Camera scanning HP5+ and TMax 400 (TMY-2) – a comparison

[rdeloe]

I’ve been searching for a black and white film and developer combination I can really get to know well in my hybrid workflow. I’m camera scanning my 4x5 negatives to produce 2,666 ppi files. I often find myself in low light situations, so I wanted a relatively fast film that could be shot at box speed or faster without too many compromises. Additionally, I don’t love a lot of grain.

For the developer, I’ve decided on Xtol for a variety of reasons such as availability, convenience, reliability, and environmental friendliness. For films I’ve been evaluating my old standby Ilford HP5+, which I’ve used a lot, and TMax 400 (which I’ve never used before).

This post is a report on some early comparison results. Many people here at LFF and at other sites have commented at length on both films, so not much more needs to be said on that front. However, I haven’t been able to find a lot of useful information on how these emulsions do in a hybrid film-digital workflow. Lots of people had opinions on different emulsions perform, but I couldn’t find a side-by-side comparison.

To get right to the point, TMax 400 (TMY-2) is a remarkable film if you want what I want. HP5+ is a lovely film too, but TMY-2 is leagues better in every respect that mattered to me (shadow detail, handling of highlights, fineness of the grain, ability to capture fine details, and “scan-ability”). If you are shooting film specifically to scan, it's worth careful consideration.

The usual disclaimers: This test is obviously not conclusive. Your needs are different than mine. Your preferences and tastes are probably different too. Other people are much better at squeezing the best out of each film than me…. (And please don’t tell me that HP5+ does better shot at ISO 200 or whatever. I want a film that works at ISO 400!). Seriously, this is just a little side-by-side comparison in case other people are curious about the performance of these two films in this kind of hybrid workflow. I’m not trying to convince anyone who loves HP5+ to switch to TMY-2. They’re different. You decide.

Some technical notes:

* I shot both films at box speed on the same camera, at the same time, with the same lens. The scene was in a room that had a huge range of dark to light, and lots of different tones and textures (furniture, drapes, plants, snowy scene out a picture window). Nothing changed between shots except the film, and the exposure each film received.
* I processed the sheets separately in Xtol 1+1 at 20 degrees C in a Stearman SP 445 tank. The HP5+ sheet received 12 minutes, while the TMY-2 sheet received 8.75 minutes these are the Kodak/Ilford recommended times for this developer at box speed. Agitation was the same for both.
* Once the negatives were dry, I fluid mounted them on a sheet of glass and camera-scanned them with a Fuji X-T2, with a target resolution of 2,666 ppi. You can read about my setup here: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ample-approach
* Finally, I imported the scanned images into Lightroom. I did not use any sharpening or noise reduction. These pictures are “straight”.

So with all that out of the way, here are some side-by-side pictures. They’re all at 1:1, which translated into 926 pixels wide out of the roughly 13,175 total widths of each scan.

(1) Orchid against picture window

This bright white orchid was facing a picture window and a snowy garden. Not only does the TMY-2 negative capture more of the details in the snowy background, but also it gets a lot more detail in the orchid petals. There’s also a lot less grain.



(2) Sign and orchid

I positioned a note card with the film, lens and development information so I could keep track. Notice the clarity of the writing in the TMY-2 scan, the smoothness of the marble table top, and the textured pattern in the flower pot.



(3) Flower pot

This part of the picture was not in the plane of sharpest focus so details are a bit softer. The smoothness of the plastic pot inside the pottery pot is striking to me. The patterned pot and the hardwood floor show a lot more detail too.



(4) Drapes and leaves

The folds in the sheer drapes have turned to mush in the HP5+ version; in the TMY-2 version there’s loads of detail and texture. The leaves of the bougainvillea are also more distinct and more finely detailed in the TMY-2 version.




In conclusion, I really like TMY-2. It’s doing what I want really well. I still like HP5+ for times when I actually want a grainier, “classic” look. But based on what I’m looking for in a film, TMY-2 is a great choice. As usual, your results not only may vary, they most likely will vary.

[Peter De Smidt]

Yep.

[rdeloe]

Yep indeed!

One of the best explanations of how the scanner and the film interact is found in this thread, in particular Bruce Watson's response at post #12: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...xtol-dilutions

The digital sensor and the film definitely interact in strange and sometimes unpredictable ways. Here's a 4:! magnification of a piece of carved wood furniture in the scene on which this thread is based. Of course 4:1 is not real-world relevant. But it reveals some of what's going on.



Leaving aside the much better handling of tones in the TMY-2 version, it's almost not possible in the HP5+ version to see the grain in the wood of the piece. It's hard to see in the tiny images I can post on LFF, but if you could see this at full size on your screen, you would recognize clear sensor artifacts in the HP5+ version that are largely absent in the TMY-2 version; I'm referring to the blotchy patterns of light and dark pixels in the HP5+ version. It's hard to believe that these were made with the same digital camera.

[jp]

Tmax400 is an amazing film.. I think it's perhaps more detailed than fp4+ but don't have any proof. I bought plenty of it before the last big price hike.

If it's the tone difference are a concern, you can fix that in photoshop by adding some inflection to the curve in the area where those tones are different. But of course it's also nice to capture the tones as you want them without needing much of that. Further tuning of exposing and processing from factory suggestions will be helpful in both films too.

[interneg]

TMY-II is an astonishing film - if it was ISO 100 it'd be pretty amazing, the fact it's ISO 400 is a remarkable feat from the photoengineers involved. That, said HP5 & TMY-II are quite different films in both colour sensitivity & sensitometry. I happen to prefer HP5's tonality for the sort of stuff I photograph. Cost is irrelevant if it makes it easier to get the negatives that you need/ want.

[Bruce Watson]

In conclusion, I really like TMY-2. It’s doing what I want really well. I still like HP5+ for times when I actually want a grainier, “classic” look. But based on what I’m looking for in a film, TMY-2 is a great choice. As usual, your results not only may vary, they most likely will vary.

IMHO TMY-2 is the best B&W film ever made. And probably the best that ever will be made since photographic film R&D is essentially nonexistent at this point.

My only regret in photography is that I didn't try TMY sooner. Well, maybe not my *only* regret...

[rdeloe]

Tmax400 is an amazing film.. I think it's perhaps more detailed than fp4+ but don't have any proof. I bought plenty of it before the last big price hike.

If it's the tone difference are a concern, you can fix that in photoshop by adding some inflection to the curve in the area where those tones are different. But of course it's also nice to capture the tones as you want them without needing much of that. Further tuning of exposing and processing from factory suggestions will be helpful in both films too.

When I made these shots with HP5+ and TMY-2 I also made them with FP4+, so I can answer your question about how FP4+ compares to TMY-2 when I develop and scan the FP4+. Stay tuned.


For this comparison I used the "straight" files to give people more of an apples-to-apples comparison. I could make good prints from either negative with some adjustments in LR. However, I think the TMY-2 negative still has an edge in that respect. I've found that while it's really important to get a good RAW capture in digital as your starting point, it might be even more important with film scans. I'm finding that large adjustments degrade the image a lot, e.g., coarsening the appearance of grain in areas of smooth tone. So here the TMY-2 negative pulls ahead again; TMY-2 seems to handle big differences from darks to lights better, and has better local contrast (see above comparison of the carved furniture piece).

[rdeloe]

IMHO TMY-2 is the best B&W film ever made. And probably the best that ever will be made since photographic film R&D is essentially nonexistent at this point.

My only regret in photography is that I didn't try TMY sooner. Well, maybe not my *only* regret...

I agree, and I surely hope they stay in business! Worst case scenario I have three freezers...

[Larry Gebhardt]

So with all that out of the way, here are some side-by-side pictures. They’re all at 1:1, which translated into 926 pixels wide out of the roughly 13,175 total widths of each scan.

Looks like the attached crops got resized. They seem to be have been shrunk to 750px wide.

[rdeloe]

Looks like the attached crops got resized. They seem to be have been shrunk to 750px wide.

Sadly 750 px wide is the maximum permitted on LFF. For larger images I'd have to post them off-site and link back.

I think the confusion is because I was referring to each frame in the comparison being 926 pixels wide -- but that's on my monitor. I wanted to give people a sense what 1:1 meant in the context of an image that's 13,175 pixels wide.