Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 115

Thread: I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak...

  1. #21
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak...

    I shoot both MF and LF. For a long time tmy2 was a very low priced MF film at least in the US. It doesn't get much nicer a film for versatile MF uses. Kodak has increased it's cost slightly and Ilford has lowered theirs a bit. Kodak no longer is the low cost choice but it's close enough. I've had quite a bit of practice with the film and like using it in MF and LF sizes. I'm still using my 2011 stash from my chest freezer. When I use up more of it, I'll pony up the $ and replenish. It does a uniquely good job with highlights, at least the way I've used it with pyrocat and pmk. When it's too bright to use 400 speed film, FP4+ still does a nice job, but tmy2 is finer grained and more forgiving of highlights for me. I use fp4+ for LF in the summer.

  2. #22
    Joe O'Hara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Marlton, NJ
    Posts
    610

    Re: I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak...

    I print on Ilford MG Warmtone FB using a cold-tone developer. I like the results. Since the Warmtone is noticeably softer than the regular MG Classic FB, I can develop the negatives a bit more, which helps the low tones. But I never saw a problem with low values even with MG Classic.
    Where are we going?
    And why are we in this handbasket?


    www.josephoharaphotography.com

  3. #23
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    7,295

    Re: I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak...

    TMY is my favorite LF film, especially for 8x10: Speed, flexibility, fine grain, good reciprocity....but the price does make me flinch.
    Please stop feeding the trolls.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    375

    Re: I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak...

    I’m wondering, what is T-Max 100 like vs. 400? Is it the same curve but finer grain? I’m thinking mainly for when I need to shoot 120 film (eg. I’m out of money for LF,) and the finest and sharpest grain negative is paramount.

  5. #25
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak...

    It's different. I never got used to it. Other people here do great work with it. If you're trying to consolidate film choices you may find that the 400 speed is fine enough grain for all purposes. I like it for handheld MF shooting; rarely have to use < 1/100 sec with tmy2.

  6. #26
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    7,453

    Re: I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim V View Post
    Iím wondering, what is T-Max 100 like vs. 400? Is it the same curve but finer grain?
    The late Phil Davis had an article in the old Photo Techniques magazine showing the TMX curve shape to be highly sensitive to choice of developer. You can make the curve look a lot like that of TMY if you want, but you can also do other things with it.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,499

    Re: I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak...

    Disclaimer: TMY is a superb film, way less sharp than TMX but still superb.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tim V View Post
    Secondly, the tonal range from deep shadow to brightest highlight is phenomenal.

    You can do the same with any film, it's about metering/processing film properly. See images from Ansel Adams that used a lot of the ancient Super-XX, try to get those images with TMY... you'll find that's not about using TMY, SXX or Foma, this is about mastering the medium one works with.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tim V View Post
    Thirdly, in comparison to other 400ISO emulations it’s essentially grainless.
    Sure, because Delta 400 and Acros 400 are not there, so it's the single ISO 400 flat grain emulsion out there. The other emulsions are cubic.

    But in 8x10 film grain is irrelevant, and it's completely irrelevant with pyro as stain hides grain. Have you ever seen a grain in a print from a pyro developed TXP/HP5 8x10" negative?

    Anyway IMHO TXP and HP5 cubic grain films are way better for me for 8x10". In 8x10 grain is irrelevant

    If Image Quality is what counts, then it's worth to instead shot TMX or D100 in 4x5, you shot one or two stops wider with half the focal, the same DOF, 1/4 of the cost and the same image quality than with TMY at 8x10".

    There is no technical advantage in using a larger format if this imposes a high ISO film. ilford does not make D400 in sheets... TMX is UV opaque for alternative, so perhaps in part they have to make TMY in sheets because of that.

    A bit it is a contradiction to pay a lot for a refined APO Sironar-S lens and later limiting performance with a high ISO film, but there are many factors in the gear/film we use.




    Quote Originally Posted by Tim V View Post
    I now finally grasp how this film commands such a price.
    Amazingly it only commands that extra price in sheets, because with rolls have similar price.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	kodak.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	37.0 KB 
ID:	195100

    TMY in rolls is $6,3 , ilford is $6,2.

    When a manufacturer thinks that they can sell sheets at twice the (per surface) price because format is different I tend to think that they are punishing LF for some reason, personally this discourages me.

    ___

    I often use TMY for MF.
    Last edited by Pere Casals; 2-Sep-2019 at 08:57.

  8. #28
    Daniel Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Posts
    2,100

    Re: I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak...

    I don't get much chance to shoot these days(spending most of my free time at the sewing machines), but when I get a chance to make a photograph, $10 is well spent on a sheet of TMY. It gives me what I want, need, and frankly, a ton of flexibility.

    For contact printing, it might a bit "much", as I don't care about the grain when making 8x10 contacts, but should I ever make a drum scan to make a larger print, I know the negatives give me what I need.

    It certainly does make me edit on the ground glass though, the $10/sheet price tag.

  9. #29
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    14,146

    Re: I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak...

    There are some differences between the current TMax films and the original versions, with a dramatic improvement in grain in the 400 speed product being the most obvious. And except for speed, the two products are analogous in terms of ordinary usage. When it comes to technical applications, they're not. TMax100 was engineered to replace certain technical films as well as for general photography. For example, it's possible to match the gamma of deep tri-color filters separations all processed together for the same length of time. I can't think of any other film capable of that. But neither speed has quite as long a straight line as Super XX or Bergger 200 had. TMY has better native edge effect than TMX, so tends to look sharper in print than it's slower brother, except in small format. There's no need to go into too many details here. They're both great films capable of being developed over an exceptionally wide range of gammas. Pay attention to filter factors, cause they're a little different in cases from Ilford films.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    917

    Re: I take back every bad word I have said about Kodak...

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    There are some differences between the current TMax films and the original versions, with a dramatic improvement in grain in the 400 speed product being the most obvious. And except for speed, the two products are analogous in terms of ordinary usage. When it comes to technical applications, they're not. TMax100 was engineered to replace certain technical films as well as for general photography. For example, it's possible to match the gamma of deep tri-color filters separations all processed together for the same length of time. I can't think of any other film capable of that. But neither speed has quite as long a straight line as Super XX or Bergger 200 had. TMY has better native edge effect than TMX, so tends to look sharper in print than it's slower brother, except in small format. There's no need to go into too many details here. They're both great films capable of being developed over an exceptionally wide range of gammas. Pay attention to filter factors, cause they're a little different in cases from Ilford films.
    This reformulation came about after Tri-X tested out as finer grained than TMax 400. Sylvia Zawadski and Dick Dickerson had a good discussion on this at the time. Sylvia is the one who came up with XTOL developer. It was also changed from her formulation. Initially it was strong in any kind of water and dilutions of 1:3 were the norm. Things changed a bit and then the Dreaded XTOL failures showed up and the recommendation for 1:3 dilution disappeared completely.

    Names stay the same as products are not what they once were - for positive or negative results.
    "My forumla for successful printing remains ordinary chemicals, an ordinary enlarger, music, a bottle of scotch - and stubbornness." W. Eugene Smith

Similar Threads

  1. Any Word on Kodak Price Increases?
    By Frank Petronio in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 28-Jan-2012, 22:17

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •