Camera scanning HP5+ and TMax 400 (TMY-2) – a comparison

[rdeloe]

I’ve been searching for a black and white film and developer combination I can really get to know well in my hybrid workflow. I’m camera scanning my 4x5 negatives to produce 2,666 ppi files. I often find myself in low light situations, so I wanted a relatively fast film that could be shot at box speed or faster without too many compromises. Additionally, I don’t love a lot of grain.

For the developer, I’ve decided on Xtol for a variety of reasons such as availability, convenience, reliability, and environmental friendliness. For films I’ve been evaluating my old standby Ilford HP5+, which I’ve used a lot, and TMax 400 (which I’ve never used before).

This post is a report on some early comparison results. Many people here at LFF and at other sites have commented at length on both films, so not much more needs to be said on that front. However, I haven’t been able to find a lot of useful information on how these emulsions do in a hybrid film-digital workflow. Lots of people had opinions on different emulsions perform, but I couldn’t find a side-by-side comparison.

To get right to the point, TMax 400 (TMY-2) is a remarkable film if you want what I want. HP5+ is a lovely film too, but TMY-2 is leagues better in every respect that mattered to me (shadow detail, handling of highlights, fineness of the grain, ability to capture fine details, and “scan-ability”). If you are shooting film specifically to scan, it's worth careful consideration.

The usual disclaimers: This test is obviously not conclusive. Your needs are different than mine. Your preferences and tastes are probably different too. Other people are much better at squeezing the best out of each film than me…. (And please don’t tell me that HP5+ does better shot at ISO 200 or whatever. I want a film that works at ISO 400!). Seriously, this is just a little side-by-side comparison in case other people are curious about the performance of these two films in this kind of hybrid workflow. I’m not trying to convince anyone who loves HP5+ to switch to TMY-2. They’re different. You decide.

Some technical notes:

* I shot both films at box speed on the same camera, at the same time, with the same lens. The scene was in a room that had a huge range of dark to light, and lots of different tones and textures (furniture, drapes, plants, snowy scene out a picture window). Nothing changed between shots except the film, and the exposure each film received.
* I processed the sheets separately in Xtol 1+1 at 20 degrees C in a Stearman SP 445 tank. The HP5+ sheet received 12 minutes, while the TMY-2 sheet received 8.75 minutes these are the Kodak/Ilford recommended times for this developer at box speed. Agitation was the same for both.
* Once the negatives were dry, I fluid mounted them on a sheet of glass and camera-scanned them with a Fuji X-T2, with a target resolution of 2,666 ppi. You can read about my setup here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150162-Camera-scanning-on-the-cheap-an-example-approach
* Finally, I imported the scanned images into Lightroom. I did not use any sharpening or noise reduction. These pictures are “straight”.

So with all that out of the way, here are some side-by-side pictures. They’re all at 1:1, which translated into 926 pixels wide out of the roughly 13,175 total widths of each scan.

(1) Orchid against picture window

This bright white orchid was facing a picture window and a snowy garden. Not only does the TMY-2 negative capture more of the details in the snowy background, but also it gets a lot more detail in the orchid petals. There’s also a lot less grain.

187741

(2) Sign and orchid

I positioned a note card with the film, lens and development information so I could keep track. Notice the clarity of the writing in the TMY-2 scan, the smoothness of the marble table top, and the textured pattern in the flower pot.

187742

(3) Flower pot

This part of the picture was not in the plane of sharpest focus so details are a bit softer. The smoothness of the plastic pot inside the pottery pot is striking to me. The patterned pot and the hardwood floor show a lot more detail too.

187743

(4) Drapes and leaves

The folds in the sheer drapes have turned to mush in the HP5+ version; in the TMY-2 version there’s loads of detail and texture. The leaves of the bougainvillea are also more distinct and more finely detailed in the TMY-2 version.

187744


In conclusion, I really like TMY-2. It’s doing what I want really well. I still like HP5+ for times when I actually want a grainier, “classic” look. But based on what I’m looking for in a film, TMY-2 is a great choice. As usual, your results not only may vary, they most likely will vary.

[Peter De Smidt]

Yep. :)

[rdeloe]

Yep indeed!

One of the best explanations of how the scanner and the film interact is found in this thread, in particular Bruce Watson's response at post #12: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?31574-xtol-dilutions

The digital sensor and the film definitely interact in strange and sometimes unpredictable ways. Here's a 4:! magnification of a piece of carved wood furniture in the scene on which this thread is based. Of course 4:1 is not real-world relevant. But it reveals some of what's going on.

187781

Leaving aside the much better handling of tones in the TMY-2 version, it's almost not possible in the HP5+ version to see the grain in the wood of the piece. It's hard to see in the tiny images I can post on LFF, but if you could see this at full size on your screen, you would recognize clear sensor artifacts in the HP5+ version that are largely absent in the TMY-2 version; I'm referring to the blotchy patterns of light and dark pixels in the HP5+ version. It's hard to believe that these were made with the same digital camera.

[jp]

Tmax400 is an amazing film.. I think it's perhaps more detailed than fp4+ but don't have any proof. I bought plenty of it before the last big price hike.

If it's the tone difference are a concern, you can fix that in photoshop by adding some inflection to the curve in the area where those tones are different. But of course it's also nice to capture the tones as you want them without needing much of that. Further tuning of exposing and processing from factory suggestions will be helpful in both films too.

[interneg]

TMY-II is an astonishing film - if it was ISO 100 it'd be pretty amazing, the fact it's ISO 400 is a remarkable feat from the photoengineers involved. That, said HP5 & TMY-II are quite different films in both colour sensitivity & sensitometry. I happen to prefer HP5's tonality for the sort of stuff I photograph. Cost is irrelevant if it makes it easier to get the negatives that you need/ want.

[Bruce Watson]

In conclusion, I really like TMY-2. It’s doing what I want really well. I still like HP5+ for times when I actually want a grainier, “classic” look. But based on what I’m looking for in a film, TMY-2 is a great choice. As usual, your results not only may vary, they most likely will vary.

IMHO TMY-2 is the best B&W film ever made. And probably the best that ever will be made since photographic film R&D is essentially nonexistent at this point.

My only regret in photography is that I didn't try TMY sooner. Well, maybe not my *only* regret...

[rdeloe]

Tmax400 is an amazing film.. I think it's perhaps more detailed than fp4+ but don't have any proof. I bought plenty of it before the last big price hike.

If it's the tone difference are a concern, you can fix that in photoshop by adding some inflection to the curve in the area where those tones are different. But of course it's also nice to capture the tones as you want them without needing much of that. Further tuning of exposing and processing from factory suggestions will be helpful in both films too.


When I made these shots with HP5+ and TMY-2 I also made them with FP4+, so I can answer your question about how FP4+ compares to TMY-2 when I develop and scan the FP4+. Stay tuned.


For this comparison I used the "straight" files to give people more of an apples-to-apples comparison. I could make good prints from either negative with some adjustments in LR. However, I think the TMY-2 negative still has an edge in that respect. I've found that while it's really important to get a good RAW capture in digital as your starting point, it might be even more important with film scans. I'm finding that large adjustments degrade the image a lot, e.g., coarsening the appearance of grain in areas of smooth tone. So here the TMY-2 negative pulls ahead again; TMY-2 seems to handle big differences from darks to lights better, and has better local contrast (see above comparison of the carved furniture piece).

[rdeloe]

IMHO TMY-2 is the best B&W film ever made. And probably the best that ever will be made since photographic film R&D is essentially nonexistent at this point.

My only regret in photography is that I didn't try TMY sooner. Well, maybe not my *only* regret...


I agree, and I surely hope they stay in business! Worst case scenario I have three freezers...

[Larry Gebhardt]

So with all that out of the way, here are some side-by-side pictures. They’re all at 1:1, which translated into 926 pixels wide out of the roughly 13,175 total widths of each scan.


Looks like the attached crops got resized. They seem to be have been shrunk to 750px wide.

[rdeloe]

Looks like the attached crops got resized. They seem to be have been shrunk to 750px wide.

Sadly 750 px wide is the maximum permitted on LFF. For larger images I'd have to post them off-site and link back.

I think the confusion is because I was referring to each frame in the comparison being 926 pixels wide -- but that's on my monitor. I wanted to give people a sense what 1:1 meant in the context of an image that's 13,175 pixels wide.

[Peter De Smidt]

IMHO TMY-2 is the best B&W film ever made..

I agree! The combination of fine grain, speed, reciprocity and consistency characteristics are unmatched by any other film I know of.

[rdeloe]

I promised some observations on how FP4+ did on the same scene. I'm not bothering with pictures because of the 750 pix constraint. However, the results are not surprising:
* FP4+ does better than HP5+ on the things that matter to me (see above). You'd expect finer grain, and you get finer grain.
* TMY-2 is still the champ, but FP4+ is a very decent choice if you're after smooth tones and good acuity. I'd say it handled the extremes of shadows to highlights better than HP5+, but still not as well as TMY-2. In some parts of the image I'd even given FP4+ the win for fineness of grain in areas of low detail, but TMY-2 resolves details that are lost on both FP4+ and HP5+. Amazing.

My bottom-line is that FP4+ is a nice film and does very well. May it always be available for people who want this look in their pictures. Nonetheless, the summary observation Peter makes just above this post is bang on. Based on my evaluation, if you're shooting film with the goal of scanning, then TMY-2 in Xtol 1+1 is really superb on all fronts. There's just no downside for me.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I have not shot Tmax400 yet, but a lot of Tmax100 and I like it alot. Have you done a comparison of Tmax100?

[Pere Casals]

(4) Drapes and leaves

187744

In conclusion, I really like TMY-2. It’s doing what I want really well. I still like HP5+ for times when I actually want a grainier, “classic” look. But based on what I’m looking for in a film, TMY-2 is a great choice. As usual, your results not only may vary, they most likely will vary.


First, congratulations for testing (and sharing your findings), this is good way to know what works or not for you.


Let me point some thoughts...

1) First HP5+ is a classic cubic crystal emulsion that can be better compared to TXP than to TMY. D400 is not made in sheets, ok...

2) You used 1:1 dilution, if you don't want grain in the HP5+ then please use developer stock or add some chem to developer to enhance solvent action

3) HP5+ and TXP grain are of high aesthetic value but won't be seen with the kind of scanning you mention. In fact it's not easy to deal with grain structure in the hybrid workflow.



(And please don’t tell me that HP5+ does better shot at ISO 200 or whatever. I want a film that works at ISO 400!).


Please, don't tell me that ISO 400 is needed for LF. We nearly always shot with a tripod... even with a handheld glaflex we may use a monopod...

What I see in your samples is that exposures are quite different and histograms are also too different for a good comparisson. You have something not consistent in the side by side.

Also a LF shutter was sold new with -/+30% accuracy in the specs, so 1/30 can be 1/20 or 1/40 and still in specs, this is a full stop range. If you don't use a shutter tester you don't know if you made those tests at ISO 275 of ISO 550.

Then make this test: take a MF camera, (say a hassy, P67...) and load TMX or Delta 100: ISO 100

Also shot the same scene with TMY-II 4x5: ISO 400

As the MF lens is faster at peak performance aperture then you have the same effective speed.

...and you will find similar Image quality for a fraction of the cost. Of course we may want to shot 4x5 anyway. See MTF charts in kodak datasheets TMX vs TMY or test side by side that. A modern sharp LF lens is more limited by TMY than by TMX, as TMY modulation transfer falls from 30Lp/mm.

What I say is that this test it's useful for the way you do things, but a photographer that adjusts well his process he may get very similar results with different films, he may perhaps shot some 2/3 stop up or down for a particular film, there is no problem to shot TMY at ISO 200 or ISO 422.3 if one gets what he wants.

[Ted Baker]

These pictures are “straight”.

That's not really true IMHO. There are more complex methods i.e. using math, but a simple method to get a similar density and contrast is to use some kind of grey scale in your photograph to calibrate the two pictures you are attempting to compare.

[rdeloe]

That's not really true IMHO. There are more complex methods i.e. using math, but a simple method to get a similar density and contrast is to use some kind of grey scale in your photograph to calibrate the two pictures you are attempting to compare.

"Straight" as in "converted to TIF, with no adjustments in Lightroom".

[rdeloe]

1) First HP5+ is a classic cubic crystal emulsion that can be better compared to TXP than to TMY. D400 is not made in sheets, ok...


Yes, I know. But so what? I was choosing between HP5+ and TMY-2.



2) You used 1:1 dilution, if you don't want grain in the HP5+ then please use developer stock or add some chem to developer to enhance solvent action


See original post in this thread where I explain that I wanted to use Xtol at 1+1, and where I acknowledged that other people could get different (perhaps better) results with their approach, but I was sharing what I was doing for me...



3) HP5+ and TXP grain are of high aesthetic value but won't be seen with the kind of scanning you mention. In fact it's not easy to deal with grain structure in the hybrid workflow.


I don't think there's much point about talking about "grain" when we're scanning film. We're not scanning the grain unless we're using a microscope. Bruce Watson explains this nicely in the post I linked to above. What I'm really comparing is how the Fuji X-Trans III sensor handles the characteristics of the different films. X-Trans III sensors have a distinct signature relative to Bayer sensors. In my comparison my Fuji camera in my setup produces a file more pleasing to me when "scanning" TMY-2 than when scanning HP5+. Emphasis on more pleasing to me. If someone else can get files from scanning HP5+ with different digital technologies that are pleasing to them, that's wonderful.




Please, don't tell me that ISO 400 is needed for LF. We nearly always shot with a tripod... even with a handheld glaflex we may use a monopod...


Pere, I can't imagine a scenario where I would tell you what you need in your photography. I find it really annoying when people tell me what I need and don't need. If there was no need for ISO 400 film in LF photography then HP5+ and TMY-2 would not exist.

Go look at what I actually do before telling me what I need. https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Works/How-we-see-trees/ This series was shot in digital. The light came through the trees for short times only during the periods I was able to work. Exposures were often 10 to 20 seconds or longer because it was early or late in the day. Sometimes I had to re-shoot multiple times because the light was right at the start of the exposure, and wrong at the end because a cloud covered the sun. With digital, I could re-shoot as needed. With large format, not so much. So yes, I "need" faster film because a shot might work with 10 seconds, but not 20 seconds.





What I see in your samples is that exposures are quite different and histograms are also too different for a good comparisson. You have something not consistent in the side by side.

Also a LF shutter was sold new with -/+30% accuracy in the specs, so 1/30 can be 1/20 or 1/40 and still in specs, this is a full stop range. If you don't use a shutter tester you don't know if you made those tests at ISO 275 of ISO 550.

Then make this test: take a MF camera, (say a hassy, P67...) and load TMX or Delta 100: ISO 100

Also shot the same scene with TMY-II 4x5: ISO 400

As the MF lens is faster at peak performance aperture then you have the same effective speed.

...and you will find similar Image quality for a fraction of the cost. Of course we may want to shot 4x5 anyway. See MTF charts in kodak datasheets TMX vs TMY or test side by side that. A modern sharp LF lens is more limited by TMY than by TMX, as TMY modulation transfer falls from 30Lp/mm.

What I say is that this test it's useful for the way you do things, but a photographer that adjusts well his process he may get very similar results with different films, he may perhaps shot some 2/3 stop up or down for a particular film, there is no problem to shot TMY at ISO 200 or ISO 422.3 if one gets what he wants.


No good deed goes unpunished on photography forums... I hoped that by writing the following in the original post it would be crystal clear that I'm not doing a scientific test, and that I'm simply providing some information based on my simple side-by-side comparison using my equipment and choices:

The usual disclaimers: This test is obviously not conclusive. Your needs are different than mine. Your preferences and tastes are probably different too. Other people are much better at squeezing the best out of each film than me…. (And please don’t tell me that HP5+ does better shot at ISO 200 or whatever. I want a film that works at ISO 400!). Seriously, this is just a little side-by-side comparison in case other people are curious about the performance of these two films in this kind of hybrid workflow. I’m not trying to convince anyone who loves HP5+ to switch to TMY-2. They’re different. You decide.

Anyone who wants to do more testing can have at it. Anyone who likes HP5+ and can make it do what they want should keep using HP5+! I'm going to make pictures instead.

[jp]

No good deed goes unpunished on photography forums... I hoped that by

Film choice and developer choice are both religious topics. Don't worry about it; you stayed cool. I went photographing already today, and am waiting for the negatives to wash.

[rdeloe]

Today was the first sunny day in weeks with temperatures that didn't freeze my hands off. Even just shooting two sheets was a good feeling. Maybe they turn out, maybe not. But the pleasure of the work is enough.

[Pere Casals]

choosing between HP5+ and TMY-2. ... I explain that I wanted to use Xtol at 1+1, but I was sharing what I was doing for me...

Ok, but IMHO this side by side is not ample enough to take good decissions.

You only want to know what happens at exactly EI 400 and xtol 1:1 and N development and X-Trans, but a photographer may take advantage by adapting many parameters in the process, so you give up most of possibilities you would have.





what I need and don't need. So yes, I "need" faster film because a shot might work with 10 seconds, but not 20 seconds.


I don't tell you what you need or not, what I tell is that a ISO 400 film (for 4x5) also has drawbacks, sharpness starts falling from 30lp/mm, so if you invested in a good lens (say a bare Sironar-N) you will not take advantage of its performance because you will anyway have a loss of "microcontrast" because of the 400 ISO film.

From that you will know what you need/want or not... that's up to you, of course.





Anyone who wants to do more testing can have at it. Anyone who likes HP5+ and can make it do what they want should keep using HP5+!

My personal testings told me that both are excellent films, and that (in LF) I may obtain mostly the same by using each properly.

[AJ Edmondson]

I have to echo the "no good deed goes unpunished sentiment" - and found the results of your efforts very helpful. I didn't see any "imperative" in your summation and, based on the quality of the work which you produce, I felt that it was a good summation with a helpful and informed approach. In short - thank you.
Joel

[rdeloe]

Thank for clarifying the point you’re trying to make Pere, and thanks to everyone else for the feedback.

I just want to clarify one important point that this conversation reveals. I went through the whole cycle of measuring and testing everything to the nth degree the first time I worked entirely with large format (1990s and early 2000s). However, I’m much less interested in doing that these days.

First, modern emulsions are much more forgiving. I compare shooting a high-tech emulsion like TMY-2 versus shooting a classic emulsion like HP5+ to shooting RAW versus JPEG. Both require knowing the limitations of your equipment, but RAW provides vastly more latitude; images that are ruined as JPEGs because you blew the highlights or crushed the shadows are often perfectly fine as RAW files.

I’m definitely not saying that technique is unimportant, that sloppy work habits are OK, or that you don’t have to know your materials. But with a good hybrid workflow, a film like TMY-2 allows for a simpler approach to exposure and development. In my own comparisons, highlights that were blown with HP5+ and FP4+ were fine with TMY-2. Sure, it might be possible to capture the same or similar dynamic range on HP5+ with individualized exposure and development routines for each sheet… but why on Earth would I want to go through all that if I don’t have to? Similarly, if scanned TMY-2 negatives already provide vastly more detail than can be seen on the largest print I’ll ever make, why would I chase more resolution. Simpler is better.

Second, I’m no longer interested in chasing very small marginal improvements in “image quality” that can only be seen and appreciated by 0.1% of photographers (and which are invisible to everyone else). Digital photography forums are groaning under the weight of posts and sample pictures from people who are chasing “ultimate image quality”, endlessly cycling through the latest and greatest technologies in a quest to make the highest resolution, greatest dynamic range pictures of their pets and grand kids. They’re arguing ad nauseum about which RAW developer is better, which lens has more resolution and better micro contrast. What they've lost site of is the fact that just about any digital camera you can buy today vastly exceeds the capabilities of most photographers. They're all good.

My bottom-line is that I want to understand my equipment and tools well enough to reliably and consistently make the pictures I want to make. I test and measure and evaluate up to that point, but no further. I derive no pleasure, and see no need, for spending time on tiny marginal technical improvements that won’t actually result in stronger photographs. I’d rather focus on what matters to me, which is making pictures that say something, that get people to think differently, or that create an emotional reaction. If I can make those photographs with a simple workflow (e.g., based on shooting TMY-2 and camera scanning), then I can focus on what matters to me.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I don't tell you what you need or not, what I tell is that a ISO 400 film (for 4x5) also has drawbacks, sharpness starts falling from 30lp/mm, so if you invested in a good lens (say a bare Sironar-N) you will not take advantage of its performance because you will anyway have a loss of "microcontrast" because of the 400 ISO film.


Per Kodak's F-4016 T-Max 400 resolves 50 lines/mm vs 63 lines/mm for T-Max100 with a contrast ratio of 1.6:1. It's a bigger drop of 200 to 125 lines/mm for 1000:1 contrast ratio. So TMY certainly gives up some resolution vs TMX, but it's not enough that I worry about it when stopping the lens down likely results in less detail than TMY can record. Stopped down to f/32 any lens resolves less than TMY can record even at low contrast ratios.

Edit: Looks like Kodak claims 200 lines/mm at 1000:1 for TMY-2 in F-4043, so even less of a reason to not use TMY-2 if you need the speed.

[Peter De Smidt]

That's an excellent statement of a reasonable approach.

[Pere Casals]

Per Kodak's F-4016 T-Max 400 resolves 50 lines/mm vs 63 lines/mm for T-Max100 with a contrast ratio of 1.6:1.

Yes, this is 50 lp/mm at contrast extition, but please see the MTF chart in kodak datasheet, you will see that it starts to have a contrast degradation by 30 lp/mm, so from that low value if starts damaging what the lens is able to do.

One thing are limits at extintion, and another one what happens before reaching the limit. To me MTF graphs in the datasheets explain very well what we see in practice if we compare good TMX vs TMY shots. The TMX ones iare way better, at least to my eyes. This is relevant for big prints.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Yes, this 50 lp/mm at contrast extition, but please see the MTF chart in kodak datasheet, you will see that it starts to have a contrast degradation by 30 lp/mm, so from that low value if starts damaging what the lens is able to do.

One thing are limits at extintion, and another one what happens before reaching limit. To me MTF graphs in the datasheets explain very well what we see in practice if we compare a TMX vs TMY shot. The the TMX one is way better, at least to my eyes.

Sure TMX is higher resolution and its MTF chart shows it, but TMY-2 is not low resolution. It's also got two stops of extra speed to stop leaves moving in the wind, have some hope of getting sharp eyes in portraiture in dim available light, and all the other reasons we might value film speed over resolution. Even if I don't need the speed I'll still sometimes shoot TMY-2 because I love the look of the film. I rarely print above 20x24 and at those sizes it really doesn't matter for 4x5 and 5x7. I liken it to stopping down the lens in the first place. If all we valued was sharpness we'd find the optimal aperture and shoot at only that. But we don't do that because ultimate sharpness is not the primary concern. If I need to limit the print size because of that, so be it.

[Drew Wiley]

The longer straight line of TMax film makes it the obvious candidate. But TMX100 would be an even better candidate than TMY400. There are numerous other technical reasons for choosing TMax over other films. Among them, they were invented with repro applications in mind. But in Ilford's lineup, FP4 would be a lot better choice than HP5. Larry is overlooking the repro component of the original question, while Pere is guessing about the application. At this point in film history, TMX 100 is the gold standard for repro versatility.

[jp]

If you wish to do alt process contact printing, skip the tmax 100 as it does not pass uv.

[Pere Casals]

Larry, I mostly agree with your point of view, I guess you know very well how to take advantage from TMY strengths.

Anyway let me point some thoughts:



Sure TMX is higher resolution and its MTF chart shows it, but TMY-2 is not low resolution.

Yes... but TMY kills any advantage we may obtain from a top notch last version lens like an APO Symmar, APO Sironar-S, etc. With a 1979 Sironar-N we would get the same because TMY is the limiting factor. TMX may feel the difference easier.

A TMY user sporting an APO kit is something contradictory: a large investment just to be limited by the film capability most of the times.



It's also got two stops of extra speed to stop leaves moving in the wind

Yes...

We may also show wind.




have some hope of getting sharp eyes in portraiture in dim available light

Here we have a master, YK. Most important Karsh's body of work is ISO 200 Super XX, with floods at around 1/10s.

Dim available light IMHO it's an exception in LF portraiture. Strobes is what works, and floods is what a master may prefer to not scare the subject. Now gurus say TXP (or HP5+) at EI 64, 5min in HC-110.




I rarely print above 20x24 and at those sizes it really doesn't matter for 4x5 and 5x7.

I've evaluated RB 67 with TMX vs LF. A MF shot with TMX delivers flawless resolving power in 30" prints. Of course LF has lots of movements. With a RB may use different backs for shots at different N, having similar flexibility than with sheets.




If all we valued was sharpness we'd find the optimal aperture and shoot at only that. But we don't do that because ultimate sharpness is not the primary concern. If I need to limit the print size because of that, so be it.

Of course.

I've been reading two books to learn that. Post-Exposure (Ctein) and Image Clarity (John B. Williams). Still struggling to bring that knowkledge into practice.

In 8x10 I feel comfortable with HP5+, but in 4x5 I find TMX edge often makes a difference.

[Pere Casals]

If you wish to do alt process contact printing, skip the tmax 100 as it does not pass uv.

For 4x5" this is not a problem, rarely we take the alt effort to make a 4x5" print, so we require anyway a second enlarged negative or (today's trend) an enlarged digital negative, so no problem with TMX in the taking.

[Drew Wiley]

There's more to it than just resolution. Ctein and I have swapped TMax developer experience. I should visit him again one of these days, but he's drifting more and more into writing SciFi novels.

[Pere Casals]

There's more to it than just resolution.

Of course.

If you see Ctein you can tell him that his writings are still enlightening people about what happens in a darkroom, and that this has and increasing relevance today.