PDA

View Full Version : TMX vs. TMY: Grain and What else ?



Ken Lee
29-Aug-2011, 01:33
With the currently available versions of Kodak TMY and TMX, how much of an enlargement is required to see a difference ?

What are the qualitative differences other than grain size ?

edtog
29-Aug-2011, 02:16
Sure the technical people will be posting soon with graphs etc.

On my level, I always preferred Tri-X v T-max, it has more bite and just looks more punchy. I like an image with a bit of grain, not sure how big you would have to go to see a big difference in grain.

Tmax for me was always a bit "flat."

Clint Chadwick
29-Aug-2011, 04:33
I believe that TMY has a UV blocking base on the film which makes it difficult to use in alternative processes.

TMX is an "old style" film with larger silver halide crystals.
TMY is a "new style" film with smaller tabular crystals.

I find TMX slightly easier to develop since I have to use an extended wash cycle to wash out the red dye (I believe it's a sensitizing dye) of TMY.

The same difference exists between Ilford FP4+/HP5+ and Delta 100/400.

I hear people say they like the "look" of one over the other, but barring apparent grain I cannot identify prints made from one over the other.

Greg Blank
29-Aug-2011, 04:54
Ken is asking about T max 100 versus T max 400. TMX Versus TMY.

I read that question as difference in sharpness. The extra speed of the four hundred I translate to noticeable differences in tone rendering though which almost have to be a prime consideration as well. I know from practical experience that the difference between an 8x10 print and a 16x20 equates to an increase in contrast to make a similar print at the 16x20 size. I have always said that enlarging opens up tonal values and requires adjustments of contrast and exposure. The assement is more depending on negative to enlargement size - I would say. I would venture to say that using the same T developer for both films at comparible times for 8x10 film you most likely will not see a difference at 16x20 Optically printed :) and probably not signifigant at 24x30. Maybe at 48x60, if you are scanning the image, the response could be a different answer.

BILL3075
29-Aug-2011, 05:17
Soon after the new version of TMY came out, I think (but not sure) Sandy King did an analysis and comparison of it with TMX. Perhaps Sandy can chime in.:)

If I remember correctly, there's little or no difference enlarging a 4x5 neg until you get to or beyond 16x20.

BILL

D. Bryant
29-Aug-2011, 06:42
[QUOTE]I believe that TMY has a UV blocking base on the film which makes it difficult to use in alternative processes.

TMX has the UV blocking coat on the base not TMY.


TMX is an "old style" film with larger silver halide crystals.

TMX is a tabular grain fim.

TMY is a "new style" film with smaller tabular crystals.


I find TMX slightly easier to develop since I have to use an extended wash cycle to wash out the red dye (I believe it's a sensitizing dye) of TMY.

Both films require care to remove the base dye.


The same difference exists between Ilford FP4+/HP5+ and Delta 100/400.

I don't think so.


I hear people say they like the "look" of one over the other, but barring apparent grain I cannot identify prints made from one over the other.

They do have different looks to me especially with TMAX 100 printed from small roll film,

Mark Sampson
29-Aug-2011, 06:47
"qualitative differences" means differences in curve shape and tonal rendition. Things that are apparent in pictures, and much less so in Kodak's (or anyone's) published curves. The only way to find the answer is to shoot a (TM) x-y comparison.

Ken Lee
29-Aug-2011, 07:06
"They do have different looks to me especially with TMAX 100 printed from small roll film"

"qualitative differences" means differences in curve shape and tonal rendition.

Exactly - I am interested in the differences in tonal rendition. :)

It has been almost 10 years, so I plan to do some fresh side-by-side comparisons. The films have changed, I have changed developer and scanner, and have learned a lot more about sharpening.

Because Forum members often surprise us with helpful insights, I thought I'd ask too.

jp
29-Aug-2011, 07:41
I have only used TMX in 120 and 35mm. I mostly use TMY(2) in 4x5, 120, as well as 8x10 and 35mm; it's my go-to film.

Qualitatively I don't like how TMX renders normal caucasean skin and grass/foliage outdoors. It's a lot lighter and flatter for those subjects, sort of like if you were using a green filter for the grass and a orange filter for the face. I haven't investigated Kodak's charts to see if this is due to a difference in spectral sensitivity or if it's a byproduct of a different curve.

If someone is only scanning, curve shape difference should be very correctable.

For LF, I will stick to films that don't have the UV blocking layer, ruling out serious use of TMX for me. I sometimes print alt-process and like that ability.

Oren Grad
29-Aug-2011, 08:14
Exactly - I am interested in the differences in tonal rendition. :)

TMX is something of a chameleon. As Phil Davis documented in an article in Photo Techniques quite a few years ago, its curve shape is especially sensitive to choice of developer. It has many different potential "personalities".

Drew Wiley
29-Aug-2011, 08:19
I can certainly see a difference in a 16X20 from 4x5, at least using pyro. The faster
film might actually look sharper because of superior edge effect, but under certain
circumstances it is a tad grainier. Contrast is higher in TMX than TMY. They are both
T-grain, and neither one of them resembles either FP4 or HP5. Both are capable of a
long straight line and excellent shadow separation in the proper developer. I prefer
TMY in things like landscape for the speed and hard edge, but TMX for portraiture and
certain technical applications. Got a lot of 8x10 of both in my freezer.

ic-racer
29-Aug-2011, 12:37
[QUOTE=Ken Lee;769902]With the currently available versions of Kodak TMY and TMX, how much of an enlargement is required to see a difference ?
[QUOTE]

With the same developer and processing sequence I found the film curves to be quite different. You can see this in a small enlargement.

sanking
29-Aug-2011, 13:35
With the currently available versions of Kodak TMY and TMX, how much of an enlargement is required to see a difference ?

What are the qualitative differences other than grain size ?

Need to enlarge more than 4X in my experience to see a difference on the print. And if you are scanning to print digitally, and your scanner is not able to scan at effective resolution of more than about 3500 dpi, I doubt you will see a difference in grain at any size enlargement.

TMY and Tmax-100 are so similar in terms of grain, spectral sensitivity, and curve type I would suggest that the only way to know which one would better serve your needs is to do your own tests. Especially since much of what is said about these films is personal opinion, not fact.

Sandy

Drew Wiley
29-Aug-2011, 15:27
Is that also a personal opinion, Sandy?

Ken Lee
29-Aug-2011, 16:01
I think Sandy qualified things quite carefully and politely:

"...in my experience...I doubt...I would suggest..."

I always appreciate Sandy's insights, because behind them are rigorous tests careful consideration. He's one of the "heavy hitters" here, as they say... in my opinion :)

Drew Wiley
29-Aug-2011, 16:07
Well, in my OPINION (based on actual observation of the results, just like in any real "science"), I would agree with Sandy that it is somewhere around 4x magnification
that the grain difference starts becoming noticeable, though even at that point it is
modest and not anything like say, Tri-X. I'd also agree that the film curves can be
made very similar, though TMY has somewhat lower contrast for the same dev time.
But if they are so similar, why the hell have I spent so much money stockpiling both
in the freezer? There are a lot of reasons, speed for one, that they just don't look the
same in the print for another, for different technical usages etc. But he's right ... try
them out for yourself and decide.

Bill Burk
29-Aug-2011, 20:39
But tonality... that would show up on a contact print right?

Mark Sampson
30-Aug-2011, 08:49
Of course.

Drew Wiley
30-Aug-2011, 08:52
The tonality has a heck of a lot to do with the specific developer in relation to the
print medium. That's where I guess we could get into those endless arguments about
which pyro is best for what. What's been fun lately is taking some of my older pre-pyro
negs and printing them on the new VC papers, both enlarged and by contact. I did some very interesting classic portrait work at one time using underexposed/overdev
8X10 TMX with a dagor lens, and the midtone and hight microcontrast was wonderful.
Around the same time, I deliberately underexp and overdev the older-style TMY for
deep black graphic shadows and fabulous midtone expansion with landscape work,
kinda the Brett W. look. Getting the toe to drop hard into the shadows is something I liked. The newer versions of these films seem even more versatile; certainly TMX
doesn't shoulder off as badly as it used to. But now I primarily use TMX for critical
masking and color separation work, and use TMY for general shooting, although it
can act as a good separation film too.

Greg Blank
30-Aug-2011, 17:14
It will, if the exposure is one that will make it obvious, Imop does NOT = a Normal contrast scene. Two images same subject on the two films processed in the same developer for their relative but synonymous times and same temperature with the same exposure adjusted for film speed you more likely will not see a big difference does = Normal contrast scene. Using the same filter pack for print each is also required to see how they differ.

However: If you were to take two dissimilar scenes under say for this argument the same relative light conditions whereby having more lattitude of exposure was an important consideration then you would see a difference-perhaps- I think I would. A foggy morning series of scenes. The 400 may have the lattitude to pick up the subtle aspects but the 100 may give you more of what you want becuase the 100 may drop the values enough to make the image seem less grey. Like others have said the results depend on lots of factors.



But tonality... that would show up on a contact print right?

sanking
31-Aug-2011, 11:56
Is that also a personal opinion, Sandy?

Sure, but what would you disagree with? What I find is.

1. The two films have very similar spectral sensitivity.
2. The two films can be developed to the same CI, and with curves that virtually are mirror images of each other. The curve is usually very straight line, though some developers (dilutions) may give slightly different results.
3. The grain of Tmax-100 is a bit finer than that of TMY, but you must print at about 4X to see any difference (optical printing), and if you scan you will most likely not see any difference in grain at any size print.
4. Both films have greater response to changes in time and temperature of development than most traditional type films, i.e. they have less latitude in development than films like FP4 and TRI-X.

I use TMY quite a bit for the speed, but rarely use Tmax-100 because I prefer Acros and its very low reciprocity failure.

Sandy

Drew Wiley
31-Aug-2011, 12:09
I don't disagree with any of it, Sandy. What you state matches my experience precisely. I was just having a little fun with the word, opinion. But you do tend to work
with a little different class of pyro developers than I do, and it seems that the TMX
curve is a little more fussy in this respect than TMY, so it's informative when you state
that you too can virtually replicate the curves. With color separations the response of the two films is slightly different; but I know you're matching the curves in PS, while I'm
doing it with a dev tweak. Both films do an excellent job in this category too.

Ken Lee
3-Sep-2011, 08:21
"...Need to enlarge more than 4X in my experience to see a difference on the print. And if you are scanning to print digitally, and your scanner is not able to scan at effective resolution of more than about 3500 dpi, I doubt you will see a difference in grain at any size enlargement."

By analogy, I "discovered" the same thing about 5x7 versus 4x5: to see the difference, you really have to enlarge quite a bit, and the scanner barely sees any grain at all with TMY.

I made 2 shots: one on 4x5 TMY with a 240mm Fujinon A, the other on 5x7 HP5+ with a 300mm Fujinon A. 5x7 is basically 25% taller than 4x5, and 300 is 25% longer than 240 - so the perspective is the same, but we would expect to see a 25% sharper image, and 25% less grain - but unless I enlarge the 4x5 shot well past 16x20, I can't see any difference at all.

For those who make huge prints, it's another matter, but for the rest of us who make prints 16x20 or smaller, one has to wonder about having so many lenses: cropping could replace many of them. Instead of (for example) carrying a 150,240,300 and 450, just a 150 and a 450 could cover the whole range in a pinch. And the 450 could serve as a 600 or longer.

Ken Lee
3-Sep-2011, 08:30
Another puzzling result of some recent tests: at infinity and f/16-22, my sharpest lens is a 210mm Macro Sinaron. Just a little sharper than my 150 APO Sironar S.

But you have to enlarge by a factor of 8X to see the difference.

I think it's "only" a Sironar-N, and it's supposed to be for close work. Go figure.

Sal Santamaura
3-Sep-2011, 08:45
...I made 2 shots: one on 4x5 TMY with a 240mm Fujinon A, the other on 5x7 HP5+ with a 300mm Fujinon A...we would expect to see a 25% sharper image, and 25% less grain...I wouldn't expect a linear relationship like that because you've got an excess of variables -- namely, one too many. Try it with the same film in both sizes. :)

Ken Lee
3-Sep-2011, 09:53
"Try it with the same film in both sizes. :) "

If I had some 5x7 TMY, I'd do just that, but it's rare and costly. Below is the comparison I mentioned in a previous post. At a print size of 15" high, there's no grain with either TMY or HP5+, and the images are basically interchangeable.

We can do the same test with just one lens: stand back 25% farther from the subject and take the same picture - then enlarge it 25% more. Then see if there's a difference between the two images. In fact, we can do the test with one image: Lower the scanning resolution by 25% and see the effect. At print sizes I make, the images are indistinguishable, to the point where a slight difference in sharpening can make either one better than the other.

In my tests, my 300mm Fujinon A is actually sharper than my 240A: another surprise. But to see any difference, you have to look at the negatives with a "15x" loupe. I put 15x in quotes because I suspect they over-state the magnification.

I also compared images using one lens on 5x7 versus 4x5 - to see if the film sags and thus affects sharpness. I can't detect any difference. The 5x7 film doesn't sag enough to matter, at least when the lens is stopped down to f/16-22 and shooting at a distance.

This reminds me of some tests that Christopher Perez did with vintage and modern lenses (http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/NikPro.html) of similar length: "Regarding print resolution, there were no differences between the three images. I confirmed this first visually, then when using the 2.25x magnification reading glasses, and lastly when viewing the prints with a 10x loupe. This was mildly surprising to me. At a combined 20x magnification (2x print enlargement plus 10x loupe) I was hoping to begin to see some difference between the three lenses. But at this point there were virtually no differences to be seen."

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/4x5-240-5x7-300.jpg

Drew Wiley
3-Sep-2011, 11:45
With such high-quality lenses you'd probably have to use a vacuum holder to maintain perfect film flatness to do truly objective testing. In the real world there
are all kinds of variables. On 8x10 my 360A is obviously used in a general way,
whereas on 4x5 it becomes frequently used for distant scenes like a telephoto, so
oftens encounters more intervening atmosphere than my 240 or 180 A's, and this
skews the visual results with some negs. It's huge coverage for 4x5 means I might
use a little wider stop than for 8x10 usage. Or in the past, I've used it on Quickloads
and Readyloads, which need small stops to correct for the uneven film plane. I get
a better idea of its potential with actual 8x10 printing, which allows an immaculate
30x40 is there aren't problems with the focal plane in the original subject. Now I'm
experimenting with something even trickier - blowing up negs from a 6x9 back on
my 4x5, and am amazed how much sharper the images from the Fuji A lenses look
compared to my previous Pentax 6X7 shots using the same films.

Ken Lee
4-Sep-2011, 05:48
Here's a case where I have used a 150mm lens to mimic a 300mm lens. It's one negative, full-frame and cropped 50% - both images sized to 16x20 inches at 300 dpi. 4x5 TMAX 100 in D-76. 150mm Rodenstock Sironar S at f/22


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/target150.jpg
Full negative: A "150mm" shot

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/target300.jpg
Central 50% of same negative: a "300mm" shot

I scanned at 2400 spi on an Epson V700, and then sized both sections to a 16x20 print at 300 dpi.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/150Mimics300.jpg

mdm
4-Sep-2011, 20:36
For those who make huge prints, it's another matter, but for the rest of us who make prints 16x20 or smaller, one has to wonder about having so many lenses: cropping could replace many of them. Instead of (for example) carrying a 150,240,300 and 450, just a 150 and a 450 could cover the whole range in a pinch. And the 450 could serve as a 600 or longer.

I agree but would pick a 135mm and 300mm for 4x5. For me the trouble comes with 2 formats, say 5x7 and 4x5, you end up with so much gear even though it is only a reduction back for me, so I always choose, either 4x5 or 5x7 and my preference is for 5x7. But I am no better off than when I only did 4x5 and cropped to 5x7 aspect ratio.