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

[Bill Poole]

I am nowhere near as organized or systematic as the experienced gurus in the room, but I do shoot a lot of medium format TMY, which I love. I find that it works best for me rated at 320 in HC110, which I have standardized on as a developer due mostly to ease of one-time use and storage in my small condo (no darkroom, alas.) But when it comes to large format, this retired guy cannot justify the extra cost of TMY in sheets, as much as I would love to use it. So I have been shooting HP5, but find I have to rate it at 200 to get the shadow detail I want with HC110 development. Since I scan and print digitally (again, alas no darkroom) if I get detail in the shadows, I can usually get to a file I like using digital tools. So I'm stumbling toward something approaching a system, I guess.

[Drew Wiley]

Good strategy, Bill. HP5 has a much longer toe, so needs more exposure support in the shadows. Of course, everything depends on the overall scene contrast. For example, I can go to the Marin redwoods when the fog and mist is still around and successfully use HP5; but once full sun breaks out, there can be 11 or 12 stops of range between the deep forest shadows and shiny bare intricate fir branches etc - subjects I enjoy the challenge of shooting. But in that kind of extreme contrast, HP5 is relatively worthless. I have salvaged numerous HP5 negatives using supplementary unsharp masking; but that involves a sheet of TMax for sake of the mask itself, so there no real cost saving that way. It can produce an interesting print. The only inexpensive sheet film with a long straight line in existence is Fomapan/Arista 200, but its much slower real-world speed, miserable reciprocity characteristics, and dicey quality control make it unrealistic for me. FP4 is an excellent compromise film; but it's slow speed is risky on breezy days working with the smaller f-stops characteristic of 8x10. I use both TMY400 and TMax100 for med format working, depending, as well as ACROS; and sometimes PanF, but only if the lighting is quite soft.

[Pere Casals]

there can be 11 or 12 stops of range between the deep forest shadows and shiny bare intricate fir branches etc

Drew, in that situation HP5 of TXP would work even better than TMX. Lets calculate it.

Independently of how you meter, if you place your deepest shadow in the film speed point, this is 0.1D over fog+base, then highlights would be overexposed by exactly 8.7 stops.

If you want we can see how toasted would result that overexposure with a film that grows linearly in the highlights, we can place the 12 stops on the kodak graphs.

TMX would record that range, but also TXP an HP5 would record it. Disadvantage of TMX is that it would build around 0.3D additional density (my calculation) with the same N-, which would double the required buring time in the print to pull texture from highlights.

With HP5 I made shots ranging 10 zones, this one took metered 9 or 10 Zones but the negative has texture in not metred extreme highlights that are not seen in the posted image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...5/28693688313/

_________


This is ilford Pan F 50: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...n/photostream/

The solar disk got solarized, I guess, the rest of the image was darkened in the post for (questionable) aesthetics, but you see detail in the solar crown. I don't know how many zones, but it has to be something crazy high !

[Drew Wiley]

What planet do you come from, Pere? Do all the shadows on that planet have fill-reflector light bounced into them? It will be interesting to see how your opinions evolve as you gain actual printing experience and aren't just trying to pre-guess how these variables interact. You sure got things upside-down on this last post of yours. Have fun. I gotta make a late lunch.

[Pere Casals]

What planet do you come from, Pere? Do all the shadows on that planet have fill-reflector light bounced into them? It will be interesting to see how your opinions evolve as you gain actual printing experience and aren't just trying to pre-guess how these variables interact. You sure got things upside-down on this last post of yours. Have fun. I gotta make a late lunch.

Drew, you say TMX takes 12 stops, I repeat:

> if you place your deepest shadow in the film speed point, this is 0.1D over fog+base, then your highlights would be overexposed by exactly 8.7 stops.

> 8.7 stops overexposure, with no shoulder... you make a toast !!

[Duolab123]

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.

Eastman Chemical, Kingsport Tennessee USA, spun off from Eastman Kodak in 1994, makes all manner of resins and chemicals. Eastman Kodak is still using the Estar name, which is an Eastman Chemical brand. Tenite, a brand of cellulose acetate was used by Kodak for developing trays, funnels etc. Eastman Chemical was in the right place at the right time when the BPA scare hit with transparent water and baby bottles. If EKCo. had kept Eastman Chemical it would probably have bankrupted EC as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of Eastman Chemical polyester and cellulose acetate resins are not in use by other film compnies. It's always wise to have more than one approved supplier. However film base, which was the reason George Eastman founded Kodak Tennessee, to make cellulose acetate resins, probably doesn't amount to 1 percent of Eastman Chemical's business anymore. You will see the Tritan brand of co-polyester resin advertised for use in water bottles, and all manner of consumer goods.

[Drew Wiley]

Pere, not all opinions are equal. I've been working with TMax films ever since they first came out, not only for general photo use in multiple formats, but for technical applications requiring far greater precision in exposure, development, and process control; in other words, complete predictability every time. No guessing, no web surfing random rumors, no stereotypes. This requires a solid understanding of the actual curve characteristics as they apply both to b&w printing per se and highly repeatable color applications for sake of various kinds of masks, precisely matched color separation negs, etc. Now what have you actually ever done with these films yet?

[Pere Casals]

but for technical applications requiring far greater precision in exposure, development, and process control; in other words, complete predictability every time.

Yes... you can predict when you'll toast your highlights, as you have less a shoulder then you have less a safety belt, and in that situation a really high range scene ends in an smoking toast in the highlights.

That linearity in the highlights can be useful for technical applications, but what's for creative photography it is more a drawback than an advantage.

Of course with a careful processing we may shoulder the TMX/Y curve if we want, this also has to be said, and this can also be required with shouldered films to a lower extent.


Again, tell me what we gain with linearity beyond 1.5D !!!


TMax films are amazing, but they also have drawbacks. You cannot say that something is the best in the world and not mentioning the drawbacks of the thing.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I understand the wanting to fit an entire range of stops onto a piece of film, but we seem to be ignoring other tools that can help. A well placed 3 stop grad nd or 3 stop reverse grad nd can allow for a scene with large differences in lights and darks to be photographed well. For example, say I meter the darkest shadow and it is ev 4, and my brightest spots are ev 18. Then I make adjustment to stops faster to put shadows into ev 2. My brights are then eve 16. From there I put on my grad nd of 3 stops which further reduces my brights to ev 13 so now i have an 11 stop difference instead of 14. I still need to do all the other stuff to make the negative good, but this allows me some head room. I have used a 5 stop and even 8 stop or certain scenes and it worked out well. Not saying this is the holy grail or anything like that, but we should not discount the tool if it can help us fit on the negative the scene in a more well behaved manner and stay away from the extremes of the negative capability.

[jp]

TMax films are amazing, but they also have drawbacks. You cannot say that something is the best in the world and not mentioning the drawbacks of the thing.

OK, It costs extra money. It takes longer to fix and wash. Done. At least for tmax 400.