Read the VC article, but it does not mention anything about Tmax 100 - what I am curious about is how close the new Tmax 400 is to Tmax 100. Anyone done any comparisons? I would love to just shoot Tmax 400.
Read the VC article, but it does not mention anything about Tmax 100 - what I am curious about is how close the new Tmax 400 is to Tmax 100. Anyone done any comparisons? I would love to just shoot Tmax 400.
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
The new TMY-2 400 is the worst B&W film I've ever seen. What a disgrace! Seriously, it looks like a color film converted to grayscale. Its response curve is very linear and does not have the classic B&W look. The older TMY had more grain, but the midtones were more contrasty and the images had more "pop!" If I had wanted to go after the look of the new TMY-2, I would just use my digital camera and convert them to grayscale. How boring that would be.
The TMX 100 is an OK film, but it also suffers from blocked out highlights. Try Kodak Technical Pan film, it's far better.
Tech Pan is really cool because it's so readily available.... Clearly you should be sticking to your digicam if that, or film which is no longer produced is what does it for you. For those with more interest in available emulsions, my experience with the new TMY is very positive - very similar response to the previous TMY (yes - a very linear response was a distinguishing charateristic of that film too...), excellent speed and significantly finer grain. It's that much closer to the grain of Tmax 100 that I will probably not bother to shoot Tmax 100 in roll film formats anymore because of the massive speed advantages of TMY-2 (over 2 stops). I'm busy doing some BTZS testing at present with TMY-2 and TMY-1 in Pyrocat HD and TMax developer. I'll post this data if it's of interest. BTW, blocked out highlights result from overexposure and development - both of which can be controlled with care and knowledge of your materials. If anyone is interested, I'll email them a full size Jpeg of a drum scan of the new TMY.Originally Posted by cotdt
"that classic B&W look"
By "classic", do you mean something like this ? A lot of people consider it a classic.
.. or perhaps something a bit more classic, like this... ?
That is funny Ken!
Depends on format and print size, but the RMS of Tmax 100 is still lower than that of the new TMY-2. And visually, Tmax 100 has finer grain to my eyes.
If you work with LF of 4X5 or larger my personal opinion is that you would not see any advantage in Tmax 100 over TMY-2 in normal print sizes of 20X24" or smaller. In sizes of 30X40" or more there should be an improvement in grain with Tmax 100.
For MF, I would limit print size to 11X14" or less with TMY-2, and anything over that to Tmax 100, or Fuji Acros, which has the finest grain of any 100-125 ASA film.
Sandy King
It is a shame that some people blame TMY for blocked up highlights when the problem is their own lack of knowledge (or lack of control) of proper exposure and development procedures.
I think TMY (old and new) is a wonderful film. Like Ken, if I could only have one film for LF work it would be TMY or TMY-2. For MF I would go with Acros.
Sandy King
I'm glad.
cotdt: I'm sorry if I was rude or disrespectful. I misunderstood the tone of your posting.
You are pulling our legs - Right?!
Don Bryant
"The new TMY-2 400 is the worst B&W film I've ever seen. What a disgrace! Seriously, it looks like a color film converted to grayscale. Its response curve is very linear and does not have the classic B&W look. The older TMY had more grain, but the midtones were more contrasty and the images had more "pop!" If I had wanted to go after the look of the new TMY-2, I would just use my digital camera and convert them to grayscale. How boring that would be.
The TMX 100 is an OK film, but it also suffers from blocked out highlights. Try Kodak Technical Pan film, it's far better."
Bevor you state so much s..... you should really learn to work with a film.
Maybe you did never master a film!!!!
My 2 cents
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks