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

[Pere Casals]

And except for speed, the two products are analogous in terms of ordinary usage.

Not only for speed, also for resolving power they are quite different.

With same technology, x4 the speed is x4 the crystal surface, so x2 the "diameter" of the crystal.

I'd not try to rate lp/mm of lenses using TMY because we would not see which LF lens is better, while TMX says it.


Another thing is if top image quality is important or not for an image...


IMHO it is true that in 8x10 film resolving power is not that important, but it's equally true that IQ of a good 4x5 TMX shot is comparable to IQ of a 8x10 TMY shot, nearly matching I guess.


Datasheet says extintion at 50Lp/mm vs 65Lp/mm at 1.6:1 low contrast, but they don't say the exposure, IMHO in practice difference is way larger. TMX is a very, very sharp film and TMY it is way less sharp.

Not that extrange, it can be suspected from the x4 speed difference.

[Drew Wiley]

With the old TMY, the grain clustering was a bit random, so came out grittier than the current product, but even then looked far less apparent or obnoxious to me than Tri-X grain enlarged. I shot and printed quite a bit of it, both in 8x10 and 4x5, pyro developed.

[pepeguitarra]

So... I decided to put my personal bias aside regarding the cost of Kodak T-Max 8x10” sheet film and buy a box. At over twice the cost per sheet compared to Ilford, I shed a tear at checkout and a few more each time I tripped my shutter.

Well... yesterday I got around to processing the first of my sheets in PMK and I now finally grasp how this film commands such a price.

Firstly, the base seems much more rigid / strong compared to other films I’ve been using. I’ve had some issues with film popping and / or sagging with other brands, so this may be a big deal to me.

Secondly, the tonal range from deep shadow to brightest highlight is phenomenal.

Thirdly, in comparison to other 400ISO emulations it’s essentially grainless.

I shoot a lot and I have a real fear now that this realisation might send me close to bankruptcy, or at least drive a real obsession with what might be achieved with the best of materials I once considered unjustifiable.

Thank you. That is all I needed to hear to buy my first: Kodak T-Max 8x10.

Pepe

[Corran]

Recently I found a full box of 8x10 TMY in the bottom of my freezer, which made me happy.

I generally have not been a big fan of TMY, but so far I've made some decent negatives and a contact print looked great. But I don't think for me it was any different than HP5, other than a nominally faster EI, which to be fair may be important. My favorite image thus far was a waterfall and stream that I was able to shoot at 1/15th of a second, giving a nice feeling of movement without stopping motion, whereas HP5 or a slower film would've required an exposure too long to get that "just right" feeling (I normally shoot HP5+ at 200 or sometimes lower).

That said I doubt I'd buy more. I could probably live with HP5+ and develop it in Acufine to get a speed boost...and it'd be fine. We all pick our tools...

[Tim V]

Weird question: Do Kodak make their own base material for sheet film? It’s the most rigid I’ve felt, and really much better than rest it seems.

[Pere Casals]

Weird question: Do Kodak make their own base material for sheet film? It’s the most rigid I’ve felt, and really much better than rest it seems.

Acetate is used for TMax rolls and Estar for the TMax sheets. I guess that they manufacture the base for the sheets, but they buy the base for rolls.


They even sell Estar for many industrial applications: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedFiles/...ester-Film.pdf


About acetate, I guess they stopped manufacturing it, and buying it around: https://petapixel.com/2013/06/12/kod...se-production/


You may like to read Making Kodak Film book, I found it very interesting.

[Tim V]

Interesting, thanks for the links.

Any evidence that the Estar base is archivally any better / worse / same as the competition? Anecdotally I've had photographers tell me it's archivally superior but not read anything definitive.

[Oren Grad]

Both Kodak and Ilford sheet films are specified as being coated on a 7 mil (0.180 mm) polyester base. Fuji, Foma and Adox sheet films are specified as being coated on 0.175 mm polyester base. I don't know whether that's just a difference in rounding on what is really the same number, or whether the thickness really is 0.005 mm different.

Other than Kodak, where you can look at Robert Shanebrook's book to see details of the production process, I don't know anything about where the other manufacturers get their base stock. But I'd consider any claim that the bases are different in some fundamental way to be suspect unless supported with strong evidence, not someone's rumor or hearsay.

[Peter De Smidt]

Regarding TMY versus HP5+, TMY is 1.3 stops faster for me, which is a big deal, especially for larger formats. Both are excellent films.

[Pere Casals]

Any evidence that the Estar base is archivally any better / worse / same as the competition? Anecdotally I've had photographers tell me it's archivally superior but not read anything definitive.

"Archivally superior" is using a double bath fixing, with a little rinse in the middle, washing well with final distilled water bath, then protecting film in the storage.