I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak... [Archive]

Tim V

1-Sep-2019, 01:31

So... I decided to put my personal bias aside regarding the cost of Kodak T-Max 8x10” sheet film and buy a box. At over twice the cost per sheet compared to Ilford, I shed a tear at checkout and a few more each time I tripped my shutter.

Well... yesterday I got around to processing the first of my sheets in PMK and I now finally grasp how this film commands such a price.

Firstly, the base seems much more rigid / strong compared to other films I’ve been using. I’ve had some issues with film popping and / or sagging with other brands, so this may be a big deal to me.

Secondly, the tonal range from deep shadow to brightest highlight is phenomenal.

Thirdly, in comparison to other 400ISO emulations it’s essentially grainless.

I shoot a lot and I have a real fear now that this realisation might send me close to bankruptcy, or at least drive a real obsession with what might be achieved with the best of materials I once considered unjustifiable.

esearing

1-Sep-2019, 04:59

There are shots you know are worthy of your best film and equipment, vs those you shoot because you are there and have film. Hint, its rarely the first shot of the day unless you have a specific researched target in mind.

Bruce Watson

1-Sep-2019, 06:27

So... I decided to put my personal bias aside regarding the cost of Kodak T-Max 8x10” sheet film and buy a box. At over twice the cost per sheet compared to Ilford, ...

I've said for years that TMY2 is the best film ever made. Period. And it is well worth its price.

But my saying it means exactly zilch to anyone who hasn't personally experienced it. Now that you have, you know what I mean. ;)

Tin Can

1-Sep-2019, 07:24

Yes, it is wonderful film.

When I joined this group I was not ready for the 'best', spent years using X-Ray and Arista films learning what I could, from loading holders to the rest of the process.

Many here loudly exhorted me to use 'REAL FILM'! They seemed angry. Very glad I ignored them.

Now I have all kinds of KODAK films, some in ULF.

Waste not, want not.

Vaughn

1-Sep-2019, 08:56

No time was wasted with Arista when it was repackaged Iford!

Joe O'Hara

1-Sep-2019, 09:32

I love TMAX 400 and don't use anything else, even though it is painfully expensive even in 4x5. The mind reels at what 8x10 costs.

In addition to what was said above, it has a great ability to build contrast by extended development, which is a big thing if you're into alt processes. Richard Arentz mentioned that in is PtPd book.

Not to say HP5 isn't a great film too. Some folks swear by it, and you can't argue with their results using it.

Oren Grad

1-Sep-2019, 10:03

Greg Y

1-Sep-2019, 10:25

Oren, I like TMY2, although i use a lot of FP4+ as well. I print on Ilford Warmtone FB, Foma Variant iii, & still occasionally on graded Fortezo, or Galerie.

Drew Wiley

1-Sep-2019, 10:34

Just use your favorite papers. It's a highly versatile film once you understand it. I'm currently printing MGWT, Cooltone, and Bergger Neutral, but have printed TMY on at least a dozen other papers, going clear back to the classic graded ones.

chris_4622

1-Sep-2019, 11:30

Among those who like TMY, I wonder what proportion are printing in silver in the darkroom, as opposed to scanning or working with alt-processes that want a very long density range.

For those who do like it for printing in silver, what paper(s) do you use?

First off I will say I don't use TMY regularly, very rarely but last year I did some testing against Hp5 because I was thinking about changing speeds. I contact print on Lodima/Azo. I saw differences that I have to say make me want to use it but I can't see paying 3 times Fp4, my regular film. I like the way it renders blue sky and shadows are slightly more open than Hp5. I use 6 1/2 x 8 1/2" so it would have to be cut down or special ordered. I ended up staying with Fp4 and bought some strobes.

Hugo Zhang

1-Sep-2019, 11:46

I want to ask our experienced members this: if you shoot mostly portraiture, would you use Tri-X instead of TMY?

Doremus Scudder

1-Sep-2019, 12:19

I use both TMY and TXP. I find the look of Tri-X really good for many subjects especially when I want more mid-tone separation compared to shadows, but still want the luminous soft-shadow look that a long-toe film provides. TMY is pretty straight-line all the way from bottom to top. It's great for lots of things too, but it's difficult to get the open shadows (albeit with less contrast) that you can get with TXP, for me, at least.

Best,

Doremus

Drew Wiley

1-Sep-2019, 13:32

It's that long straight line I love. It lets me get crisp value separation way deep down in the shadows even in high contrast scenes, even at full box speed. With Tri-X, people tend to overexpose the film to get separation well off the toe, essentially creating a "thick" density neg less cooperative in the highlights. TMY is capable of superb midtone expansion if you learn a few tricks; and it can handle far more detail, without the grit of TX, making it realistic in smaller formats too.

Drew Wiley

1-Sep-2019, 13:43

Hugo - portraiture. For that I prefer TMax 100. It gives the same long straight line as TMY, but is smoother in pyro. If I want stronger edge effect similar to TMY, like for landscape, I have a different dev tweak. This yields me a neg quite suitable for both contact printing or enlargement. You can't enlarge Tri-X much at all without it looking gritty in untextured areas - annoying to smooth complexions. TMax films also favor mixed ethnicity shots much better in my opinion, or wedding portraits where a groom might be in a dark suit, and the bride in high key lacey white. If I wanted a faster film, TMY itself would still come out far better detailed than TX, without the potentially annoying artificial freckles of shotgun grain.

Willie

1-Sep-2019, 14:03

No matter how good you find the film to be it does not make up for the way Eastman Kodak has treated customers (and employees) for so long.

Steven Ruttenberg

1-Sep-2019, 14:21

I only shoot Tmax100, not tried 400 yet. Started with D100 and HP5 (not a super fan) now that I will be trying 8x10, I will start with D100 for practice before I move to Tmax and I will unless fuji were to make Acros again in 4x5 and 8x10.

Drew Wiley

1-Sep-2019, 14:23

Willie - why punish those remaining for what certain "suits" did before?

Drew Wiley

1-Sep-2019, 14:31

Steve - TMax100 is effectively at least a full stop faster than Delta 100 because you can trust it to separate the shadows deeper down, that is, if we're talking about high-contrast scenes with the shadow values carefully metered. But both can be developed to a significantly higher gamma than ACROS, which is an advantage in low contrast scenes. TMX400 is analogous, but with its fast true 400 speed being a real advantage in 8x10 with its typically smaller f-stops.

Ulophot

1-Sep-2019, 15:10

I cannot speak to TMY with great authority, but portraits are indeed my interest. When I returned to photography a couple of years ago, I had to simplify for a number of reasons, and pare my budget down where possible. Because I knew HP5+ from long use, primarily in 35mm journalism and some 4x5 studio portraiture, I chose it for my sole film. I had used plenty of TMY in the studio and achieved fine results but now I was going to be in the "wild" world of (mainly) existing light and including potentially very long-range subjects. I also chose D23 as my developer, rather than pyro developers I had never used. Limited time, limited choices.

HP5 is perhaps minimally "flatter" than Tri-X, though in actual practice, for me, the difference has never been an issue. My concern now, regarding HP5, was mainly grain in medium format for 11x14 prints from cropped negatives. However, I satisfied myself that this was not going to be a problem. So, for both cost and contrast reasons, and still needing an ISO 400 film, I chose to hone my technique with HP5.

I will add, hoping to head off those who would argue with my grain evaluation, that I am fully aware that for some, my grain, even in an 8x10 from a 4x5, would be migraine. While I love the unique look of a beautiful 8x10 contact print, which can create a shimmer in a light-toned stucco wall on an overcast day that perhaps no enlargement can match, my heroes include W. Eugene Smith, who made beautiful (my judgement again) prints from 35mm emulsions long before the finer-grained emulsion of HP5+, let alone the Deltas and TMaxes, had even germinated. My challenges as a portraitist will neither fail nor be overcome by what, to me, will in some cases be fairly moderate grain.

Drew Wiley

1-Sep-2019, 15:29

I shoot TMY in all formats from 35mm to 8x10. I need the speed and long tonal scale in 35mm because it's a handheld snapshooting format for me. Same is sometimes applicable to my MF rangefinder work. But more often, I do MF on tripod and with TMX instead to get 16x20 prints worthy of being mixed in the same portfolios as LF shots. But when it comes to LF per se, TMY is so fine-grained that it's the obvious choice. But since I keep 8x10 TMX on hand in the lab for masking and color separation use, I naturally shoot some of it in the field too, esp if funds are tight. Same applies to FP4. I don't do studio-style portraits anymore. But when I did, ordinarily with 8x10 TMAX, I'd have either a Nikon or P67 nearby, also loaded with TMX, and with an analogous perspective lens, just in case someone got figedty about the slower 8x10 operation. But you do have to be a bit careful with light pinkish Caucasian complexions going paste-like with TMax. A light no.11 Wratten or Hoya XO green filter will cure that.

1-Sep-2019, 15:33

I shoot both MF and LF. For a long time tmy2 was a very low priced MF film at least in the US. It doesn't get much nicer a film for versatile MF uses. Kodak has increased it's cost slightly and Ilford has lowered theirs a bit. Kodak no longer is the low cost choice but it's close enough. I've had quite a bit of practice with the film and like using it in MF and LF sizes. I'm still using my 2011 stash from my chest freezer. When I use up more of it, I'll pony up the $ and replenish. It does a uniquely good job with highlights, at least the way I've used it with pyrocat and pmk. When it's too bright to use 400 speed film, FP4+ still does a nice job, but tmy2 is finer grained and more forgiving of highlights for me. I use fp4+ for LF in the summer.

Joe O'Hara

1-Sep-2019, 16:11

I print on Ilford MG Warmtone FB using a cold-tone developer. I like the results. Since the Warmtone is noticeably softer than the regular MG Classic FB, I can develop the negatives a bit more, which helps the low tones. But I never saw a problem with low values even with MG Classic.

Peter De Smidt

1-Sep-2019, 17:13

TMY is my favorite LF film, especially for 8x10: Speed, flexibility, fine grain, good reciprocity....but the price does make me flinch.

Tim V

2-Sep-2019, 00:11

I’m wondering, what is T-Max 100 like vs. 400? Is it the same curve but finer grain? I’m thinking mainly for when I need to shoot 120 film (eg. I’m out of money for LF,) and the finest and sharpest grain negative is paramount.

2-Sep-2019, 04:38

It's different. I never got used to it. Other people here do great work with it. If you're trying to consolidate film choices you may find that the 400 speed is fine enough grain for all purposes. I like it for handheld MF shooting; rarely have to use < 1/100 sec with tmy2.

Oren Grad

2-Sep-2019, 06:54

I’m wondering, what is T-Max 100 like vs. 400? Is it the same curve but finer grain?

The late Phil Davis had an article in the old Photo Techniques magazine showing the TMX curve shape to be highly sensitive to choice of developer. You can make the curve look a lot like that of TMY if you want, but you can also do other things with it.

Pere Casals

2-Sep-2019, 07:55

Disclaimer: TMY is a superb film, way less sharp than TMX but still superb.

Secondly, the tonal range from deep shadow to brightest highlight is phenomenal.

You can do the same with any film, it's about metering/processing film properly. See images from Ansel Adams that used a lot of the ancient Super-XX, try to get those images with TMY... you'll find that's not about using TMY, SXX or Foma, this is about mastering the medium one works with.

Thirdly, in comparison to other 400ISO emulations it’s essentially grainless.

Sure, because Delta 400 and Acros 400 are not there, so it's the single ISO 400 flat grain emulsion out there. The other emulsions are cubic.

But in 8x10 film grain is irrelevant, and it's completely irrelevant with pyro as stain hides grain. Have you ever seen a grain in a print from a pyro developed TXP/HP5 8x10" negative?

Anyway IMHO TXP and HP5 cubic grain films are way better for me for 8x10". In 8x10 grain is irrelevant

If Image Quality is what counts, then it's worth to instead shot TMX or D100 in 4x5, you shot one or two stops wider with half the focal, the same DOF, 1/4 of the cost and the same image quality than with TMY at 8x10".

There is no technical advantage in using a larger format if this imposes a high ISO film. ilford does not make D400 in sheets... TMX is UV opaque for alternative, so perhaps in part they have to make TMY in sheets because of that.

A bit it is a contradiction to pay a lot for a refined APO Sironar-S lens and later limiting performance with a high ISO film, but there are many factors in the gear/film we use.

I now finally grasp how this film commands such a price.

Amazingly it only commands that extra price in sheets, because with rolls have similar price.

195100

TMY in rolls is $6,3 , ilford is $6,2.

When a manufacturer thinks that they can sell sheets at twice the (per surface) price because format is different I tend to think that they are punishing LF for some reason, personally this discourages me.

___

I often use TMY for MF.

Daniel Stone

2-Sep-2019, 08:40

I don't get much chance to shoot these days(spending most of my free time at the sewing machines), but when I get a chance to make a photograph, $10 is well spent on a sheet of TMY. It gives me what I want, need, and frankly, a ton of flexibility.

For contact printing, it might a bit "much", as I don't care about the grain when making 8x10 contacts, but should I ever make a drum scan to make a larger print, I know the negatives give me what I need.

It certainly does make me edit on the ground glass though, the $10/sheet price tag.

Drew Wiley

2-Sep-2019, 10:23

Willie

2-Sep-2019, 10:28

There are some differences between the current TMax films and the original versions, with a dramatic improvement in grain in the 400 speed product being the most obvious. And except for speed, the two products are analogous in terms of ordinary usage. When it comes to technical applications, they're not. TMax100 was engineered to replace certain technical films as well as for general photography. For example, it's possible to match the gamma of deep tri-color filters separations all processed together for the same length of time. I can't think of any other film capable of that. But neither speed has quite as long a straight line as Super XX or Bergger 200 had. TMY has better native edge effect than TMX, so tends to look sharper in print than it's slower brother, except in small format. There's no need to go into too many details here. They're both great films capable of being developed over an exceptionally wide range of gammas. Pay attention to filter factors, cause they're a little different in cases from Ilford films.

This reformulation came about after Tri-X tested out as finer grained than TMax 400. Sylvia Zawadski and Dick Dickerson had a good discussion on this at the time. Sylvia is the one who came up with XTOL developer. It was also changed from her formulation. Initially it was strong in any kind of water and dilutions of 1:3 were the norm. Things changed a bit and then the Dreaded XTOL failures showed up and the recommendation for 1:3 dilution disappeared completely.

Names stay the same as products are not what they once were - for positive or negative results.

Pere Casals

2-Sep-2019, 10:48

And except for speed, the two products are analogous in terms of ordinary usage.

Not only for speed, also for resolving power they are quite different.

With same technology, x4 the speed is x4 the crystal surface, so x2 the "diameter" of the crystal.

I'd not try to rate lp/mm of lenses using TMY because we would not see which LF lens is better, while TMX says it.

Another thing is if top image quality is important or not for an image...

IMHO it is true that in 8x10 film resolving power is not that important, but it's equally true that IQ of a good 4x5 TMX shot is comparable to IQ of a 8x10 TMY shot, nearly matching I guess.

Datasheet says extintion at 50Lp/mm vs 65Lp/mm at 1.6:1 low contrast, but they don't say the exposure, IMHO in practice difference is way larger. TMX is a very, very sharp film and TMY it is way less sharp.

Not that extrange, it can be suspected from the x4 speed difference.

Drew Wiley

2-Sep-2019, 10:57

With the old TMY, the grain clustering was a bit random, so came out grittier than the current product, but even then looked far less apparent or obnoxious to me than Tri-X grain enlarged. I shot and printed quite a bit of it, both in 8x10 and 4x5, pyro developed.

pepeguitarra

2-Sep-2019, 11:51

Corran

2-Sep-2019, 15:13

Recently I found a full box of 8x10 TMY in the bottom of my freezer, which made me happy.

I generally have not been a big fan of TMY, but so far I've made some decent negatives and a contact print looked great. But I don't think for me it was any different than HP5, other than a nominally faster EI, which to be fair may be important. My favorite image thus far was a waterfall and stream that I was able to shoot at 1/15th of a second, giving a nice feeling of movement without stopping motion, whereas HP5 or a slower film would've required an exposure too long to get that "just right" feeling (I normally shoot HP5+ at 200 or sometimes lower).

That said I doubt I'd buy more. I could probably live with HP5+ and develop it in Acufine to get a speed boost...and it'd be fine. We all pick our tools...

Tim V

3-Sep-2019, 00:14

Weird question: Do Kodak make their own base material for sheet film? It’s the most rigid I’ve felt, and really much better than rest it seems.

Pere Casals

3-Sep-2019, 00:44

Weird question: Do Kodak make their own base material for sheet film? It’s the most rigid I’ve felt, and really much better than rest it seems.

Acetate is used for TMax rolls and Estar for the TMax sheets. I guess that they manufacture the base for the sheets, but they buy the base for rolls.

They even sell Estar for many industrial applications: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles/Corporate/Industrial_Materials_Group/PET_Films/KODAK-ESTAR-Polyester-Film.pdf

About acetate, I guess they stopped manufacturing it, and buying it around: https://petapixel.com/2013/06/12/kodak-axes-acetate-film-base-production/

You may like to read Making Kodak Film book, I found it very interesting.

Tim V

3-Sep-2019, 04:31

Interesting, thanks for the links.

Any evidence that the Estar base is archivally any better / worse / same as the competition? Anecdotally I've had photographers tell me it's archivally superior but not read anything definitive.

Oren Grad

3-Sep-2019, 06:38

Peter De Smidt

3-Sep-2019, 07:16

Regarding TMY versus HP5+, TMY is 1.3 stops faster for me, which is a big deal, especially for larger formats. Both are excellent films.

Pere Casals

3-Sep-2019, 08:10

Any evidence that the Estar base is archivally any better / worse / same as the competition? Anecdotally I've had photographers tell me it's archivally superior but not read anything definitive.

"Archivally superior" is using a double bath fixing, with a little rinse in the middle, washing well with final distilled water bath, then protecting film in the storage.

Bill Poole

3-Sep-2019, 09:46

I am nowhere near as organized or systematic as the experienced gurus in the room, but I do shoot a lot of medium format TMY, which I love. I find that it works best for me rated at 320 in HC110, which I have standardized on as a developer due mostly to ease of one-time use and storage in my small condo (no darkroom, alas.) But when it comes to large format, this retired guy cannot justify the extra cost of TMY in sheets, as much as I would love to use it. So I have been shooting HP5, but find I have to rate it at 200 to get the shadow detail I want with HC110 development. Since I scan and print digitally (again, alas no darkroom) if I get detail in the shadows, I can usually get to a file I like using digital tools. So I'm stumbling toward something approaching a system, I guess.

Drew Wiley

3-Sep-2019, 11:37

Good strategy, Bill. HP5 has a much longer toe, so needs more exposure support in the shadows. Of course, everything depends on the overall scene contrast. For example, I can go to the Marin redwoods when the fog and mist is still around and successfully use HP5; but once full sun breaks out, there can be 11 or 12 stops of range between the deep forest shadows and shiny bare intricate fir branches etc - subjects I enjoy the challenge of shooting. But in that kind of extreme contrast, HP5 is relatively worthless. I have salvaged numerous HP5 negatives using supplementary unsharp masking; but that involves a sheet of TMax for sake of the mask itself, so there no real cost saving that way. It can produce an interesting print. The only inexpensive sheet film with a long straight line in existence is Fomapan/Arista 200, but its much slower real-world speed, miserable reciprocity characteristics, and dicey quality control make it unrealistic for me. FP4 is an excellent compromise film; but it's slow speed is risky on breezy days working with the smaller f-stops characteristic of 8x10. I use both TMY400 and TMax100 for med format working, depending, as well as ACROS; and sometimes PanF, but only if the lighting is quite soft.

Pere Casals

3-Sep-2019, 13:42

there can be 11 or 12 stops of range between the deep forest shadows and shiny bare intricate fir branches etc

Drew, in that situation HP5 of TXP would work even better than TMX. Lets calculate it.

Independently of how you meter, if you place your deepest shadow in the film speed point, this is 0.1D over fog+base, then highlights would be overexposed by exactly 8.7 stops.

If you want we can see how toasted would result that overexposure with a film that grows linearly in the highlights, we can place the 12 stops on the kodak graphs.

TMX would record that range, but also TXP an HP5 would record it. Disadvantage of TMX is that it would build around 0.3D additional density (my calculation) with the same N-, which would double the required buring time in the print to pull texture from highlights.

With HP5 I made shots ranging 10 zones, this one took metered 9 or 10 Zones but the negative has texture in not metred extreme highlights that are not seen in the posted image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28693688313/

_________

This is ilford Pan F 50: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/16820196745/in/photostream/

The solar disk got solarized, I guess, the rest of the image was darkened in the post for (questionable) aesthetics, but you see detail in the solar crown. I don't know how many zones, but it has to be something crazy high !

Drew Wiley

3-Sep-2019, 16:44

Pere Casals

3-Sep-2019, 17:26

What planet do you come from, Pere? Do all the shadows on that planet have fill-reflector light bounced into them? It will be interesting to see how your opinions evolve as you gain actual printing experience and aren't just trying to pre-guess how these variables interact. You sure got things upside-down on this last post of yours. Have fun. I gotta make a late lunch.

Drew, you say TMX takes 12 stops, I repeat:

> if you place your deepest shadow in the film speed point, this is 0.1D over fog+base, then your highlights would be overexposed by exactly 8.7 stops.

> 8.7 stops overexposure, with no shoulder... you make a toast !!

Duolab123

3-Sep-2019, 17:37

Both Kodak and Ilford sheet films are specified as being coated on a 7 mil (0.180 mm) polyester base. Fuji, Foma and Adox sheet films are specified as being coated on 0.175 mm polyester base. I don't know whether that's just a difference in rounding on what is really the same number, or whether the thickness really is 0.005 mm different.

Other than Kodak, where you can look at Robert Shanebrook's book to see details of the production process, I don't know anything about where the other manufacturers get their base stock. But I'd consider any claim that the bases are different in some fundamental way to be suspect unless supported with strong evidence, not someone's rumor or hearsay.

Eastman Chemical, Kingsport Tennessee USA, spun off from Eastman Kodak in 1994, makes all manner of resins and chemicals. Eastman Kodak is still using the Estar name, which is an Eastman Chemical brand. Tenite, a brand of cellulose acetate was used by Kodak for developing trays, funnels etc. Eastman Chemical was in the right place at the right time when the BPA scare hit with transparent water and baby bottles. If EKCo. had kept Eastman Chemical it would probably have bankrupted EC as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of Eastman Chemical polyester and cellulose acetate resins are not in use by other film compnies. It's always wise to have more than one approved supplier. However film base, which was the reason George Eastman founded Kodak Tennessee, to make cellulose acetate resins, probably doesn't amount to 1 percent of Eastman Chemical's business anymore. You will see the Tritan brand of co-polyester resin advertised for use in water bottles, and all manner of consumer goods.

Drew Wiley

3-Sep-2019, 19:02

Pere, not all opinions are equal. I've been working with TMax films ever since they first came out, not only for general photo use in multiple formats, but for technical applications requiring far greater precision in exposure, development, and process control; in other words, complete predictability every time. No guessing, no web surfing random rumors, no stereotypes. This requires a solid understanding of the actual curve characteristics as they apply both to b&w printing per se and highly repeatable color applications for sake of various kinds of masks, precisely matched color separation negs, etc. Now what have you actually ever done with these films yet?

Pere Casals

4-Sep-2019, 01:51

but for technical applications requiring far greater precision in exposure, development, and process control; in other words, complete predictability every time.

Yes... you can predict when you'll toast your highlights, as you have less a shoulder then you have less a safety belt, and in that situation a really high range scene ends in an smoking toast in the highlights.

That linearity in the highlights can be useful for technical applications, but what's for creative photography it is more a drawback than an advantage.

Of course with a careful processing we may shoulder the TMX/Y curve if we want, this also has to be said, and this can also be required with shouldered films to a lower extent.

Again, tell me what we gain with linearity beyond 1.5D !!!

TMax films are amazing, but they also have drawbacks. You cannot say that something is the best in the world and not mentioning the drawbacks of the thing.

Steven Ruttenberg

4-Sep-2019, 09:32

I understand the wanting to fit an entire range of stops onto a piece of film, but we seem to be ignoring other tools that can help. A well placed 3 stop grad nd or 3 stop reverse grad nd can allow for a scene with large differences in lights and darks to be photographed well. For example, say I meter the darkest shadow and it is ev 4, and my brightest spots are ev 18. Then I make adjustment to stops faster to put shadows into ev 2. My brights are then eve 16. From there I put on my grad nd of 3 stops which further reduces my brights to ev 13 so now i have an 11 stop difference instead of 14. I still need to do all the other stuff to make the negative good, but this allows me some head room. I have used a 5 stop and even 8 stop or certain scenes and it worked out well. Not saying this is the holy grail or anything like that, but we should not discount the tool if it can help us fit on the negative the scene in a more well behaved manner and stay away from the extremes of the negative capability.

4-Sep-2019, 09:38

TMax films are amazing, but they also have drawbacks. You cannot say that something is the best in the world and not mentioning the drawbacks of the thing.

OK, It costs extra money. It takes longer to fix and wash. Done. At least for tmax 400.

Drew Wiley

4-Sep-2019, 12:03

ND grads only work for broad geometric portions of a shot at best. At worst, they create an awfully fake effect. I never use them. This past trip I routinely encountered scenes with a 10 stop range. But I never got above 11,500 ft. If I had gotten a thousand feet higher, 12-stop scenarios might well be present on the margins of glistening glaciers adjacent to dark rocks, esp if a red filter was selected to accentuate mico-texture in ice or snow. In such a case, I'd trust TMAX to give a threshold of shadow texture clear down on zone 1, based on many years of analogous shots with this particular film. That would place the highest highlight texture about 11 stops higher, with Z12 representing pure white specular highlights. In other words, the dynamic textural range would therefore span between Zones 1 and 11, with the brightest textural definition being 6 stops above Z5 middle gray. No problem if you have precise shadow metering. But that is an extreme case, so substituting Z2 instead for lowest textural values works in most relatively high contrast situations with either speed of TMax. This is for normal development with full midtone gradation. Instead of trying to scrunch the entire sandwich into the equivalent of eight zones via drastic minus development and crushing the life out of all the microtonal richness in between (ala conventional ZS doctrine), I use techniques like pyro stain,split printing on VC papers, or unsharp masking in order to have my cake and eat it too. None of this is hypothetical. I've made hundreds of prints this way. If someone has gotten good with ND filters, I applaud them. But I have other ways of managing high contrast that apply to even intricate areas of complex scenes, and not just broad sections.

cuypers1807

4-Sep-2019, 12:50

Love TMY in 35mm - 4x5. I thought about shooting TMY in 11x14 so I asked Keith Canham what was the going price?
A 10 sheet box is $242!! I'll stick with my HP5.

Drew Wiley

4-Sep-2019, 13:12

Take your 35mm TMax and order an 11x14 film stretcher from Keith. That way it will be only 25 cents a shot.

cuypers1807

4-Sep-2019, 14:10

Take your 35mm TMax and order an 11x14 film stretcher from Keith. That way it will be only 25 cents a shot.

That would be nice. I got the last batch of $8 a sheet HP5 from B&H. It should last me a while. I mainly got the 11x14 for wet plate work but the big negs are pretty spectacular.

Drew Wiley

4-Sep-2019, 15:18

I stocked up on 8x10 TMax, both speeds, from Keith back when it was about a third the price of the going rate. That's what freezers are for. What is really getting spooky is the price of 8x10 color film. I have a decent reserve of that too. But I've already got so many 8x10 color shots on hand to work with that it's not a big issue for me, regardless. HP5 is a wonderful film at modest enlargement, but less versatile than TMY. I shot and printed a lot of HP5 back when I switched mainly to 8x10. I find it a bit too grainy in a mushy sense for 4x5.

Sal Santamaura

4-Sep-2019, 21:09

...It certainly does make me edit on the ground glass though, the $10/sheet price tag.

Price reduction at B&H. Currently "only" $8.50 per sheet:

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

39 10-sheet boxes available as I type this.

Steven Ruttenberg

4-Sep-2019, 21:18

Grad NDS are not for the faint of heart. They can enhance your photo or spectacularly ruin it. But I have posted and shown many photographs using an ND of various sorts and no one ever knew. When I told them I did, they were surprised. I have also done photos where they were ruined because I use d the ND incorrectly. As I stated, it is a tool to be used when and where appropriate andbit is not a panacea.

On another note, my first box of 8x10 D100 arrived. Better to practice on 25 sheets at 123 bucks than north of 250 for 25 Tmax which apparently only comes in 400 iso for 8x10. 5 dollar a sheet is cool but 10 bucks a sheet is steep when learning a new camera.

Pere Casals

5-Sep-2019, 02:51

OK, It costs extra money. It takes longer to fix and wash. Done. At least for tmax 400.

Well, this depends on personal preferences. A linear curve has not many drawbacks for hybrid, but for optic prints it can be a problem, I guess that depending on the particular scene, on our technique and on our taste.

In particular a medium/long toe allows to solve the shadows compresion in the negative itself, this allows more flexibility to work the mids in the printing process, without having to burn, and delivering perhaps better rendering.

I've been explained that Karsh used film toe, one reason is that he used continuous studio illumination, with shutter speed around 1/10s that speed would have been even way slower if not using toe... but it also looks that solving shadows in the negative allowed him an easier better control for the rest.

In the other side linearity in the highlights can be an additional complication in the optic printing, too high densities are achieved easier and pulling highlight textures can be a mess.

For optic printing, IMHO a linear film may be really good for scenes with a dynamic range that fits in the paper range. For scenes with a higher dinamic range a photographer may take advantage of a film with S curve response, not linear, to craft a negative that's easier to print.

So to me, that TMY linearity can be a defect in certain conditions, being an S shaped film a powerful resource.

This is a YMMV, of course, if John Sexton uses TMax films then for sure that he knows why.

Drew Wiley

5-Sep-2019, 10:30

I don't have time to debate you today, Pere. But there is an enormous difference between pontificating about all this via sheer speculation and actually doing it.

Pere Casals

5-Sep-2019, 12:07

I don't have time to debate you today, Pere. But there is an enormous difference between pontificating about all this via sheer speculation and actually doing it.

OK, Drew, for the next time please prepare some liturgy about next apostasy:

>> TMax film requires more an staining developer than a S shaped curve film, as the stain modifies the VC paper toe, and highlights are in the paper toe, so toasted highlights can be printed.

Drew Wiley

5-Sep-2019, 12:11

Pere- T-grain films simply don't stain as much as most other films because the emulsion is so thin. So go make another guess. Meanwhile, I'll continue doing what actually works.

Pere Casals

5-Sep-2019, 13:06

I'll continue doing what actually works.

Of course.

Pere- T-grain films simply don't stain as much as most other films because the emulsion is so thin. So go make another guess.

There are two kinds of stain, general and proportional, you know. Dense highlights have more proportional stain, so a selectively stronger yellow filter that helps to pull highlights on paper.

Let me make a reasoning. The linearity in the highlights of Tmax may end in higher densities in the highlights that are more difficult to print than from a S shaped curve film. I guess this point is clear.

Then the staining developer solves that problem. You said that Pyro is useful to print highlights.

Perhaps this also leaves a footprint in the print we may like...

But AA throwed the Super-XX film into HC-110 and he also obtained a remarkable tonality.

____________________________________

Then, if my film is shouldered my highlights lye in lower densities, that require less (or not require) the stain to be printed, so instead a Pyrocatechin developer I may use a Vit-C developer, say Xtol.

Of course the look may be different, but same problem (helping printing highlights) has two solutions, one is a shouldered film and the another one is Pyrocatechin with the linear film.

Steven Ruttenberg

5-Sep-2019, 13:25

My question is this: If the photographer told you 0 information about film, developer, stop bath, lens, camera, paper, enlarger, scanner, etc. Just simply displayed his/her work and people like the body of work does it matter the means by which the end was attained?

????

Drew Wiley

5-Sep-2019, 13:45

Pere - AA did use pyro at times, but the extant formulas at that time were still rather unpredictable, so when HC-110 came around, it proved convenient and reliable for him. But you have to keep in mind that he tended to control highlight issues via minus development compression. Variable-contrast papers were still in their infancy, and he apparently never seriously tried masking, even though it was routine for color printing applications. Today we have a much larger tool kit to choose from.

Drew Wiley

5-Sep-2019, 13:57

Steve - I personally hate it when some nice new photographic book comes out, and it's all full of technical notes. Something like AA's "Examples" is different because it was meant as a companion to his how-to series of volumes, espousing his Zone System. Venues like this forum are good for technical discussion; but I never posted any such stuff at my gallery venues, not even specific location information, nothing in fact which would detract from the pure visual impact of the images. I even hate gear talk on the trail, whether it involves photographic gear or camping stuff, though I have always accommodated basic questions about lighting and so forth. Our most valuable piece of equipment is always our own set of eyes, and learning the patience to truly soak in the wonder of light, rather than bending it to any stereotype. But it does takes specific tools and experience to translate our personal vision into the real-world constraints of film and paper, since neither see things exactly as we do. Anyone who states that it's just about the "image" and not technique probably has a only vague idea of the image itself. Large format work is particularly suited to being specific. It's slow, methodical, and precise. And I personally find darkroom printing to be relaxing and meditative. It too favors taking your time. Photography never represents reality, but one's personal impression of reality. And a good illusionist never shows his hand. There's a time and place to talk about technique, and a time and place where it serves best by remaining hidden in the background.

Steven Ruttenberg

5-Sep-2019, 14:46

That was my point Drew. I am an engineer by trade and I get stuck in the details/weeds way too often. There is a time and a place and I was curious if beyond the technical discussions it is possible to just admire the work and not wonder about the particulars. I agree that this forum is good for technical discussions, I just hate to see them devolve.

Drew Wiley

5-Sep-2019, 14:55

Give and take is just the nature of it, Steve. Kinda like Australian rules football. I can think of far rougher photo forums than this one; but with the bruises and long-term rivalries on one of those forums in particular often comes especially useful privileged information. The reason for that is that some of the older participants were once bitter commercial rivals with closely guarded trade secrets. But now is the time to make those secrets useful to another generation. This forum is tame by comparison. Sorting it all out can be challenging unless you have enough experience to weigh things for yourself. Just take things a step at a time, and brush the dust off if necessary. You'll do fine.

Steven Ruttenberg

5-Sep-2019, 15:16

I agree

Tin Can

5-Sep-2019, 15:25

Some post images
Some critique

Some hate everything
Others Like! everything

Some never post an image...never—
Truth is an image

Drew Wiley

5-Sep-2019, 15:30

Web images are like wooden nickels. Been there, done that. Waste of time except for nominal subject matter. Want to learn printing nuance? Look at real prints instead.

Tin Can

5-Sep-2019, 15:35

Where do we see yours?

Name it.

Web images are like wooden nickels. Been there, done that. Waste of time except for nominal subject matter. Want to learn printing nuance? Look at real prints instead.

Drew Wiley

5-Sep-2019, 15:58

I had quite a nice website up for 15 years, with feedback from the majority of countries on earth. But web sufers surf; print buyers buy prints because they see and want the real deal. Of course, it's now possible to do a much better job with actual image presentation because web speeds have increased so much, but it's still a very crude visual medium. I still have my domain, and even have a new deluxe copy stand set up with a pro DLSR. So it should be possible down the line for me to post token informational images if necessary. Everything is calibrated. But beyond that, it's a low priority at the moment. I've got a lot of printing and drymounting to catch up on the upcoming seasons. The color printing in particular can be quite involved. Then there are those travel episodes which are an amenity of now being retired. The web is like McDonald's. Billions are served. But it's no place for a gourmet.

Corran

5-Sep-2019, 16:18

Well there's always this (https://web.archive.org/web/20131019032934/http://www.drewwiley.com/gallery.php).

Nothing is gone forever.

Drew Wiley

5-Sep-2019, 16:28

Interesting. I don't know what they term those tracer pages. I knew they were there. I hated the way subtle color images were incapable of being represented, so never included any. They were all small files due to the constraints of the web back then. I can't get any of the black and white pages to come up. But note how the page background is itself a faint black and white image of a reflection in a lake. The color equivalent appeared on the now-missing home page. The contact page image still appears; that image alone paid for the entire overhead of a one-man exhibition within the first twenty minutes of it opening.

interneg

5-Sep-2019, 17:56

In the other side linearity in the highlights can be an additional complication in the optic printing, too high densities are achieved easier and pulling highlight textures can be a mess.

For optic printing, IMHO a linear film may be really good for scenes with a dynamic range that fits in the paper range. For scenes with a higher dinamic range a photographer may take advantage of a film with S curve response, not linear, to craft a negative that's easier to print.

You've got this backwards. The more pronounced an S-curve's shoulder is, the more it compresses the highlights & makes it harder to burn them in while maintaining good separation. The more linear the highlights can be kept, the easier they are to burn in while maintaining good separation. These differences are rather obvious to anyone with more than the lowest level of darkroom experience. That all said, it's the fundamental aesthetic of the film that matters, not how easy it is to print.

Corran

5-Sep-2019, 18:07

Drew Wiley

5-Sep-2019, 20:26

I got tired of beating a dead horse, so didn't want to bring it up myself. VC papers can be printed just like graded if you wish. I learned on graded paper, so learned to develop my negs so all of them would print well on the same grade (3). I find that most VC papers land around that same range with plain light, at least with all my enlargers. But VC papers give me a lot of liberty to tweak things easily. Sometimes I deliberately dev negs very thin, then print through deep blue light for maximum contrast. This is related to how the differing emulsions in VC paper often tone differently, and I do this to dial some specific toning effect I wish for. All kinds of options. Highlights are easy to burn in using green or yellow light. Certain negs which were hell to print on even premium graded papers are easy on VC. But the more linearity there is in both shadows and highlights, the easier it is to get tonal separation in the extremes, if that is what one wants, esthetically.

Pere Casals

6-Sep-2019, 02:52

I said something similar, or perhaps it was in the other thread about T-Max 100, and have been wondering if someone was going to bring that up. I know that sometimes, when printing from "traditional" films, highlights burn in to just a very light greyish tone with no separation.

Bryan, let me say my personal view:
(Disclaimer, I'm still a rookie wet printer)

when we burn on a VC paper we may place the contrast grade filter we want while we are burning, so we can adjust the tonal separation (contrast) in those highlights to exactly nail our taste.

Usually we burn highlights with filter 00 or 0, but we may also burn with 2.5 or even 4. The higher the grade the higher the tonal separation.

When we scan, taking all negative range in the histogram, in PS we may need to compress highlights and shadows to allow enough range for the mids by bending the curve to an S, in the top of the S we give more or less gradient-range to the highlights, this is no secret, of course...

Then... when we select a filter grade for burning highlights we also adjust that gradient in the highlights, like in Ps.

The same with shadows, we usually burn shadows with filter 5, but we also may influence separation by using a lower grade.

_____

Traditional films have a natural tonal compression in the highlights from shoulder, if we develop with an staining developer then the stain+VC combination adds an additional tonal compression in the highlights, so we may require to burn highlights with a higher filter grade. The film shoulder + the Pyro/VC compressions may be too much when added.

A bit it's contradictory wanting the TMax linearity in the highlights and later having to use a Pyro+VC paper to emulate traditional films that have that shoulder in the highlights yet.

Of course TMax films are absolutely impressive, but praising linearity and later prasing Pyro is weird, we praise one thing and the counter. IMHO the film linearity in the highlights is a "pitfall" that can be solved with Pyro+VC, or simply we end in what a traditional film was doing with highlights: shouldering.

Like when we S shape curve of an scan in PS, when wet printing we also may require that compression. We can do it in the film shoulder, in a compensating processing, with a stain+vc interaction, with intermitent water bath paper development... Our mileage may vary.

Beyond art, IMHO it's about controlling (enough) the medium we work with, not much more.

Pere Casals

6-Sep-2019, 05:07

VC papers can be printed just like graded if you wish.

Not at all, Drew, not at all.

Since early 1980s VC changed the game.

My "guess" is that linear films like TMax started making sense since VC paper became better and popular, because the additional flexibility from VC papers allowed to solve the complications in the printing from linear captures.

VC paper allows to burn highlights or shadows or dodge/burn any area in the print with any specific grade.

You don't have that flexibility with graded papers. Masking is also powerful, but's not the same: A regular CRM or SCIM applies the same tonal transformation to the full framing, while we may be burning with with an specific grade in an specific area.

What is true is that Masking is able to make powerful tonal transfomations that would emulate many responses we may want, but this also is a severe complication in the workflow.

I was pleased to see the Burkett's youtube video showing his masks, he does not say it, but beyond shading it may add USM to the print. I'd like to own one of those ilfochromes !

Drew Wiley

6-Sep-2019, 10:12

Again, Pere, I do this all the time; and the outcome is hundreds of very successful prints. I'm equally at home printing VC or graded papers. I do it with equal ease using a cold light, a subtractive CMY colorhead, an additive RGB colorhead, or via split printing using deep blue versus green glass filters. And don't lecture me about masking either. I've made thousands of them. Now as per Pyro, it's not just about highlight holdback due to the proportional stain, but certain pyro formulas might be chosen with respect to how they control grain structure, edge acutance, related micotonality etc. This is in itself a complex topic that has been discussed and debated (sometimes hotly) on this forum many times before. The effect of pyro stain on TMX100 is modest but real. It's a little stronger with TMY400. But in no way does it transform the result into something resembling a conspicuous shoulder, but just a minor reduction of the gamma in the highlights, depending of course on the specific pyro formula and how close to the realistic upper limit of the film you are, which can differ with personal exposure style. This is one reason why I prefer to take advantage of the available real estate at the bottom end of the curve rather than risk overexposure at the top in high contrast scenes.

Corran

6-Sep-2019, 10:43

Traditional films have a natural tonal compression in the highlights from shoulder, if we develop with an staining developer then the stain+VC combination adds an additional tonal compression in the highlights, so we may require to burn highlights with a higher filter grade. The film shoulder + the Pyro/VC compressions may be too much when added.

A bit it's contradictory wanting the TMax linearity in the highlights and later having to use a Pyro+VC paper to emulate traditional films that have that shoulder in the highlights yet.

You state here that Pyro + traditional film may add too much compression, while also stating it makes no sense to use on TMX, so in essence Pyro is a bad developer, and yet so many people use it as their only developer, and make excellent (technical) work.

I have a simple question for you. On FP4 or something similar, let's say we exposure the shadows generously to get them out of the toe. Traditional "thick negative" exposure technique. At some point the upper values start to get compressed. I get that. At what point does the shoulder level out to being completely flat, therefore having NO possibility of burning anything down other than a flat, single tone, regardless of development technique? And, how does that compare to a scene with a full range of tonality - let's say, a gentle forest scene with angular but soft light from sun and clouds on a good day, with also a nice waterfall that when shot will have a rich variety of very high values that are very much higher than the surrounding area?

Oren Grad

6-Sep-2019, 10:44

My "guess" is that linear films like TMax started making sense since VC paper became better and popular, because the additional flexibility from VC papers allowed to solve the complications in the printing from linear captures.

VC paper allows to burn highlights or shadows or dodge/burn any area in the print with any specific grade.

What actually happened is that after the new generation of films (T-Max, Ilford Delta) came out, both Kodak and Ilford modified their most popular FB and RC variable-contrast papers to have longer toes, precisely so that the new films with straighter highlight curves could be printed more easily *without* darkroom heroics like elaborate dodging and burning.

That said, it's still not hard to conjure up a TMY negative that's effectively unprintable on silver paper in the darkroom, even on the papers tailored for the new films. More generally, my bias is that barring special circumstances, such as a picture with special historical or personal significance, a negative that takes hours of work to print is a negative that's not worth printing. Life is way too short. Those who enjoy the process of taming a difficult negative are welcome to that pleasure, but I'd rather be out and about making more new pictures or in the darkroom making more new prints.

Louis Pacilla

6-Sep-2019, 12:43

no matter how deep you dig, you won't find a pony at the bottom of the horse shit

By fare my FAVORITE post in this thread and proves true every time.

Not to mention the visual is a pretty damn funny one!

Drew Wiley

6-Sep-2019, 12:44

There is simply no substitute for real hands-on darkroom experience with the specifics.

interneg

6-Sep-2019, 15:19

...sometimes, when printing from "traditional" films, highlights burn in to just a very light greyish tone with no separation

Essentially it sounds like you have discovered that there's no such thing as an unprintable density, even at the point that the curve has compressed the useful contrast to the point of no separation & rolled off into Dmax. The biggest headache I've found with multicontrast papers is that sometimes the interplay between the emulsions and filtration can create a gap in the curves flattening the mids (almost like posterization) - usually going up half a grade cures it, but obviously means more dodge & burn are needed. A bit of flash/ fog (which can be dodged & burnt) at a lower grade than the printing grade on a multigrade paper can have more effect than a simple flash/ fog on a graded paper.

But AA throwed the Super-XX film into HC-110 and he also obtained a remarkable tonality.

Super-XX's reason for its longevity was its remarkable ability to maintain a straight line no matter what CI you developed to (pretty critical for colour separation procedures etc to work) - look up the curves.
Yet Adams seems to have preferred TXP by the time he was using HC-110 (and before that, Portrait Pan developed in D-23 which he described in a letter to Paul Strand in 1954 as "perhaps the best quality for the kind of work we do") - which deliver a rather different curve shape to Super-XX.

That said, it's still not hard to conjure up a TMY negative that's effectively unprintable on silver paper in the darkroom, even on the papers tailored for the new films.

It would take some doing, especially compared to TX or similar that has rolled over the top of its shoulder. Yes, it can be a bit of a pain to deal with high contrast edges etc, but the linearity of TMY-II means that if you can rein in the density by burning, fogging, masking etc, the separation remains much better than the films that shoulder harder. For all those notional advantages, there are other films whose tonality I much prefer.

Drew Wiley

6-Sep-2019, 15:46

The real-world interplay between the two VC emulsions differs with respect to not only specific product, but also developer, degree of dev, and respective amounts of exposure given to the two emulsions. Some papers will not attain full DMax unless a token amount of exposure is given to the low-contrast green-sensitive layer as well as significantly more exposure to the blue-sensitive high-contrast layer. It's a complicated topic far easier to deal with in actual printing than via technical explanation. As far as Super-XX goes, AA's opinion or habits had little relevance to that particular film's straight line application to color separations. TMax films are also capable of a very long straight line at high gamma, and will do it even more consistently than Super-XX ever did. The old standby had a serious problem developing sufficient gamma in the blue separation; therefore the gamma difference had to be made up by developing the blue neg dye matrice substantially more itself. With TMX100, all three separation can be developed together for the same amount of time and arrive at overlapping curves. TMY400 does not have this characteristic, but does allow all three colors to achieve high gamma using film dev alone. TMax grain is obviously much finer too. But what I miss about Super XX and its later cousin, Bergger 200, is how the straight line down into the shadow values went deeper than even TMax films, and I could place the threshold of discernible texture way down on Zone 0. That actually made a discernible difference in prints of extreme contrast subjects. But I only did it for 8x10 shots due to the graininess of these films. Yet it is important to match the tools to the final anticipated outcome. And that's why I work with a variety of films and not strictly TMax. I do, however, get tired of people constantly referencing AA as some kind of ultimate standard of how to print. He was significant in his time and place, and deserves high credit in the history of environmental progress as well as photography. But there are a lot of tricks he never tried, and films and papers have largely changed anyway.

interneg

6-Sep-2019, 16:00

...I do, however, get tired of people constantly referencing AA as some kind of ultimate standard of how to print. He was significant in his time and place, and deserves high credit in the history of environmental progress as well as photography...

Absolutely agree. He was arguably more important as an environmental campaigner than as an artist in his own right. And the fetishism around his methods (and especially that around his assistants) seems all rather silly to me, especially given how aesthetically limited it is.

No serious disagreements with the rest of your post either.

Alan Klein

6-Sep-2019, 20:59

Pere Casals

7-Sep-2019, 08:25

Some papers will not attain full DMax unless a token amount of exposure is given to the low-contrast green-sensitive layer

No serious disagreements with the rest of your post either.

This is LOL.

1) There are 3 emulsions in a VC paper, not 2.

2) You may mix several washed emulsions and coat a single layer, crystals mostly retain the original dye sensitization.

3) When you expose the blue only sensitive emulsion the other two always get also exposed, with blue only always you can get paper DMax

Before machinegunning AA you may need to go back to the photo school. Ansel knew his tools, it looks you don't.

AA made more in a single day before breakfast than Drew, interneg and me will make in our entire lifes, some respect will be nice.

Michellangello made La Pietà with simple tool, a hammer. He knew his tool.

his assistants

Don't tell me that you ignore the Alan Ross Masking way... This is the most powerfull wet printing tool we have today.

Pere Casals

7-Sep-2019, 08:52

You state here that Pyro + traditional film may add too much compression, while also stating it makes no sense to use on TMX, so in essence Pyro is a bad developer, and yet so many people use it as their only developer, and make excellent (technical) work.

Sorry if I was not clear enough: Pyro and TMax are great, TMX + Pyro combination is impressive.

It is contradictory to praise TMax linearity and later compressing highlights with the stain+VC effect.

At what point does the shoulder level out to being completely flat, therefore having NO possibility of burning anything down other than a flat, single tone, regardless of development technique?

Negative film records detail with even insane amounts of overexposure, at least six or eight stops. Silvermax (not LF) for example can reach 4.0D, and many films reach well beyond 3.0D.

Another thing is printing in the darkroom those insanely high densities. Most of what we do with custom film developmet is making easy to print that.

With a custom development (POTA) we may record even 20 stops, see shots with nukes exploding.

Corran

7-Sep-2019, 09:24

You didn't really answer the question, but it doesn't really matter anyway. The technical abilities of a film with exotic techniques are not really applicable to day-to-day image making, and my question was based on a very specific type of scene I see/print a lot of, and obviously I've posted scans/prints of same many times here. From what I understand and can see with my negatives, after 10 years of practice and experience with T-Max 100, I get where you are coming from and I think it's why some people don't like T-Max 100, especially with T-Max developer - but I think with careful and proper exposure/development, it's still a beneficial bit of engineering and will result in better highlight retention (on the print) compared to traditional films when used properly.

Pere Casals

7-Sep-2019, 09:46

Let me be specific, fp4 records some 6 stops overexposure, with normal development, add 3 stops latitude in the shadows for total 9 stops, perhaps 10.

If wanting more, do N-

Drew Wiley

7-Sep-2019, 10:18

Have you EVER actually printed anything in a darkroom, Pere?

Pere Casals

7-Sep-2019, 11:45

Have you EVER actually printed anything in a darkroom, Pere?

I started printing in the 1980s, in high school. Last two years in the high schooI was also teaching new students.

Drew Wiley

7-Sep-2019, 12:38

Well, you keep making one ridiculous statement after another. Probably most people on this forum know that some VC papers include a third emulsion component. But if the way you phrased it were true, split printing would be impossible. And if blue light exposed all the emulsion layers, no serious yellow or green sensitive layer would even be present, because that blocks blue light, at least to a significant extent, and visa versa. In fact, it would be impossible to obtain high contrast, and what you'd get would be muddy density in every portion of the image. You might want to rethink that.

interneg

7-Sep-2019, 13:35

1) There are 3 emulsions in a VC paper, not 2.

Nope: it can be as few as 2, as many as 5. May be a single layer & with the dyes heavily ballasted etc, or 2 layer coating, again with ballasts etc. Very little of each dye is used (to prevent staining), supersensitisers are key. Most current emulsions are high to very high chloride content.

Before machinegunning AA you may need to go back to the photo school. Ansel knew his tools, it looks you don't.

Aye, right.

I spend most of my time having to explain to and teach people that Adams' approach is only one (limited) mode of many. Your obsession is clearly detrimental to you learning the most basic techniques properly, instead getting yourself wound up in silly statements that immediately demonstrate your near total lack of useful experience.

Don't tell me that you ignore the Alan Ross Masking way... This is the most powerfull wet printing tool we have today.
All he did was popularise/ formalise what people have been doing for about as long as masking techniques have existed. It's a useful technique, not a fetish to obsess over.

Drew Wiley

7-Sep-2019, 14:09

The equivalent of Alan's technique can be found in graphic arts manuals going back to the 1940's or even earlier. It can be combined with other masking techniques if desired. Bringing in Chris Burkett is irrelevant to this thread. Other than the common denominator of certain punch and registration equipment, and maybe a few film choices, Ilfochrome masking has little in common with masking for black and white printing, or even for other color media. This is just another example of how inadequately informed generalizations actually confuse the present subject. Although Alan was one of AA's assistants, you won't find any useful info on the subject from AA himself. Even though he was surrounded by neighbors and friends who routinely did masking for sake of dye transfer printing, AA apparently never seriously tried it. I personally appreciate how he developed the Zone System; but it's just one Swiss Army knife in a far bigger tool kit. Those who make a religion out of it are welcome to do so; but I'm not one of them.

Pere Casals

7-Sep-2019, 16:21

Drew and interneg, it looks you have not still tried the Alan Ross way, even it's possible you ignore what it is...

Drew Wiley

7-Sep-2019, 16:39

I was doing it before I ever heard of Alan Ross. It was just a minor part of my own suite of masking options. I'm equipped to do far more sophisticated and precise masking than what Alan describes, though his approach is commendable for its simplicity in black and white applications when people are on a limited budget.

interneg

7-Sep-2019, 16:58

Drew and interneg, it looks you have not still tried the Alan Ross way, even it's possible you ignore what it is...

If you are trying to duck the substantive questions hanging over your claims with more whataboutery about the computer derived masks coloured for VC papers which Ross describes - again, nothing new, just a popularisation/ digitisation of techniques that have been around for a long time - it's just that BW sectarians often seem rather ignorant of the techniques that evolved for creative colour printing.

Unlike you, I have done plenty of long edition printing & masks of the sort described by Ross etc can make things faster & less error prone - which was why he adopted/ adapted them. Outside of this, & unless your photography has evolved to a point where routine masking of BW film is critical to your expressive needs, you should be concentrating on getting the basics of exposure & processing (and the reasonable limits thereof) sorted and clear in your mind & practice, rather than attempting to rectify fundamental errors by extreme means.

Drew Wiley

7-Sep-2019, 17:08

No need for even a scan and digital printer. All it takes is a registered sheet of frosted mylar painted with fast-drying colored dye, or even just soft pencil smudge if you split print. In this elementary fashion, it's just a semi-automated form of VC dodging and burning for sake of repeatability.

Pere Casals

8-Sep-2019, 07:35

No need for even a scan and digital printer. All it takes is a registered sheet of frosted mylar painted with fast-drying colored dye,

ok, this time you have done your homework.

it's just a semi-automated form of VC dodging and burning for sake of repeatability.

Not only that. It also allows perfection with prints that require a very complex manipulation, otherwise it would be difficult to nail all steps.

_____________________

It looks that you have never tried that way, you may try it, it can be recommended.

Pere Casals

8-Sep-2019, 08:04

Nope: it can be as few as 2, as many as 5.

Nope: "MULTIGRADE papers are coated with an emulsion which is a mixture of three separate emulsions."

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Contrast-control-for-Ilford-Multigrade.pdf
Page 1

What VC paper has 2 or 5 emulsions???

What one has 2 emulsion layers instead a mixture?

Very little of each dye is used (to prevent staining), supersensitisers are key.

This is LOL, once sensitized emulsion can be washed and sensitization remains.

All he did was popularise/ formalise what people have been doing for about as long as masking techniques have existed.

You overlook AA contribuition to the way we today understand what it is fine art photography.

not a fetish to obsess over.

of course

Drew Wiley

8-Sep-2019, 08:40

If you want to seriously discuss things like masking or VC emulsions, perhaps that would best be done on different threads than this one. There was a time when several of my favorite graded papers disappeared, then a couple anemic versions of those same brands came out, and via masking I was able to get reasonable print quality anyway. But with today's selection of high quality VC papers, masking should not even be needed in a REMEDIAL sense if one has intelligently exposed and developed their film, including TMax. It is still useful for enhancing microtanality and edge effect, automating dodging & burning etc.

interneg

8-Sep-2019, 09:09

What VC paper has 2 or 5 emulsions???

What one has 2 emulsion layers instead a mixture?

For example ADOX's MCC/MCP uses 4 emulsion components, new Polywarmtone also has 4 & needs to be coated as a 2 emulsion layer package (+ supercoating). Old emulsions like some of the Dupont/ Efke era were two emulsion as far as is known. The third emulsion component was a later innovation. Taking a single manufacturer's preferred & highly evolved design/ manufacturing approach as universally applicable doctrine is indicative of limited reading/ understanding of very complex technological changes.

This is LOL, once sensitized emulsion can be washed and sensitization remains.

This is irrelevant. You quite clearly know very little about modern sensitising approaches or how the dyes are used or held in place in a specific emulsion. You are guessing off the basis of very limited experience with Erythrosine, aren't you? It has poor adsorption, thus that's why it's added early on.

Pere Casals

8-Sep-2019, 11:20

For example ADOX's MCC/MCP uses 4 emulsion components

True... this should be from industrial shortcomings. With only 3 components Ilford is able to nail straight curves for each grade from the right grain formulations in each component, but they started to make VC paper in the WWII times.

The third emulsion component was a later innovation. Taking a single manufacturer's preferred & highly evolved design/ manufacturing approach as universally applicable doctrine is indicative of limited reading/ understanding of very complex technological changes.

It is not a single manufacturer, it is the dominant bw photo paper manufacturer, by far. Ilford 3 components in one layer is the industrial standard. It is what allows total design control with the lowest cost. But this not that easy to do, so other small manufacturers may need other ways to get straight lines.

You quite clearly know very little about modern sensitising approaches or how the dyes are used or held in place in a specific emulsion. You are guessing off the basis of very limited experience with Erythrosine, aren't you? It has poor adsorption, thus that's why it's added early on.

I add Erythrosin in the addition, in that way it has x2 the effect, washing does not remove the effect. I'm cooking an VC emulsion (like Rollei Black Magic is) to print on glass. I've been reading a lot about sensitization, all I could, obviously manufacturers have industrial secrets that are not disclosed.

jnantz

8-Sep-2019, 12:33

Vive la révolution!

You can say that again !

Some post images
Some critique

Some hate everything
Others Like! everything

Some never post an image...never—
Truth is an image

Amen Brother!

Duolab123

8-Sep-2019, 19:55

I think AA would be first in line for today's films and papers. Spilt printing and selective contrast burning is mind boggling. AA had scripts he worked from. Every print was dodged and burned, no print exactly the same. Sure his development methods helped dramatically as well, to work what zones each part of the photo had.

Closed loop VC systems, modern timers, papers. We've never had it so good. I think Ansel would be on board too.

I will commit a bit of sacrilege here. Some of Ansel's greatest works came off a printing press. There's ultimate control.

He thought the Zone VI coldlight with a photoeye was the greatest advance in modern history, I wonder what he would think of closed loop RGB LED light sources with VC controllers and f stop timer analyzers.

I don't know how many emulsion layers are in Ilford and Foma papers but they are wonderful to work with.

MHO FWIW
Best Regards Mike

Pere Casals

8-Sep-2019, 23:14

I think AA would be first in line for today's films and papers. Spilt printing...

+1

Before 1980s VC papers were not good enough, I guess.

Sasquatchian

9-Sep-2019, 00:26

I used to see Ansel around town quite a bit growing up in Monterey. If you look at his history, like being an early adopter of Polaroid and later one who learned the art of offset lithography better than most printers, you have to think that if he were to keep going, he would have been an early adopter of digital technologies like scanners and then Photoshop. It only makes sense. He was always one to push boundaries of available technologies. I can only think how intrigued he would have been to actually scan a negative and then manipulate it with a degree of repeatable precision he probably wished for but couldn't quite achieve. Drum scanners were making the scene in the late '70's but the early ones never even produced a digital file, they only scanned the film to be turned and imaged onto the plate making film, so four separate scans to print and a re-scan if your color balance was off. Pretty crude.

Drew Wiley

9-Sep-2019, 09:30

I was at a party in a home of a climber- photographer last weekend who likes to collect and frame various examples of that same genre. Among many other framed images, he had a quad-printed version of AA's famous early Precipice Lake ice & cliff shot. This kind of press technique allows standardized mass reproduction, and comes out both cleaner than the original and richer than any inkjet version would be. It also costs about 1% of what any remaining vintage print by Ansel's own hand would command. But I still prefer the period-authentic look of the original. It's useless to surmise what somebody might or might not hypothetically do given today's options. AA wasn't even up to speed with the quality of darkroom equipment and variety of printing options available through the latter part of his own active career. The point is to thoughtfully use what you do have.

Duolab123

9-Sep-2019, 20:08

Mark Sampson

9-Sep-2019, 20:50

"The point is to thoughtfully use what you do have."
Indeed! Well said Mr. Wiley.

...Haven't followed the entire thread but I am glad that the OP likes TMY. There are still a lot of True Believers (including some ex-colleagues) at Kodak, who want to make the very best film; good to know that they're succeeding.

Drew Wiley

10-Sep-2019, 10:20

If AA had chosen current digital printing options, nobody would ever have heard about him except as just another dime a dozen dude with a DLSR hanging around his neck. He certainly wasn't a true pioneer with respect to photographing places like Yosemite - many had gone before, at least two of them perhaps even more artistically endowed - but within the context of the significant National Parks and Wilderness theme expansion of the mid-20th C, he was viewed as such by the public, with his cowboy hat, mules, and big cameras. Probably better most, and even better than his own assistants, I can appreciate his sensitivity to the light because I grew up right at the confluence of all that scenery which made him famous. I didn't artificially adopt a "rocks n trees" genre in order to make catchy photos like his; rather, I was moulded to it long before I ever saw an actual AA print. What is now named the AA Wilderness area was my front yard view; and Yosemite, SEKI, John Muir Wilderness, etc, could all be seen from atop a short walk. I certainly don't regard him as the greatest printer around. He was accustomed to his usual Dektol and so forth. He wasn't anywhere near as cutting-edge technique-wise as a lot of hero-worship mythology about him suggests. He made do with what was familiar to him from long usage. But he was far more sensitive to lighting and poetic composition than most of his thousands of wannabee ZS clones. As I understand it, Polaroid came to him when it was still basically what we'd today call a cash deprived start-up. So they paid him in stocks, and that is what mushroomed into his primary source of real wealth. Anyone who thinks modern digital printing is a step forward is only looking at the convenience aspect of it. In terms of actual image quality, some of us regard it as commercialized de-evolution. But that has happened many times before in the history of photography. Choose your own tools and master them; that's how you get from Point A to Point B.

Steven Ruttenberg

10-Sep-2019, 21:09

Steve Could you provide links to a good and bad photo of each using the grad ND?

I will show more examples, give me a day. Been out in the boonies for four days. Toroweep, also known as Tuweep Grand Canyon. Like nowhere. Only saw Ranger once. Had Campground and whole area to ourselves. Can only get there by high clearance a 4-wheel which I have. 6 inch lift Ram1500 or hiking.

Took 15 frames I think. 10 4x5 Portra 160 and 5 D100 8x10. My game was off though, sent camer to Chamonix for minor maintenance after a fall, customs busted the sh*t out of it. Used a Toyo 4x5 which is a brick and a borrowed Toyo 8x10 which is 4 pallets of bricks! I miss my 45H-1!