New T-Max 400 7x17. Is it really worth $190.00 ???

[Daniel Grenier]

Some of you may have tried both films by now so this is a question that really interests me given the huge difference in price between what I use (Efke PL100) and the new T-Max 400.

I mean, I can buy 25 sheets of 7x17 Efke PL100 for $89.00 or 25 sheets of the new T-Max for a whopping $190.00. That is a hell of a difference!

Is it truly worth the extra $110?

[John Bowen]

7x17 TMY...it is all that I shoot....so YES, I think it is worth the cost. BUT, you have to make that determination for yourself.

[Daniel Grenier]

.....you have to make that determination for yourself.

Fair enough, John. Let me ask you then how you decided to choose that particular film - cost and all?

[sanking]

In my opinion TMY is a better film in that the quality is more consistent, the emulsion is hardere (less risk of scratching) and the two stops more speed is usually a great plus when working with ULF cameras.

However, given the cost difference I can definitely see the attraction of Efke PL100.

I am in the process of making a similar decision about 20X24 film. The cost of the new TMY in that size was just more per sheet than I was willing to pay so I am looking into FP4+ or having a special cut of Efke PL100, if Freestyle can get that done for me.

Sandy



Some of you may have tried both films by now so this is a question that really interests me given the huge difference in price between what I use (Efke PL100) and the new T-Max 400.

I mean, I can buy 25 sheets of 7x17 Efke PL100 for $89.00 or 25 sheets of the new T-Max for a whopping $190.00. That is a hell of a difference!

Is it truly worth the extra $110?

[Jiri Vasina]

Sandy, I'm still waiting for the delivery of Wephota film (so I can not say anything about the quality and comparison to Efke/Adox films, not to say any other from Fuji/Ilford/Kodak), but I think they'd happily cut the film in any size you think of. That is, if you fail to make a deal of cutting the Efke through Freestyle... And the price is quite reasonable.

I think you could have a look at sheetfilm.be (maybe there would be someone closer to you, too).

[John Bowen]

For me it was about simplicity. I print on Azo and there are a number of posts on the Azo forum that discuss TMY developed in Pyrocat-HD and it's ability to yield negatives with enough contrast to take advantage of the long scale of Canadian Azo grade 2. I first adopted TMY for my 8x10, but when Kodak's ULF program came along a few years ago, I stocked up on 7x17 and 5x7 so I wouldn't have to spend a bunch of time testing other films. I am able to get the results I want/need from this combination of materials. I've also NEVER observed a defect with Kodak B&W films. Kodak's QC is worth a lot to me. I like the 400 speed and I LOVE the reciprocity characteristics of TMY.

Yeah, I wish it was still $6 an exposure vs the new $8, but with the cost of oil being sky high, a significant price increase was expected (at least I expected it :-) )

I'll shell out the increased price for all of the reasons listed above. I go through between 50-100 7x17 sheets a year, so $100-$200 over the 2005 prices isn't going to stop me from continuing to use TMY.

When I consider the costs of driving to a location, meals, rooms, etc. the costs of film, paper and chemicals pale in comparison...might as well use the best.

I think I would shoot myself if I took a week off from work, drove from Richmond, VA to Maine, spent 8-10 nights in motels and incurred all of the other costs associated with a trip like this only to find my film had some sort of a defect....Now THAT gets expensive.

Of course Your Mileage May Vary. What do you consider important in your film decisons?

Best,

John

[Don7x17]

You'll have to make your own assessment. My personal choice was based upon:
1) older emulsion vs T-grain dominant emulsion. You'll notice some differences in reciprocity characteristics if you use small f-stops(eg f32+) to get depth of field at very slow shutter speeds, especially in low light. Here TMY wins big time.
2) consistency batch-to-batch. Kodak's quality control is unparalleled (I've had bad Ilford and Efke. ) TMY (or TriX) wins this round for me.
2a) I have HEARD about one quality problem at Kodak that caused Kodak to replace, 2 years ago, some TMY with a 7x17/12x20 TriX cut (choice by the buyer, not Kodak. I bought some of this film recently).
2b) Consistency batch-to-batch combined with image-capture & development feedback. ....there is a big difference in time-to-find-a-film-problem with doing a few images in the backyard v.s. going on the road. Do I want to take a road trip to Alaska only to find out that my boxes of film have some random flaws? I think not. But if I were just doing images in my backyard(say 25 miles from home), the risk would be different. TMY wins. Ilford wins too. Efke? Not worth my risk...
3) Cost. Ouch. A big difference if I look at just the film. But when other costs get added, including travel costs as well as opportunity cost (your time has value too), then its not such a big delta. Efke wins here...$90.00. Well I will have to try some for local image making.....
4) Availability and cash fluidity. The days of wandering into the local photostore and finding 7x17 or 12x20 or other ULF are gone (In the 1990's Samy's carried all the Ilford ULF common sizes...). Your time and effort in understanding how emulsion responds under different conditions, and your interest in keeping to a common film may weigh in. Now you need to decide whether you have the cash on hand to invest in a freezer and filling v.s. buying from Efke (or other) dealers a box-at-a-time... YMMV. I chose to fill my freezers.

[Doug Howk]

I have one box of Efke 100 in 7X17 that is useless (density banding) and a box of Efke 25 that is marginal (pin holes & some density banding that shows up in sky). They may only be shots within a 50 mile radius but that's almost $20 just in gas. And I only average 4 shots per outing, so there goes the savings. More Ilford FP4 is coming, & I plan on ordering some new T-Max 400 since it has proven great for 8X10 and smaller formats.

[nolindan]

Efke [Vs] T-Max for a whopping $ ... Is it truly worth the extra $...?

An overwhelming _YES_: T-Max is a bloody bargain compared to EFKE.

1) I have never had a bad sheet or roll of T-Max.

2) I have never had an entirely good roll or box of EFKE. In fact I have had several entirely bad rolls of EFKE. I must have been a saint in my previous life, though, as my Karma is such that I have never taken (or attempted) a significant image on EFKE film.

3) The total cost of taking the picture so far exceeds the cost of the film that the cost of the film, no matter what it may be, isn't really relevant. I value my time more than I value cheap film.

4) When I need technical information I go to kodak.com, not efke.com. I have never gone to a conference where the Kodak rep wasn't present. I don't think the EFKE rep exists.

5) As mitigation, I haven't used EFKE in years. I also have no intention of using EFKE in the future. Why bother? Who would I rather stop making film: Efke or Kodak? Who would you rather be without?

[Rick Olson]

Okay ... I'll jump in. YES. I bought three boxes of TMY 12 x 20 just to be able to cut them down to get to 8 x 20. What will I do with the 4 x 20 sheets left over? I plan to cut those in half to get the 4 x 10 format that I need for my future Fotoman 4 x 10 "point and shoot" view camera!


Rick

[venchka]

Thanks everyone. I'll never need anything larger than 4x5. It's nice to know that sometimes saving money on something as important as film may be false economy.

How about making a 4x20 pinhole camera?

[Rick Olson]

How about making a 4x20 pinhole camera?

... I might actually try that!!

Rick

[venchka]

... I might actually try that!!

Rick

YIKES! I said something that might make sense?