I have to echo the "no good deed goes unpunished sentiment" - and found the results of your efforts very helpful. I didn't see any "imperative" in your summation and, based on the quality of the work which you produce, I felt that it was a good summation with a helpful and informed approach. In short - thank you.
Joel
Thank for clarifying the point you’re trying to make Pere, and thanks to everyone else for the feedback.
I just want to clarify one important point that this conversation reveals. I went through the whole cycle of measuring and testing everything to the nth degree the first time I worked entirely with large format (1990s and early 2000s). However, I’m much less interested in doing that these days.
First, modern emulsions are much more forgiving. I compare shooting a high-tech emulsion like TMY-2 versus shooting a classic emulsion like HP5+ to shooting RAW versus JPEG. Both require knowing the limitations of your equipment, but RAW provides vastly more latitude; images that are ruined as JPEGs because you blew the highlights or crushed the shadows are often perfectly fine as RAW files.
I’m definitely not saying that technique is unimportant, that sloppy work habits are OK, or that you don’t have to know your materials. But with a good hybrid workflow, a film like TMY-2 allows for a simpler approach to exposure and development. In my own comparisons, highlights that were blown with HP5+ and FP4+ were fine with TMY-2. Sure, it might be possible to capture the same or similar dynamic range on HP5+ with individualized exposure and development routines for each sheet… but why on Earth would I want to go through all that if I don’t have to? Similarly, if scanned TMY-2 negatives already provide vastly more detail than can be seen on the largest print I’ll ever make, why would I chase more resolution. Simpler is better.
Second, I’m no longer interested in chasing very small marginal improvements in “image quality” that can only be seen and appreciated by 0.1% of photographers (and which are invisible to everyone else). Digital photography forums are groaning under the weight of posts and sample pictures from people who are chasing “ultimate image quality”, endlessly cycling through the latest and greatest technologies in a quest to make the highest resolution, greatest dynamic range pictures of their pets and grand kids. They’re arguing ad nauseum about which RAW developer is better, which lens has more resolution and better micro contrast. What they've lost site of is the fact that just about any digital camera you can buy today vastly exceeds the capabilities of most photographers. They're all good.
My bottom-line is that I want to understand my equipment and tools well enough to reliably and consistently make the pictures I want to make. I test and measure and evaluate up to that point, but no further. I derive no pleasure, and see no need, for spending time on tiny marginal technical improvements that won’t actually result in stronger photographs. I’d rather focus on what matters to me, which is making pictures that say something, that get people to think differently, or that create an emotional reaction. If I can make those photographs with a simple workflow (e.g., based on shooting TMY-2 and camera scanning), then I can focus on what matters to me.
Per Kodak's F-4016 T-Max 400 resolves 50 lines/mm vs 63 lines/mm for T-Max100 with a contrast ratio of 1.6:1. It's a bigger drop of 200 to 125 lines/mm for 1000:1 contrast ratio. So TMY certainly gives up some resolution vs TMX, but it's not enough that I worry about it when stopping the lens down likely results in less detail than TMY can record. Stopped down to f/32 any lens resolves less than TMY can record even at low contrast ratios.Originally Posted by Pere Casals
Edit: Looks like Kodak claims 200 lines/mm at 1000:1 for TMY-2 in F-4043, so even less of a reason to not use TMY-2 if you need the speed.
That's an excellent statement of a reasonable approach.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Yes, this is 50 lp/mm at contrast extition, but please see the MTF chart in kodak datasheet, you will see that it starts to have a contrast degradation by 30 lp/mm, so from that low value if starts damaging what the lens is able to do.
One thing are limits at extintion, and another one what happens before reaching the limit. To me MTF graphs in the datasheets explain very well what we see in practice if we compare good TMX vs TMY shots. The TMX ones iare way better, at least to my eyes. This is relevant for big prints.
Sure TMX is higher resolution and its MTF chart shows it, but TMY-2 is not low resolution. It's also got two stops of extra speed to stop leaves moving in the wind, have some hope of getting sharp eyes in portraiture in dim available light, and all the other reasons we might value film speed over resolution. Even if I don't need the speed I'll still sometimes shoot TMY-2 because I love the look of the film. I rarely print above 20x24 and at those sizes it really doesn't matter for 4x5 and 5x7. I liken it to stopping down the lens in the first place. If all we valued was sharpness we'd find the optimal aperture and shoot at only that. But we don't do that because ultimate sharpness is not the primary concern. If I need to limit the print size because of that, so be it.
The longer straight line of TMax film makes it the obvious candidate. But TMX100 would be an even better candidate than TMY400. There are numerous other technical reasons for choosing TMax over other films. Among them, they were invented with repro applications in mind. But in Ilford's lineup, FP4 would be a lot better choice than HP5. Larry is overlooking the repro component of the original question, while Pere is guessing about the application. At this point in film history, TMX 100 is the gold standard for repro versatility.
If you wish to do alt process contact printing, skip the tmax 100 as it does not pass uv.
Larry, I mostly agree with your point of view, I guess you know very well how to take advantage from TMY strengths.
Anyway let me point some thoughts:
Yes... but TMY kills any advantage we may obtain from a top notch last version lens like an APO Symmar, APO Sironar-S, etc. With a 1979 Sironar-N we would get the same because TMY is the limiting factor. TMX may feel the difference easier.
A TMY user sporting an APO kit is something contradictory: a large investment just to be limited by the film capability most of the times.
Yes...
We may also show wind.
Here we have a master, YK. Most important Karsh's body of work is ISO 200 Super XX, with floods at around 1/10s.
Dim available light IMHO it's an exception in LF portraiture. Strobes is what works, and floods is what a master may prefer to not scare the subject. Now gurus say TXP (or HP5+) at EI 64, 5min in HC-110.
I've evaluated RB 67 with TMX vs LF. A MF shot with TMX delivers flawless resolving power in 30" prints. Of course LF has lots of movements. With a RB may use different backs for shots at different N, having similar flexibility than with sheets.
Of course.
I've been reading two books to learn that. Post-Exposure (Ctein) and Image Clarity (John B. Williams). Still struggling to bring that knowkledge into practice.
In 8x10 I feel comfortable with HP5+, but in 4x5 I find TMX edge often makes a difference.
For 4x5" this is not a problem, rarely we take the alt effort to make a 4x5" print, so we require anyway a second enlarged negative or (today's trend) an enlarged digital negative, so no problem with TMX in the taking.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks