Improved T-Max 400

On Oct 15, 12:14 pm, "Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:
"Jean-David Beyer" wrote

4164 Tri-X has the poorest shadow detail I have ever
seen (although the all-toe 4147 PlusX is somewhat
similar)

I think these two films are only meant for Hurrell-style
portraiture where highlight detail is important and shadow
detail isn't.

http://www.frankpicturesgallery.com/...rlow-large.jpg

They do well on snow scenes.


Precisely.

"Jean-David Beyer" wrote

4164 Tri-X has the poorest shadow detail I have ever
seen (although the all-toe 4147 PlusX is somewhat
similar)

I think these two films are only meant for Hurrell-style
portraiture where highlight detail is important and shadow
detail isn't.

http://www.frankpicturesgallery.com/...rlow-large.jpg

They do well on snow scenes.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

On Oct 14, 7:18 am, Lloyd Erlick Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:42:21 GMT, Jean-David

Beyer wrote:

...

I do not understand how you could get such different results. I like TMX
film when speed permits, but otherwise I like old TMY (I have not tested the
new). The old TMY, in Xtol developer 1+1 with water, developed in a Jobo
CPE-2 processor gives the straightest line D:H curve I have ever seen right
down below Zone I. Tri-X 4164 has such a long toe that it has very low
shadow contrast, requiring sufficient exposure to get things off the toe.
The amateur Tri-X in 35mm format has a very different curve. Was that what
you tested?

October 14, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

TMY confounded me for a while, too, when I
first started using it. The highlights indeed
are quite capable of becoming much too dense.

But I found that dilute D-76 (I like 1+1) or
Xtol (1+2) did a very nice job on it. And it
is especially important to rate the EI of TMY
as 200 or 250, not the advertising claim
printed on the box. In any case, for my
portraitistical purposes, a low EI yields
beautiful shadow detail and gorgeous skin
tonality.

I did not like TMY very much at first,
either, but it's a very, very good and useful
tool. I hope Tri-X never disappears, because
it too is a beautiful tool, and significantly
different from TMY. Altogether a good pair of
films. The vast majority of my portraits have
been done on TMY for the last ten years or
more.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website:www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email:
________________________________
--

Yes, in studio situations such as portraiture TMY can be very good,
but not outdoors.

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:42:21 GMT, Jean-David
Beyer wrote:

...
I do not understand how you could get such different
results. I like TMX
film when speed permits, but otherwise I like old TMY (I
have not tested the
new). The old TMY, in Xtol developer 1+1 with water,
developed in a Jobo
CPE-2 processor gives the straightest line D:H curve I
have ever seen right
down below Zone I. Tri-X 4164 has such a long toe that it
has very low
shadow contrast, requiring sufficient exposure to get
things off the toe.
The amateur Tri-X in 35mm format has a very different
curve. Was that what
you tested?



October 14, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

TMY confounded me for a while, too, when I
first started using it. The highlights indeed
are quite capable of becoming much too dense.

But I found that dilute D-76 (I like 1+1) or
Xtol (1+2) did a very nice job on it. And it
is especially important to rate the EI of TMY
as 200 or 250, not the advertising claim
printed on the box. In any case, for my
portraitistical purposes, a low EI yields
beautiful shadow detail and gorgeous skin
tonality.

I did not like TMY very much at first,
either, but it's a very, very good and useful
tool. I hope Tri-X never disappears, because
it too is a beautiful tool, and significantly
different from TMY. Altogether a good pair of
films. The vast majority of my portraits have
been done on TMY for the last ten years or
more.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email:
________________________________
--
I think it should be reiterated that the ISO speed of a
film is the result of a controlled test with a specific
contrast and developer. If one wants a different speed or
uses a different deeveloper than was used for speed testing
the effective speed will be different. Also, the ISO speed
method traces its requirements back to the Jones minimum
usable gradient method used by the ASA until 1958, namely
the _minimum_ exposure that will produce good tone
rendition. Where the film is shot and processed under
different conditions than those assumed by the test the tone
rendition may not be satisfactory.
Because color films and B&W motion picture films are
processed using much more standardized contrast and
development the ISO speeds are much more consonant with
actual usage.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message
...
"Jean-David Beyer" wrote

4164 Tri-X has the poorest shadow detail I have ever
seen (although the all-toe 4147 PlusX is somewhat
similar)

I think these two films are only meant for Hurrell-style
portraiture where highlight detail is important and shadow
detail isn't.

http://www.frankpicturesgallery.com/...rlow-large.jpg

They do well on snow scenes.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

A beautiful picture of Jean Harlow. I think the curve for
Tri-X 320 and the old Plus-X Pan Professional sheet film was
more for the sort of portraits Karsh did of male subjects.
These "all toe" films tend to exagerate textures. Kodak
always made films with similar curves, that is, upward
deflected all along their length, for portrait work. Karsh
appears to have used a long toe orthochromatic film for male
portraits and pan film for women. I have no idea what Hurrel
used but, keep in mind, that Hurrel was notorious for the
amount of retouching he did on negatives.

I've had some success using the old Plus-X for general
photography but it does need some increase in exposure. The
problem is that pushing the exposure up the curve increases
contrast at all values, not just shadows. The current Plus-X
roll film and ISO-400 Tri-X are medium-toe films which in my
experience work well for nearly everything.
My experience the T-Max 400 is quite different from UC's:
I find the tone rendition good for both indoor and outdoor
use and have often shot outdoor portraits with it.
I've generally found Kodak's published film curves to be
pretty accurate. Tone rendition from the films tends to
confirm the curves. T-Max has a quite short toe and a very
long and quite straight mid portion so its shadow contrast
should be fairly high. My photos on it tend to show this.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

On Oct 16, 5:50 pm, "Richard Knoppow" wrote:
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in ...

"Jean-David Beyer" wrote

4164 Tri-X has the poorest shadow detail I have ever
seen (although the all-toe 4147 PlusX is somewhat
similar)

I think these two films are only meant for Hurrell-style
portraiture where highlight detail is important and shadow
detail isn't.

http://www.frankpicturesgallery.com/...rlow-large.jpg

They do well on snow scenes.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

A beautiful picture of Jean Harlow. I think the curve for
Tri-X 320 and the old Plus-X Pan Professional sheet film was
more for the sort of portraits Karsh did of male subjects.
These "all toe" films tend to exagerate textures. Kodak
always made films with similar curves, that is, upward
deflected all along their length, for portrait work. Karsh
appears to have used a long toe orthochromatic film for male
portraits and pan film for women. I have no idea what Hurrel
used but, keep in mind, that Hurrel was notorious for the
amount of retouching he did on negatives.

I've had some success using the old Plus-X for general
photography but it does need some increase in exposure. The
problem is that pushing the exposure up the curve increases
contrast at all values, not just shadows. The current Plus-X
roll film and ISO-400 Tri-X are medium-toe films which in my
experience work well for nearly everything.
My experience the T-Max 400 is quite different from UC's:
I find the tone rendition good for both indoor and outdoor
use and have often shot outdoor portraits with it.
I've generally found Kodak's published film curves to be
pretty accurate. Tone rendition from the films tends to
confirm the curves. T-Max has a quite short toe and a very
long and quite straight mid portion so its shadow contrast
should be fairly high. My photos on it tend to show this.

--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA


In recent tests (performed in 2005) the TMY characteristic was clearly
evident. Highlights had more contrast and shadows less contrast than
Tri-X, Neopan 400, and HP5 Plus. It was clear as could be. The films
were exposed and developed to yield similar overall contrast and
printed on Ilford Multigrade paper with the same filtration.
Developers were Paterson FX-39 and Acutol. TMY is clearly different
from other ISO 400 films. Side-by-side comparisons of identical
subject matter are perhaps the best way to see these differences.

there is no doubt whatsoever of the results, which were consistent
with previous experience with these materials.

Richard Knoppow wrote:


My experience the T-Max 400 is quite different from UC's:
I find the tone rendition good for both indoor and outdoor
use and have often shot outdoor portraits with it.

Same here, with the following qualification: TMY works best
under relatively even lighting with just a bit of sparkle.
Open shade or hazy sunlight. While this is true of outdoor
portraiture in general, it's especially true of TMY.

I've generally found Kodak's published film curves to be
pretty accurate. Tone rendition from the films tends to
confirm the curves. T-Max has a quite short toe and a very
long and quite straight mid portion so its shadow contrast
should be fairly high. My photos on it tend to show this.

I was fortunate enough to have a stack of H+D curves for
T-Max films in Xtol sent to me by Kodak way back when. I've
not seen them in a publication since, though I have not searched
exhaustively. I was not surprised to find that TMY has a very
straight curve and medium-length toe ; it jived with me experience
with the film quite well. TMX has a similar toe but a bit of a
shoulder, something I'd also noticed.

Michael is certainly correct that TMY will give dense highlights
under contrasty light, that's certainly true. I don't know what
to make of his observation that TMY presents low shadow contrast;
that's contrary to my experience, but is perhaps due to developer
choice.

So, if you're shooting outdoors under unpredictable light where
you might have to deal with direct sunlight/contrasty light, TMY
might not be the easiest film to print afterwards.

Dana

In article . com,
UC wrote:
On Oct 16, 5:50 pm, "Richard Knoppow" wrote:

pretty accurate. Tone rendition from the films tends to
confirm the curves. T-Max has a quite short toe and a very
long and quite straight mid portion so its shadow contrast
should be fairly high. My photos on it tend to show this.

In recent tests (performed in 2005) the TMY characteristic was clearly
evident. Highlights had more contrast and shadows less contrast than
Tri-X, Neopan 400, and HP5 Plus. It was clear as could be. The films
were exposed and developed to yield similar overall contrast and
printed on Ilford Multigrade paper with the same filtration.
Developers were Paterson FX-39 and Acutol. TMY is clearly different
from other ISO 400 films. Side-by-side comparisons of identical
subject matter are perhaps the best way to see these differences.

there is no doubt whatsoever of the results, which were consistent
with previous experience with these materials.

I'm sure you'll just respond with more insults (though you seem to
have learned your lesson about insulting Richard, which just makes
you seem particularly foolish and rude) but why don't you simply
post the curves your original message on this topic said you had?
It would settle the debate in your favor -- if those curves you claimed
you measured actually exist.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky

On Oct 16, 8:18 pm, Dana Myers wrote:
Richard Knoppow wrote:
My experience the T-Max 400 is quite different from UC's:
I find the tone rendition good for both indoor and outdoor
use and have often shot outdoor portraits with it.

Same here, with the following qualification: TMY works best
under relatively even lighting with just a bit of sparkle.
Open shade or hazy sunlight. While this is true of outdoor
portraiture in general, it's especially true of TMY.

I've generally found Kodak's published film curves to be
pretty accurate. Tone rendition from the films tends to
confirm the curves. T-Max has a quite short toe and a very
long and quite straight mid portion so its shadow contrast
should be fairly high. My photos on it tend to show this.

I was fortunate enough to have a stack of H+D curves for
T-Max films in Xtol sent to me by Kodak way back when. I've
not seen them in a publication since, though I have not searched
exhaustively. I was not surprised to find that TMY has a very
straight curve and medium-length toe ; it jived with me experience
with the film quite well. TMX has a similar toe but a bit of a
shoulder, something I'd also noticed.

Michael is certainly correct that TMY will give dense highlights
under contrasty light, that's certainly true. I don't know what
to make of his observation that TMY presents low shadow contrast;
that's contrary to my experience, but is perhaps due to developer
choice.

So, if you're shooting outdoors under unpredictable light where
you might have to deal with direct sunlight/contrasty light, TMY
might not be the easiest film to print afterwards.

Dana

In contrasty light that shows texture, the highlight area tend to have
greater brightness and contrast (think of a white stucco building in
harsh light). Lens flare (present in every lens) will tend to degrade
contrast in the shadows (as it makes up a larger portion of the light
in the shadow area). So, films intended for outdoor use (which means
high-flare situations) will have less contrast in the highlight areas
and more in the shadows, as this provides a better (more even)
contrast from shadows to highlights. The white stucco does not 'need'
any boost in contrast (and perhaps could use a cut in contrast to keep
things under control); the shadows could indeed use a little more snap
because the sky is going to cause some flare in the shadows.

Kodak used to discuss this in their old film literature when they made
a larger variety of emulsions for portraiture, commercial, and press
work. Each of these film types had curves suited to the flare
conditions and application.

TMY has relatively less contrast in the shadow areas, and more
contrast in the highlight areas, that Tri-X Pan (400). It is suited to
situations of LOW FLARE ONLY, where shadow contrast can be maintained.
It is a studio film above all. It is NOT well-suited as a general-
purpose film. Those who use diffusion enlargers and work mostly with
color negative film will have less problem with highlight contrast.
Those who use condensers will find Tri-X Pan a better film overall.

What the NEW TMY will look like is a mystery. I anticipate it will be
somewhat more like Tri-X, but only slightly so. That is, I predict the
curve will look more like that of TMX (T-Max 100) than of Tri-X Pan
(400) or Plus-X Pan (125) for 35mm.

On Oct 17, 1:41 am, (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
In article . com,



UC wrote:
On Oct 16, 5:50 pm, "Richard Knoppow" wrote:

pretty accurate. Tone rendition from the films tends to
confirm the curves. T-Max has a quite short toe and a very
long and quite straight mid portion so its shadow contrast
should be fairly high. My photos on it tend to show this.

In recent tests (performed in 2005) the TMY characteristic was clearly
evident. Highlights had more contrast and shadows less contrast than
Tri-X, Neopan 400, and HP5 Plus. It was clear as could be. The films
were exposed and developed to yield similar overall contrast and
printed on Ilford Multigrade paper with the same filtration.
Developers were Paterson FX-39 and Acutol. TMY is clearly different
from other ISO 400 films. Side-by-side comparisons of identical
subject matter are perhaps the best way to see these differences.

there is no doubt whatsoever of the results, which were consistent
with previous experience with these materials.

I'm sure you'll just respond with more insults (though you seem to
have learned your lesson about insulting Richard, which just makes
you seem particularly foolish and rude) but why don't you simply
post the curves your original message on this topic said you had?

I have no idea to what you are referring. I don't make curves. Kodak
and the other firms publishes this information.

It would settle the debate in your favor -- if those curves you claimed
you measured actually exist.

Look on the Kodak web site.

T-Max 400:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...002_0507ac.gif

Tri-X
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...009_0490ac.gif

The difference between the slopes in the upper regions and the lower
regions is clear and unmistakable.