When was Kodak TMY introduced?

[sanking]

On another thread the question of when Kodak TMY film was introduced came up.

I looked at the Kodak Milestone page and could not find the answer. Could someone point me to a reliable source of information on this topic?

Sandy King

[Oren Grad]

I'll try to dig up some documentary evidence, but I'm pretty sure the introduction of both TMX and TMY was ca. 1987-88.

[Ted Harris]

I'll go with Oren's 87-88 as I have seen references on Kodak's site of experiments dealing with the possibility of TMY for motion picture film and decisions not to do so with the experiments dated 1990 and earlier.

[Oren Grad]

Bob Schwalberg previewed TMX/TMY under the codes XO-267 and XO-382 in the October 1986 issue of Popular Photography. First Kodak ad for TMX/TMY was in March 1987.

[sanking]

Hi Oren and Ted,

Thanks very much for the information. That is consistent with my recollection of when I first used the film.


Sandy

[tim atherton]

We were using a versionTMax 3200 in 80/81... but it wasn't released then

[Eric Leppanen]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/sexton-tmax.html

This article was published in early 1987; in it, John Sexton says:

I have had the opportunity to work extensively with the T-MAX films for the past three years. I was fortunate to be one of a few photographers to work with the films during their prototype development.

[Oren Grad]

We were using a versionTMax 3200 in 80/81... but it wasn't released then

Tim, perhaps you're remembering a different film. TMZ was introduced later than TMX/TMY; it seems a stretch that EK would have been sampling a version in development fully eight or nine years prior to release.

If I recall correctly, before TMZ, the speed demons were 2475 Recording Film and Royal-X pan.

[steve simmons]

I remember the house I was living in when T-Max was introduced. I moved to another place in 88 so it was commonly available before 88.

steve simmons

[tim atherton]

Tim, perhaps you're remembering a different film. TMZ was introduced later than TMX/TMY; it seems a stretch that EK would have been sampling a version in development fully eight or nine years prior to release.

If I recall correctly, before TMZ, the speed demons were 2475 Recording Film and Royal-X pan.

it was a classified product produced for the military that eventually became TMZ

we were using it for covert surveillance/counter-terorism ops back then - but it was certainly the early TMax 3200 (as a part of its operational use we were providing feedback to Kodak)

[tim atherton]

I should add there were plenty of products Kodak produced for such specialised use that never made the public market - this was one that did (I think among other things there were initially restrictions on how and when they could produce it for public use).

I also have some vague memory that the technology for the T-Grain films came out of the military/intelligence products/research

[Oren Grad]

it was a classified product produced for the military that eventually became TMZ

we were using it for covert surveillance/counter-terorism ops back then - but it was certainly the early TMax 3200 (as a part of its operational use we were providing feedback to Kodak)

Well that's interesting history - a fascinating counterpoint to Sexton's testing of the TMX and TMY prototypes for fine art applications...

[Oren Grad]

I should add there were plenty of products Kodak produced for such specialised use that never made the public market

I think Tech Pan was an "SO" film for a while before they gave it a name and made it into a regular product.

[tim atherton]

remember this was probably the heyday of the camera/lens/film business and the military industrial complex - Elcan was producing things like 90mm f1 camera lenses for the US Navy and others (we tried one of those out once back in the day). DeVere was producing specially made enlargers for the CIA and NSA for pritning high altitude aerial reconnaissance photography (some of them with, I believe, Elcan lenses in the enlargers the were specially matched to the Elcan lenses in the high altitude reconnaissance cameras) etc etc

I'd love to see a history of of all this stuff that was produced...

[Oren Grad]

The 90/1 Elcan is well known because of the meticulous fanaticism of Leica historians. But no doubt there are plenty of other interesting photographic stories from the military-industrial complex waiting to be told...

[Jim Jones]

Kodak's publication F-5 (Kodak Professional Black-andWhite Films of February, 1987, lists TMX and TMY. The edition of August, 1980, also inc ludes TMZ. The 35mm speed demon before then was indeed Kodak Recording Film 2475, a really horrible film. The grain was lzrge and mushy, and the base could coil up like a steel spring. Replacing it with TMZ was the biggest improvement in Kodak consumer B&W film in my long lifetime.

[Jim Jones]

I think Tech Pan was an "SO" film for a while before they gave it a name and made it into a regular product.

Tech Pan was preceeded by the similar Kodak High Contrast Copy Film, and that by Kodak Micro-File film with a tungsten ASA of 16. Micro-File is described in Kodak literature of the late 1940s and the 1950s. There may have been a similar film in the extensive "SO" catalog.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Looking back through my old negs, my first rolls of TMX and TMY were from 1990, though I lost a lot of negs from that era to a basement flood, so it's possible that I used them before that.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I think that TMY & TMX first reached Iceland in the late 1986. At first the base was so thick on the 120 rolls that it was difficult to use it in the Hasselblad. One also had a problem developing it: D 76 needed to be fresh, HC 110 was best and then came TMAX developer that would dissolve your fingers. And then the pink stain from the anti halid backing. I went to a Oliver Gagliani workshop in Viginia City, Nevada in August 1987 and there we spent quite some time trying to cope with Tmax films. I did not learn to love those films till Tmax RS developer came along around 1990. But I still can not understand why they make TMX with a glossy emulsion side, one can not print it with a glass neative carrier less Newton rings.

[Sal Santamaura]

...At first the base was so thick on the 120 rolls that it was difficult to use it in the Hasselblad...It was introduced on a 5 mil base. Mamiya cameras reportedly had the most problems. Subsequently reduced to 4.7 mil.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Sandy, does it really matter? 1985, 1990, who cares! My point was that if you look at Baer's images most if not all are taken in the late or early hours and most are heavily filtered. TMY does not respond to filters in the same manner that a Supper XX or Tri X would, and that is why I my statement that I was not surprised Baer did not like TMX film and most likely did not want to spend too much time with it.

[sanking]

Sandy, does it really matter? 1985, 1990, who cares! My point was that if you look at Baer's images most if not all are taken in the late or early hours and most are heavily filtered. TMY does not respond to filters in the same manner that a Supper XX or Tri X would, and that is why I my statement that I was not surprised Baer did not like TMX film and most likely did not want to spend too much time with it.

Jorge,


As your question pertains to that thread, no, it does not matter in the least IMO when the film was introduced. People have all sorts of reasons for their preference in materials and I base my own decisions on the results I get, not on what others tell me.

However, I started the thread here simply out of real curiosity to know the answer to the question, not as a sequel to the other thread.

Sandy

[sanking]

Guess the moderators started their celebration early today.

Sandy King

[snuck]

whee... you know... I really like this forum... and one of the reasons that I like it are because people are relatively civil and flame-free unlike other places that we might know and love... I'm being optimistic here (and a bit sardonic of course..).. help me out here....

[Bruce Watson]

Thank you Ralph! You might think that a moderator's job is thankless, but I assure you that is not the case. I for one really appreciate the work you (and the other moderators) do and the judgements some of my fellow photographers force you to make.

Please keep up the good work!

[sanking]

[QUOTE=steve simmons; The modern day equivilent to Super XX, according to most people, is te Bergger 200 film which behaves much like Super XX did in terms of expansion and contraction, and tones produced on a print. The fact that two films have similer curves does not mean they will produce the same tones on a finished print.

steve simmons[/QUOTE]

Bergger introduced BPF 200 as the modern day equivalent to Super XX. That was pure commercial hype. Bergger BPF is nothing like Super XX in terms of expansion potential, and anyone who has ever used BPF in low contrast conditions with processes like AZO and pt./pd. knows this to be the case. Of all the incorrect information you have communicated on this and other forums the statement that BPF is the modern day equivalent of Super XX is among the most uninformed.

Sandy King

[Ted Harris]

Actually Bergger BPF isn't even unique to Bergger; it is actually manufactured by Forte and is also the same as Foma 200 ... both the Forte and Foma version are called 'Classic.'

[sanking]

Actually Bergger BPF isn't even unique to Bergger; it is actually manufactured by Forte and is also the same as Foma 200 ... both the Forte and Foma version are called 'Classic.'

Also the same as JandC 200. All of it is cut from the same emulsion.

But you have to take your hats off to way this film has been hyped. It just goes to show that you can really fool some of the people all of the time.


Sandy King