Questions about Tmax and uv blocking layers

[Dan Schmidt]

I'm interested in trying out TMAX 400.

I currently use Ilford FP4+ in 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. Right now I print on my supply of AZO G2 and G3, but am interested in Pd printing.

All the talk of new emulsions and UV blocking layers has gotten me confused and I'm trying sort things out. I think the following statements are true:

A. The currently available TMAX 100 has a UV blocking layer.
B. The currently available TMAX 400 does not have a UV blocking layer.
C. A new version of the TMAX 400 emulsion is coming out.
D. The new TMAX 400 was going to have the UV blocking layer, but now it will not.
E. When the new TMAX 400 emulsion comes out it will come in 10 sheet boxes.
F. 5x7 is not a standard size for TMAX 400.

Is this right?

[HBDesert]

Point "A" is true.

I beat my head against the wall on Sunday trying to PT print some new negs with 100 T-Max. That film is now dead to me.


Take Care,

Doug

[steve simmons]

I always advise my students to avoid the film of the month club. If you have something you like stay with it.

Now, yes, the new T-Max 400 will not have the UV blocking layer. This is primarily important to the alt process crowd.

steve simmons

[Dan Schmidt]

I always advise my students to avoid the film of the month club. If you have something you like stay with it.

steve simmons

I really like FP4+ and have been using it for years. However, now I am doing more studio work where I would sometimes love to get more depth of field. So the speed of TMAX 400 would be helpful. My other option is to get more powerful strobes but I was going to try some tests with TMAx

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Points A thru F are right....

[steve simmons]

View Camera is expecting some samples any day and will do an evaluation of this new film as soon as we can. If we can get it done before the March/April issue we will put the article in the Subscriber's Section of the View Camera web site.

steve simmons

[Gary Samson]

Dan,
If you are photographing inanimate objects in the studio and need more depth of field, you could darken the studio, open the shutter and make multiple pops of your strobes.
Each time you double the light you will gain an f stop. This will not work of course if you are photographing people or other moving subjects.

[Vaughn]

Dan,
If you are photographing inanimate objects in the studio and need more depth of field, you could darken the studio, open the shutter and make multiple pops of your strobes.
Each time you double the light you will gain an f stop. This will not work of course if you are photographing people or other moving subjects.

From what I understand, there can be a reciprocity failure with multiple "pops", but simple testing will answer that.

Vaughn

[steve simmons]

With two I did not worry about it. With four I would give 6. With 8 I would do 12-14.

steve simmons

[Dan Schmidt]

I'm photographing yoga practitioners in poses, so multiple pops is not an option. I am very quickly loading and exposing the film as they hold the pose.

Unlike a typical portrait where it is quite pleasing to just have the subjects eyes in focus, here I would like to get more (all if posible) of the musculature in focus.

Part of the issue is that I am getting in close to isolate out part of the pose; I am not trying to capture all of the subjects body.

[Patrik Roseen]

In which way does the UV blocking layer affect the PT/PD image?

I am curious because I used one Tmax 100 4x5" neg last summer (during the LF Gathering in Stockholm arranged by Tedd Soost) doing Pt/Pd on a large Plate-burner 5000W/m2 and I actually got a result on to the paper.As you can see the edges of the negative came out black.

Is this normal or do your prints come out totally blank?

(Note: This was the only copy I made so maybe it should have received some more light or the chemistry should have been mixed more properly etc...)

[Patrik Roseen]

Just for the sake of clarification...My question is not about the black edges, those are more the proof point that the UV-light actually hit the paper and did not get stuck in any UV-filter. So what do your prints look like when you say it does not work?

(As for the note: I used more or less the same chemistry and time under the UV-source as did Tedd and Joakim A who used other film than TMX.)

[Patrik Roseen]

Helloooo anybody thereee eee eee?

Well, seems this thread just lost its value some how, or?

[HBDesert]

In which way does the UV blocking layer affect the PT/PD image?

I am curious because I used one Tmax 100 4x5" neg last summer (during the LF Gathering in Stockholm arranged by Tedd Soost) doing Pt/Pd on a large Plate-burner 5000W/m2 and I actually got a result on to the paper.As you can see the edges of the negative came out black.

Is this normal or do your prints come out totally blank?

(Note: This was the only copy I made so maybe it should have received some more light or the chemistry should have been mixed more properly etc...)

Patrik,

How old was the neg? The issue is with the new 100 TMax, not the old TMax 100.

Take Care,

Doug

[Patrik Roseen]

Hello Doug and thanks for the reply!
The negative (film) is the new 100 TMX I think as it says on the picture I attached.

It could be that the plate-burner has a wider spectrum than the UV-source normally used by forum members and that the chemistry actually allows this wider spectrum.

In lack of responses I found another discussion on another forum where someone claimed to use TMX in direct sunlight and that it worked just fine.

Patrik