T Max 400 Technical Discussion by Sandy King

[Ken Lee]

"over the top"

"a bit in excess"



Some of you are trained scientists and tenured professors - so your discrimination is no doubt quite keen, when it comes to this sort of thing, namely "Some Facts and a Few Opinions".



So with all due respect, where did you find the article to be excessive or "over the top" ? I welcome and appreciate your insights !

[sanking]

There were a couple of comments made yesterday that I meant to address but apparently my reply went astray.

First, Michael commented, “There is something not quite correct with your curves. The times listed in the response curves above do not match those listed in the N value curves below. I suggest you provide comparable curves to be consistent with your data.”

Michael, the curves are quite correct. The first set of graphs, i.e. the families of curves, are there to show the contrast in curve shape of TXP and TMY. The second set, the N charts, is there to show the difference in expansion potential between the two films. There was never any intent on my part to suggest that the data was comparable, indeed I state very clearly that Set 1 was based on the 1:1:100 dilution of Pyrocat-HD and Blue mode analysis, while Set 2 was based on the 2:2:100 dilution and UV analysis. A more specific or extensive review of the film would call for comparable data, but in this case I did not consider it important.

Oren wrote, “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.”

Oren, although you may have not been able to obtain the type of tonal scale you like that does not mean it is impossible to do so. The major difference between TMY and traditional films such as HP5+ and TXP is that TMY has very little latitude in development. It is a film capable of developing a very high average gradient, and it does this fairly rapidly even in developers of moderate energy. This obviously places a lot of emphasis on getting the time and temperature of your developer just right for the process because a couple of minute’s difference in time of development will result in a large difference in average gradient. By contrast, the latitude of HP5+ and TXP allows us to be less precise with our development procedures because the difference in time will not have nearly as much impact on average gradient.

Sandy

[Oren Grad]

Sandy -

The responsiveness of TMY to development changes and its ability to achieve extreme highlight densities is a feature for you - understandably so, given that you often need a much higher average gradient than I do - but for my purposes I consider it a bug.

That said, all my sheet film is developed in Jobo Expert drums with good control over temperature and agitation; any slop is on the order of fractions of a degree and a few seconds in timing in pouring chemicals in and out. D-76 is my standard film developer - I've tried many others in the past but never found any advantage in them, and at this point I rarely use anything else. Within this context, my experience has been that TMY is a very unfriendly film. For the kind of shadow information I want it's probably a stop slower than HP5 Plus (though it would gain that back in very long exposures because of its reciprocity characteristics). More importantly, the negatives look and behave in printing as though TMY has an upswept curve like TXP. Bearing in mind that I tend to pull my developing times a bit relative to manufacturers' recommendations, this is in fact consistent with Kodak's published curves for TMY in D-76.

In case it's not already clear from my comments, a characteristic curve that's concave upward throughout its density range is absolute poison for silver printing so far as I'm concerned, even if the overall density range is within bounds for silver. Where HP5 Plus negatives made under virtually any lighting conditions with an exposure remotely in the ballpark print easily on readily available papers and deliver a tonal scale I like, printing TMY negatives to my taste is a never-ending headache; and it's all too easy to make a negative that won't print at all to a scale I like, or won't do so without heroic measures. You may be right that it's "not impossible" to get what I want out of TMY, though based on my experience with the product I remain to be convinced. But even granting that point, why would I use TMY when I can get what I want so much more easily and reliably with HP5 Plus?

Your article has lots of good information in it. But much of the enthusiasm for TMY is based on sensitometric characteristics that are almost entirely at variance with what I believe makes for good prints in silver, a medium that even in this day and age can hardly be considered exotic - in fact, it's still the way most traditional photographers print. Those of us who know you and your work will recognize why you wrote the article the way you did, and why the product is of such great value to you, and that's fine. But given that it's posted as reference material on a dealer's website rather than as commentary on a personal blog, and is labeled "an analysis of TMY" rather than "why a well-known alt-process photographer loves TMY", I would be happier if it had even a brief sentence or two at the top to make your frame of reference clearer for those readers who really are new to your writing and to the film, and whose purposes may be different from yours.

Anyway, I'm happy to agree with Michael Kadillak:

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.

Right about now I'm thinking we're all pretty lucky. I'm going to focus my energies on going out as often as I can to make more pictures, and I'm eagerly looking forward to having a good time making lots of new negatives in my favorite odd formats.

Cheers...

[sanking]

Oren,

We all have our opinions, and I feel that the title of the short review, "Some Facts and a Few Opinion" made it very clear that some of what was going to be said would be opinion.

I know a lot of photographers who share your opinion of TMAX films and prefer traditional films like TXP and HP5+. But to be perfetly fair, it is also important to recognize that there are quite a number of very well-know silver photographers who use almost exclusively TMAX films. For that reason I certainly do not agree with you that the sensitometric characteristics of TMY are poison for silver printing, though for some reason that may be true in your work, for whatever reason.

In any event I know we can all agree that ULF photographers are fortunate to still have so many choices availble to us at this point in time when many films are being dropped from the market. In fact, as of early 2006 there are actually far more choices of ULF film than when I became involved in this type of photography in the late 80s or early 90s.

[Oren Grad]

prefer traditional films like TXP and HP5+

Although they're both "traditional", in terms of their curve shape TXP and HP5 Plus are different as night and day. For my purposes TXP shares the most important vices of TMY and is every bit as hard to work with - even more so when the light fades, because the reciprocity issues are compounded by the unforgiving curve shape.

Anyway, as Michael K would say: Onward!

[sanking]

The flaring curve of TXP is probably the main reason why so many people who print on VC silver papers prefer to develop it in pyro staining developers. The stain functions as a continually increasing yellow filter, compressing the flaring curve, and making it almost impossible to blow out the highlights. But that, as they say, is another cup of tea.

Sandy

[Ken Lee]

Do the curves of Silver paper and paper developers play a role in this ? Has there been much study of these curves ?

It seems reasonable that a given film/developer combination might match (or mis-match) the curve of a given paper/developer combination... or are paper/developer curves rather linear, and therefore not an issue ?

[Oren Grad]

Do the curves of Silver paper and paper developers play a role in this ? Has there been much study of these curves ?

Yes, and yes. That's what BTZS is all about - controlling and matching film and paper curves to get the tonal scale you want.

It seems reasonable that a given film/developer combination might match (or mis-match) the curve of a given paper/developer combination...

That is exactly right. When you have a good match, printing is a joy, as your negatives fall effortlessly on to the paper. When you don't, the consequence is tedious manipulation as you fight the paper's natural behavior to try to salvage the picture from an inappropriate tonal scale.

[William Mortensen]

"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." --Sandy King

Sandy- I think the Royal Pan was rated at 400, but the Royal Pan X was rated 1250, and had a grain structure not too much coarser than Tri-X. If it came out today, it would be heralded as a technological breakthrough; yep, I'd love to have some again too!

I suspect most all of today's films are quite nice if one just takes the time and effort to learn to use them.

[Kerik Kouklis]

Sandy,

Thanks for posting the results of your experience with TMY. It will be a big help in getting dialed in with this film when it arrives. I respect your opinions and it was clear that you presented them as such. But, as often as not in these forums, no good deed goes unpunished...