) exposure if wanting full contrast and detail in the 3 stops underexposed areas.

Per definition of ISO Speed we have exactly 3.3 stops underexposure latitude, to the speed point, at left of it we just have a 0.1D range, also per definition of Speed point.

So, at the end, what's the difference ? with N development IMHO HP5 at -3.3 stops still has not reached the full linearity and it's still compressing a bit the shadows, but by -2.5 stops it's clearly in the linear side.

But this is not good or bad, at the end we have a 2.0D static contrast limit in the print or the monitor, while the scene normally has more range, normally we have to compress shadows and highlights to allow enough range for the mids and the volumes, so anyway we are to compress shadows in the print, if we don't do it in the negative we are to do it in the print.

We have to remember that Karsh was doing extensive usage of toe compression of the shadows, IMHO he was making accurate shadow metering to compress, then had more freedom with graded papers.

What I say is that it's irrelevant if a film has toe or not, what's relevant is if one is Karsh or not. A good portrait comes from a good photographer and from mastering the medium and gear one uses.

HP5 and TMY are very different films for small format because grain, for LF we have slightly different toe and some different filtering for the same result, but IMHO a portrait photographer won't obtain better or worse results because that, but because him.

[Pere Casals]

About the shadow compression I'd like to point something else.

IMHO result is equivalent if deep shadows are compressed in the film toe or in the print shoulder, if we want a "contrast increase" in the shadows we'll need to use selective additional tools anyway, one is scim, another is split grade printing/dodging/burning.

I guess that stain developers have an effect there, because with VC papers the stain color also works as a selective contrast filter depending on density...

[chris_4622]

Quickest way to taste them would probably be to shoot a roll of each, widely bracketed & then process to a contrast index in the 0.52-0.58 range, contact print them well & see which general characteristics you prefer. The differences will be pretty obvious side by side, even on a 35mm contact sheet. TXP & HP5+ will be rather closer in character than TMY-II & HP5+.

Thanks for this simple yet overlooked (on my part) solution. I remember something about the UV dye in TMY II smaller formats so I'll avoid that by buying a 10 sheet box of 8x10 and cutting two pieces of 5x7 and test that way with a model. Then the same with Hp5. I use Pyrotcat HD and contact print on Lodima. I'll report back here. Thanks to everyone.

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - choice of dev and degree of dev can appreciably affect shadow repro in the print, along with choice of paper itself. The much greater flexibility of TMax is quite evident in, say, an outdoor wedding portrait where you've got a bride in white lace and groom in a dark silk suit. Sure, you can minus develop the film to avoid the "soot and chalk" look, but that just pancakes a lot of the lovely microtanality and detail that sets large format work apart. I'm speaking of ordinary silver printing. Some contact papers like an overexposed neg. I did often deliberately overexp HP5 for landscape shots, then rein it back in using unsharp masking. It has a different look from TMY prints. This is of course all about technical options. One's personal taste and style is the ultimate arbiter.

[Pere Casals]

Pere - choice of dev and degree of dev can appreciably affect shadow repro in the print, along with choice of paper itself. The much greater flexibility of TMax is quite evident in, say, an outdoor wedding portrait where you've got a bride in white lace and groom in a dark silk suit. Sure, you can minus develop the film to avoid the "soot and chalk" look, but that just pancakes a lot of the lovely microtanality and detail that sets large format work apart. I'm speaking of ordinary silver printing. Some contact papers like an overexposed neg. I did often deliberately overexp HP5 for landscape shots, then rein it back in using unsharp masking. It has a different look from TMY prints. This is of course all about technical options. One's personal taste and style is the ultimate arbiter.

Drew, I agree with you, but anyway I find TMY vs HP5 has a very slight difference in the shadows, perhaps 1/3 stop, also just using xtol one has 1/3 stop advantage in shadow detail over d-76... the nice thing of TMY is that it works very nice with TM developer...

Rather than shadows, for portrait I find highlights is what's really interesting.

I try to follow a bit what happens is cinematography... present digital movie camera manufacturers are all day long speaking about shadow detail and ISO 50 millions, but film cinematographers working for spielberg, tarantino or nolan just smile :) , they do the job with with the V3 50D, and that job cannot me matched by any digital bug with a magic LUT inside it, or in the post.

The key thing in a portrait isn't the shadows, you always can throw more light, use reflectors or place subject under the right light, or expose more, but managing volumes and beautiful glares on the skin is not that easy.

For some using illumination looks a sin... but Karsh used illumination extensively...

Anyway IMHO a portrait may also play with shadows, let me point this (hp5) one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/55873497@N04/24836092967/in/faves-125592977@N05/

[Drew Wiley]

I don't do a lot of portrait work, but the end result is that they were paying per print - something serious in a nice frame. Otherwise, they would have asked for someone else. They want high quality prints. But in this area, the sheer ethnic diversity favors a highly versatile film like TMax. But it's not a "wing-it" film that forgives casual exposure.

[Drew Wiley]

I should add that someone up the street is making a living on black and white darkroom portrait prints, and supporting a small studio in a pricey neighborhood. So there is a niche for it.

[Pere Casals]

...highly versatile film like TMax...

Well, I don't know if I'm mistaken, but I find HP5 is more versatile at the shot time, as the moderate HP5 shoulder prevents better excessive densities that may easy happen in a linear film. But in the darkroom the linear TMY capture, if good, it offers more verastility, as we can decide how we compress (the uncompressed) highlights...


I should add that someone up the street is making a living on black and white darkroom portrait prints, and supporting a small studio in a pricey neighborhood. So there is a niche for it.

This not very common, sadly, but I thing that it has great value, perhaps that niche may expand in the future, it would be nice...

[Drew Wiley]

Whatever. I'm comfortable with both, but recognize their respective pros and cons.

[interneg]

Thanks for this simple yet overlooked (on my part) solution. I remember something about the UV dye in TMY II smaller formats so I'll avoid that by buying a 10 sheet box of 8x10 and cutting two pieces of 5x7 and test that way with a model. Then the same with Hp5. I use Pyrotcat HD and contact print on Lodima. I'll report back here. Thanks to everyone.

It's the sheet TMX that has the UV absorber - rollfilm TMY-II is fine as far as I know.

[Ken Lee]

But at double-strength, one-shot 75F, TMax launches straight off the toe like a rocket.


http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/TMY-TMRS-75.png

Here's the BTZS test for TMY in TMRS 1:7 at 75 degrees. Is this the effect you're referring to, or are you referring to another dilution ?

(1:7 is the strongest dilution for that developer and film combination provided with the WinPlotter (http://btzs.org/Software/Plotter.htm) collection).

I see an increase in speed (a fraction of an f/stop) given by TMRS, but with my limited grasp the BTZS testing charts for HP5+ and TMY in several developers look more similar than different. Am I overlooking something ?

[Drew Wiley]

I don't know all the parameters there - dilution, time, temp. But it looks low contrast. TMRS is a high-contrast dev. See Kodak's own published curves. What does the 1+11 mean on the header? Hopefully not 1:11. That would sure explain the anemia. If someone wants to try high dilutions, go HC-110.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh I see 75F.

[Drew Wiley]

Note that I don't recommend TMRS for portrait work. They apparently wanted to replace at least a few Tech Pan uses with TMX. Also high contrast color separation negs where the overall contrast is precisely lowered using a registered pre-mask.

[chris_4622]

It's the sheet TMX that has the UV absorber - rollfilm TMY-II is fine as far as I know.

I thought the LF community had asked that the UV blocker not be put in sheet film so the alternative processes would work...either way I bought some sheet film since that is what I will use for portraits.

[Drew Wiley]

Again, there might have been some distinct scientific or technical reason for doing this.

[chris_4622]

I exposed 3 sheets each of Hp5 and T-Max 400. All were exposed with the same iso 400, developed in Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 73 degrees for 7, 9, 11 minutes.

I made prints of each negative using the same printing times for each corresponding negative. No dodging or burning, just straight prints developed the same.

The 9 minute negatives produced the most balanced prints, the difference between the Hp5 and T-Max 400 are slight but noticeable, mostly in the shadows, with T-Max being more open and the overall look of the print seemingly a bit crisper. Maybe a little more exposure with the Hp5 would help the shadows which is what people who use the film say they do.

Tones rendered very similar for these outdoor exposures. Next I will try with a model but at this point the extra cost of Kodak film isn't something I can justify given these results. I like the film but at what cost...

[Drew Wiley]

Sounds typical, but the distinction becomes more pronounced at the longer dev times suited to TMY. Ive been dodging the cost issue by shooting FP4, at least on calmer days (not today! - way too windy and sloppy for any kind of view camera). But I do have a good stash of 8X10 TMY in the freezer, bought
at half the going rate.

[Pere Casals]

I exposed 3 sheets each of Hp5 and T-Max 400. All were exposed with the same iso 400, developed in Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 73 degrees for 7, 9, 11 minutes.

I made prints of each negative using the same printing times for each corresponding negative. No dodging or burning, just straight prints developed the same.

The 9 minute negatives produced the most balanced prints, the difference between the Hp5 and T-Max 400 are slight but noticeable, mostly in the shadows, with T-Max being more open and the overall look of the print seemingly a bit crisper. Maybe a little more exposure with the Hp5 would help the shadows which is what people who use the film say they do.

Tones rendered very similar for these outdoor exposures. Next I will try with a model but at this point the extra cost of Kodak film isn't something I can justify given these results. I like the film but at what cost...


This test won't enlight at all a good criterion to select one film or the other for portrait.

You used same exposure, development time, (sure) agitation, developer, pyrocat formula and "printing time".

Optimal technical and subjective result for each film would require a different optimal setting for every one of the parameters you mention.

Of course, outdoor shooting it's very different than portrait shooting. For portraiture illumination (natural or studio) is a key issue, and of course you would illuminate very different for different subject, filtration, visualization and used film.

What I mean is that LF film portraiture has an impressive degree of aesthetical possibilities, and film choice is way less important than knowing how to use a film (and all the other factors, including psichology) to obtain the aesthetical impact you want.

In that way, one can review impressive portraits made long ago with Paleolithic films (Super-XX, or collodion), impressive images that today are pretty uncommon, bogart by karsh, for example, dovima with elephants, or all shot by sally mann.

My view is that the important thing is how one uses a particular film, more than the film itself. And I've to say that I need to learn a lot about that...

[Drew Wiley]

In the words of Miro, art has only degenerated since the days of the cave painters. And at times, I certainly wish that Paleolithic films like Super-XX still
existed!

[Pere Casals]

In the words of Miro, art has only degenerated since the days of the cave painters. And at times, I certainly wish that Paleolithic films like Super-XX still
existed!

you exaggerate a bit :)

... but Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni made The Pietà with a hammer... so may be tools aren't that important !

He said that the sculpture was inside the boulder, and that he only was removing the stone that was over it...

I like to think that a great photograph is in the light, and that we just need to take that light carefully... treating that light with respect... well, not easy. But IMHO a photographer needs a good criterion about light, at least it's what I try to learn...

[Drew Wiley]

Michaelangelo also had a giant budget. Entire countries were bankrupted to pay for precious stones getting ground up into paint pigment. And marble? Well,
I couldn't afford real marble marbles when I was a kid. But look at what cave painters could do with a little iron oxide and charcoal !

[Peter De Smidt]

Just use HP5+ if cost is an issue. It's a fine film. I prefer to use it with Xtol or DDX, both of which will minimize grain and enhance speed a bit.

[Bernice Loui]

One method to deal with B&W film grain is to limit enlargement to no more than 4x, typically 2x and use the entire film image space allowed. In the case of 5x7 film, holding the enlargement to about 2x and using the full sheet of film yields a 10x14 print then dry mounted to a 16x20 board is big enough for what I'm after. Once the limitation of striving for fine grain has been significantly reduced, this allows a host of high accutance-edge effect developers (HC-110, Rodinal and etc. Personally, do not like fine grain developers at all) to be used with a wider range of films. This affects overall tonality, allows more gradual tonal transitions in print, increased visual perception of definition and improves visual quality of prints.

This is one of the prime reasons why, IMO 4x5 is too small a film format for B&W. 8x10 offers these special qualities too, but it comes with a set of very significant trade-offs. The consideration for fine grain remains along with a host of other limitations that are a result of 4x5 or smaller film format is a reality one needs to accept rather than ever seeking that magical item to cure this issue that does not exist due to the way Nature really is.

While HP-5 (hint, use HP-5 at ISO 200-160) does have limitations as discussed in depth on previous post, it can offer very nice prints... if used properly and it's limitations understood and used as a strength rather than a limitation.

There is no ideal film for every image making situation. IMO, it is better to master the materials and means at hand to achieve what is possible knowing, accepting and utilizing the limitations and strengths of what materials, post process system (developing, print, print mounts and all involved), camera, lens to achieve what can be possible rather than grind and fret over of what the overall system can never allow or do.


Bernice

[Pere Casals]

While HP-5 (hint, use HP-5 at ISO 200-160) does have limitations as discussed in depth on previous post, it can offer very nice prints... if used properly and it's limitations understood and used as a strength rather than a limitation.


Bernice,

Anyway let me add that personal film rating depends on how we meter. IMHO for portraiture in particular this is important.

We can spot meter in the cheek illuminated by key light or the one illuminated by fill light, or the mean. We can place the cheek at Z-V or Z-VII. We may have a direct light or a difuse one. We can meter incident, but for the key or for the fill... we can meter the glare in the face from key or from rim, and :) even we can take the average of the scene with a white or black background.

What I mean is that even if one photographer is rating a film at 200 and another one at 400 it can happen that both would end using the same exposure for an scene.

...but I agree that overexposing a bit (most) negative films works as a safety factor, and perhaps HP5+ could be overexposed 1/3 stop more than TMY if we don't want the HP5 toe footprint.

IMHO at the end we'll need compressed shadows in the print to allow space for mids, then we can compress it in the negative or in the print, but with TMY we should do it in the print...

Regards

[Bernice Loui]

Film choice and films "speed" used remains only a fraction of what goes into a finished print.

There remains the entire print making process including print spotting and print mounting before the image is done.

Choice of print paper (VC, fiber, RC or __ ), enlarger and it's light source (cold light, dichroic color with VC paper, multi bulb, condenser, mix box and more), enlarger optics (lens used), print exposure time, print developer (Dektol, two developer and more), toning, washing...

Print exposure, burn, dodge, solorize, flash-fog and numerous other print "performance moves" to alter print rendition.

Then there is print spotting, mat board (color and texture affects the print presentation), position of the print as mounted on the mat board..

Essentially, focusing and sweating too much over a single item can cause myopia to all the other items required to produce a finished print... and these items are interactive with each making varying degrees of contribution to the finished print.



Bernice

[Pere Casals]

Essentially, focusing and sweating too much over a single item can cause myopia to all the other items required to produce a finished print... and these items are interactive with each making varying degrees of contribution to the finished print.

Bernice

this is important... one may see the trees for the forest...

[Greg Y]

Bernice, I appreciated your view, though the OP never asked about grain, but rather about the differing characteristics of the two films. There are some mighty fine photographers who use 4x5 rather effectively....Among the LF photographer friends of mine, there is much more talk of tonality, than grain size. I am in total agreement with you about the collective characteristics that make the sum total of an image.

[Drew Wiley]

And lots of little things eventually all add up. But many of these kinds of questions cannot be answered without a degree of experimentation to decide which film YOU prefer.