Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: T Max 100, how does it compare to Tri X, Hp5?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2001

    T Max 100, how does it compare to Tri X, Hp5?

    I have been using Tri X and Forte and the range of tones are very good, Idevelo pe them in T max developer, I am ambvalent about using T Max 100 in the 8x10 and I am worried about tonality especially in a sunny day landscape situation. I am asking because when I consider the cost of a box of 50 and the time and cost of developing I would rather hear from someone with experience. I understand John Sexton is shooting T Max 100 in 4x5 but I wonder about tis in 8x10 ? How will it differ from tri x and where will those differences show up?

  2. #2

    T Max 100, how does it compare to Tri X, Hp5?

    I shoot Tmax in 8x10, 4x5, 120,and 35mm and I like it better than TriX. I have not tried HP5+ or Forte in 8x10 though but in 4x5 and 120. I have tried Arista in 8x10 but it doesn't compare to Tmax either. I like Tmax because of the beautiful tonal range. And for long exposures out to a minute or more I use no exposure compensation. But you have to calibrate it. That is imperative. Be precise in every aspect. It takes + and - development very well where TriX doesn't do as well and HP5+ does it worse. Try it. James

  3. #3

    T Max 100, how does it compare to Tri X, Hp5?

    IMHO, stick with the TriXP. I have tested the Tmax and just don't like the tonal range as good at TX. HP5+ is nice also but it has a slightly different look. My suggestion is to do a test with a different developer. I LOVE Diafine rated at 400. it is a very fine grain, very much a compensating developer that is extremely easy and forgiving. It is a 2 bath developer and will NOT block up your highlights but give you great shadow detail also. It has been around for years and has stood the test of time over and over! Cheers

  4. #4

    T Max 100, how does it compare to Tri X, Hp5?

    When I moved from 35mm to LF, I stuck with TMax, but for what now appear to be the wrong reasons. That tabular fine grain is great for enlarging from 35mm to 5x7, but unneeded for 5x7 and 8x10 contact prints. Besides, I've had problems developing it since many of my 8x10s (but not, for some reason, the 5x7's) have bands of irregular density that render them unprintable. Perhaps a light leak of some kind, but I suspect the real culprit is uneven agitation. Several posters on the archives have complained about problems with development of TMax sheets. I decided not to pursue the matter further and am now perfectly happy with Plus-X,Tri-X, FHP4+, and HP5+. Good light. Nick.

Similar Threads

  1. Compare final print resolution, different formats
    By bglick in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 19-Oct-2005, 12:35
  2. Compare type 52, 54, and 55 print quality
    By Jeff_1630 in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 8-Dec-2003, 09:59
  3. How does Ilford Ilfotec HC compare with Kodak HC 110?
    By steve Barth in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-Mar-2001, 12:07
  4. Compare Kodak and Other Developers for Sheet Films
    By Bruce Gavin in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 9-Jun-2000, 21:22


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts