Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: T Max 400 Technical Discussion by Sandy King

  1. #11
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,640

    T Max 400 Technical Discussion by Sandy King

    My own interest is not in alt-process, but simply in using standard developers such as D-76 to make negatives that yield "full information" prints in silver with a minimum of printing hassle. For that application, I've found HP5 Plus to be vastly superior to TMY. And I've never gotten a "pronounced shoulder" and "muddy highlight detail" from HP5 Plus, whereas I've found it very difficult to make TMY negatives that have adequate shadow information for my taste without also having excessively dense highlights.

    I don't mean to dump on TMY. I think that it is indeed an excellent film for certain uses, I'm in awe of Michael's and John's initiative and hard work in pulling off the TMY ULF order and I'm happy that he has succeeded in preserving a valuable additional option for us. But yeah, even if it wasn't intended that way, the piece did come across as a bit over the top, especially for those of us who aren't committed to alt-process and who don't want anything to do with pyro.

  2. #12

    T Max 400 Technical Discussion by Sandy King

    Oren,

    The characterization of 'muddy highlights' is purely from the context of alt process printing, as I don't believe HP5 will produce a meaningful shoulder within the range of useful silver densities.

    Despite the fact that I am an alt process shooter, I found the article to be a bit in excess as well. What people decide to use for themselves is their decison, and I won't get involved in any advocacy of a particular product, because each photographer will have their own set of requirements for how the film needs to perform. Making a decision on film based on the writings of another photographer is injudicious at best, because without the effort to use and analyze the film, an truly informed decision cannot be made.

    All of the film options available out there can be made to work under many different circumstances, and a film that may not seem to be 'ideal' in one aspect can prove to be the preferred film for a photographer in other ways.

    I ordered some TMY for my purposes when I absolutely had to have the highest shutter speed possible (which isn't too often at all) and when I am shooting well into reciprocity failure conditions (which does happen sometimes when shooting dark interiors). In both of these cases, I felt that the TMY may be the best solution for my needs. Beyond that, I would not consider TMY as a film to add to my freezer, and if it were to remain unavailable in ULF sizes, I would not be lamenting it's unavailability.

    ---Michael

  3. #13

    T Max 400 Technical Discussion by Sandy King

    We requested that Sandy contribute some TMY test data simply because Sandy has an extensive background in sensitometric testing, working with alternative processes and pyro developer research. Cognizant of the fact that there are a number of people that have not worked with TMY in ULF sizes we wanted to get a jump start on assisting people that have ordered this film (or who might consider doing so in the future) with providing some base knowledge of this film in the hands of the consumers or the interested photographer. J&C is comitted to supporting the LF and ULF markets with best products available. Providing some fundamental technical support is a very natural extension of this commitment.

    Sandy stated that it was his opinion that TMY would be the best choice for his LF and ULF photography. ULF photographers that have been using what sheet films have been available up to this point and have mastered these materials we are not trying invalidate any comfortability or experience you have gained with these products.

    The simple facts are that another viable alternative in sheet film - TMY can now be considered. I do not feel that anyone could disagree with the fact that in a market where many are regularly expressing fear for the future of film, the more options we all have to consider the better. Whatever film you are comfortable with by all means consume it. The most important thing here is to continue to make images and purchase film - any film. That is how we as photographers will insure the future of the art form we so dearly enjoy.

    Cheers!

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    144

    T Max 400 Technical Discussion by Sandy King

    Beyond just looking at the curves and data, I can say that TMY will be a big help in the field, particularly in two situations, which currently can make photographing very difficult. One is when there is any wind, and a shorter shutter time is needed (it gets windy in Death Valley!), and secondly any instance where reciprocity is encountered.

    With Efke film currently, it is not unusual to encounter very very long exposures. One photo I took last week took over an hour at f90, whereas the same photo with TMY would have been a few minutes!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    T Max 400 Technical Discussion by Sandy King

    Hi fellows, you don't like TMY, don't use it.

    But from my perspective, which is that of an alternative photographer who uses ULF, TMY is my favorite film. I have used and tested a lot of other films, for processes such as AZO, carbon, kallitype and Pt./Pd., but TMY is my favorite, primarily because of its high ASA, great expansion potential and straight line curve. I am definitely an advocate of it, especially for processes that require negatives of high average gradient. And I say that, not totally ignorant of the characteristics of the other films I have used and tested. I would certainly recognize and acknowledge that there are circumstances where another film might be the better choice. And for that very reason I use on a regular basis a number of other films in LF and ULF, including FP4+, Efke PL 100 and HP5+.

    But no one is forcing you to agree with me, and indeed if you do you will be in good company. Dick Arentz is probably the foremost Pt./Pd. printer in the world and he prefers TRI-X 320, and I am sure not going to argue with the quality of his work.
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
    [url]https://groups.io/g/carbon

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    T Max 400 Technical Discussion by Sandy King

    John,

    Your experience closely parallels mine, and is one of the reasons high effective film speed, all other things being at least equal, is such an important consideration in ULF work. I tend to shoot a lot in low lighting conditions and almost inevitably get into reciprocity failure situations with ASA 100 films such as FP4+ and Efke PL 100, which are otherwise really nice films for alternative work as they have a great deal of expansion potential.

    Most people won't remember Royal Pan, but when I first started working with ULF cameras someone sold me a few boxes of it. It was, as I recall ASA 800, and the speed was a great advantage in the field, and for contact printing grain was fine. I would sure like to have some of that stuff again.
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
    [url]https://groups.io/g/carbon

  7. #17

    T Max 400 Technical Discussion by Sandy King

    One photo I took last week took over an hour at f90, whereas the same photo with TMY would have been a few minutes!

    John, that's one of the two situations where I find this film useful. However, under normal shooting, the speed difference isn't going to get an exposure from 1/2 or one second up to the point where you can disregard wind, so it is of little utility except when the shooting becomes very long, or in a narrow illuminaince range where the two stops will benefit the shooter by permitting them to disregard the wind. Beyond that, I believe the speed diffferences are greatly overstated.

    The speed and reciprocity is a double-edged sword, as it makes it harder to have a long exposure when you desire one, and inherent to the reciprocity characteristic is the greater propensity for the film to fog with time, heat, and rediation. This means the film won't keep as well, and travel with it will be somewhat more perilous. Flying across the ocean will often introduce one or two x-ray doses, plus the 6 or 8 hours of high altitude exposure, which can be quite considerable if there is any solar activity at the time. Then, you have to get the film back...

    As I said, I am not advocating any specific film, and I never said I didn't like TMY, but I don't believe that it is the answer to all ULF photographer's prayers. With people talking of stocking up freezers, I think it is in their best interests to understand what this film may be like in 5 or so years. I'm not planning to have mine in the freezer that long, but if I do, I've begun to change my process a bit to mitigate the problems that probably will arise with using long-stored film (of any brand)

    ---Michael

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    144

    T Max 400 Technical Discussion by Sandy King

    Good points to remember, thanks. Howard Bond did a lot of his church interior portfolios in England with TMY, and has talked about the benefits of the low reciprocity. I plan to freeze the film I don't use, but also probably rotate my stock every 2-3 years.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    T Max 400 Technical Discussion by Sandy King

    A couple of comments.

    1. On reciprocity. I agree with Howard Bond. Low reciprocity failure is a very big advantage of TMY in my work, which is quite often in low lighting conditions. Just consider this example. With a traditional film such as TRI-X 320 or JandC 400 the adjusted exposure for a calculated exposure of 10 seconds would be +2 stops or an adjusted time of 50 seconds. For TMY the adjusted exposure for a calculated exposure of 10 seconds would be 1/2 stop or an adjusted time of 15 seconds. That is a big time difference to me.

    2. On storage. Concern for fogging from long-term storage is certainly a major consideration if we plan to buy in quantity and store the film for many years. However, Clay Harmon reported results on the JandC website of B+F testing of outdated TMY. As I recall, he developed in Pyrocat-HD and the B+F levels were about .10 or .11 for Visual and Blue reading, and .35 for UV reading. Folks, this is not a lot different that what you will get out of the box for fresh TMY film, and the film Clay tested was dated to expire in 2003. So when was it manufactured? I figure at least three or four years prior to 2003, though someone may want to correct me on this if they have better information. In any event, I purchased several hundred sheets of this film from Clay, same emulsion batch I assume, and its B+F now is only slightly higher than some fresh TRI-X 320 I purchased only six months ago. I am not sure what Kodak has to say about this, but in my experience the T-grain emulsion films do not develop nearly as much B+F for equivalent periods of storage as traditional films of the same ASA.
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
    [url]https://groups.io/g/carbon

  10. #20

    T Max 400 Technical Discussion by Sandy King

    You are correct Sandy in your assessment that T Max 400 is superior to Tri X as it relates to long term storage and increases in fog. I spoke to Kodak about this when Clay shared his results with us on his B+F assessment that you are making reference to. Of course reasonable consideration must be given to proper storage with frozen storage the preferable method.

    One variable that must not be overlooked is understanding exactly when a master roll of film has been produced and cut. Sometimes the period between these events can be quite long and the box date does not always convey the full story.

    We were assured that by acquiring an entire master roll of TMY we will be allocated the most recent manufactured product and since it will all be cut within the confines of one purchase order any uncertainty of optimal film life can be put to rest. I believe that one should reasonable expect a minimum of five years of risk free usefull film life for the TMY film purchase and quite possibly it could be even longer.

    Great discussion.

Similar Threads

  1. Technical versus non-technical approaches - which?
    By Robert McClure in forum On Photography
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 7-Jan-2006, 14:12
  2. Questions for Steve Sherman and Sandy King
    By Robert McClure in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 9-May-2005, 06:43
  3. ULF discussion and websites?
    By Frank Petronio in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 26-Apr-2004, 09:41
  4. large format article discussion
    By john g in forum On Photography
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 26-Jan-2001, 13:30

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
  •