• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Any need for Tmax 100 when I have T-max 400

wiggywag

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
115
Format
4x5 Format
Hi!

I just got the feel for the new Tmax 400 in sheet film (4x5"), and I like it very much. It is extremely sharp and very fine grained.

Now as I got to know T-max I wonder what T-max 100 will do that Tmax 400 don't as a 4x5" film?
 
The 400 gives absolutely incredible results for a 400 film...but the 100 will be even sharper and finer in grain, if you ever want these things.

As far as my use goes, I use the 400 for murky lighting, and usually hand held. I used to use the 100 for night shots, but I mostly use Fuji Neopan Acros for this now. However, every now and then, there is something that I want to shoot on T-Max 100, and I get a pack or two of medium format. For instance, I used a bunch of it on my last trip for shooting some landscape pictures through my C220 (usually on a tripod). My normal choices would be FP4 or Plus-X, as I know them well and generally prefer their tonality for most things. However, with these particular pix, I wanted lots of sharpness, very fine grain, and the tonality of a T-grained film. When it comes to having a razor sharp, biting, extremely detailed photo with lots of snap in the low tones and lots of detail in the high tones, T-Max 100 (in T-Max developer at 24C) is my favorite film. I don't often want these things to an extreme in my photos, but when I do, there is nothing just like this combo, IME.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I found, honestly, very little difference between the two in 35mm. I have never used the Kodak sheet films but I would imagine the differences would be similar. Unless you have a need for 100 that you cnanot do with 400, just hang out with the TMY-2.
 
With a 100 speed film, you need to open up two stops for any given shutter speed. Sometimes shallow depth of field is a nice look but with a 400 speed film sometimes it is hard to use f4.
 
I was always taught that if you want to achieve the maximum quality images you should use the slowest finest grain film that is practicable for the job in hand and the prevailing lighting conditions, with I.S.O 400 films in summer if you need to shoot at wide apertures fast films in bright sunlight can cause you problems like running out of fast enough shutter speeds without using neutral density filters. If you are shooting 4X5 sheet film your camera will be on a tripod anyway so shooting I.S.O 50 or 100 shouldn't be a problem at this time of year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't use the 100 if you want to contact it using UV light sources (for alt processes). It was a UV blocking layer in/on it. The 400 is fine in that regard.

Vaughn
 
I reason this way:

I get enough sharpness and fine grain with TMY-2 in 35mm. With sheet film? You'd have to make a very very large print to have issues with grain and TMY-2!

With TMX I get two stops less speed, and it doesn't push to EI 400 very well. But I like shallow depth of field, and shooting wide open. So I put a two stop neutral density filter on the lens when I use TMY-2, if I need it. That way I have, conceptually, an ISO 400 and an ISO 100 film in the same film, kind of like changing the ISO in a digital camera on the fly.

I have small stashes of other film in my film storage, like a few rolls of Tri-X, a few of Acros, and a little bit of TMX. But TMY-2 is the film I always use when I need something for important shots. I can make pretty big prints from both 35mm and 120 that show very little grain and the tonality is so easy to alter by changing how I expose and develop the film. I simply don't need anything else.

- Thomas
 

Wow, that is good news. How is Acros compared to TMY-2 ?
 
There is probably not much need for tmx in 4x5 unless you like zero depth of field or your shutter doesn't have any high speeds. I know some of the really big shutters don't go over 1/50th so you might need the slower film for that. Packard shutters are even slower. In which case, 100 speed film might also be too fast and you'd choose ND filters or even slower film.

I prefer 100 tmax over 400 in my TLR as my shutter speed only goes up to 1/300 and in daylight, that means the resulting aperture will give me very little control over DOF. Got some acros headed my way too. I've shot one roll of that and liked it well enough to order a 5pack for myself.

I'm quite pleased with TMY2 for 4x5. It's my primary 4x5 film. I do have some efke 50 film for use with Caffenol-C and it makes some nice tones, but it's substantially grainier than TMY2 with xtol 1+1.

For film in 35mm, I don't use it unless it is because MF or LF isn't practical (typically fast paced people pix in lower light that for some reason digital won't do). That means 400 film. Tri-X looks nice small, but is far too gritty for an 8x10. TMY2 makes a pleasing 8x10 from 35mm. Enough grain so you know it's not digital or LF, but not gritty enough to distract. The whole shutter speed thing isn't an issue with 35mm as my f4s goes up to 1/8000 sec.
 
wiggywag said:
Wow, that is good news. How is Acros compared to TMY-2 ?
Click to expand...

There is very little difference between Fuji Neopan Acros and Kodak TMax 100. Some argue color rendition is substantially different, but I haven't seen it yet. You can treat them the same, after you nail down your processing.

Compared to TMax 400? The same as compared to TMax 100 applies.
 
TMY has fine grain, but TMX basically has no grain. I had to crop a 35mm negative until the resulting 8x10 was printed at a magnification that would have made probably a 20x24 inch print from the full negative, and there was still no visible grain in the print. There WAS however noticeable softening from the lens' resolution limit and and dust marks become a real problem at those magnifications so I think it's safe to say TMX is grainless for practical purposes, but there's only limited benefit to be had from the 100 grain versus the 400 grain. I think the only point of using TMX is if your camera lacks shutter speeds (a real problem with many cameras). I do use TMX for copying and masking in the darkroom. It's basically this era's Tech Pan.
 
if you are using any sort of flash ..
you might have trouble with tmx.
i used tmx and tmy for years when i did newspaper work
and using a flash gave blocked highlights with tmx but never with tmy.

Vaughn said:
Don't use the 100 if you want to contact it using UV light sources (for alt processes). It was a UV blocking layer in/on it. The 400 is fine in that regard.

Vaughn
Click to expand...

what he said ...
 
wiggywag said:
Now as I got to know T-max I wonder what T-max 100 will do that Tmax 400 don't as a 4x5" film?
Click to expand...

Example, you want to shoot a waterfall with a long exposure so the water looks silky. Easy to do at 100 ISO; get out a stack of ND filters for 400 ISO.

Steve
 
With 4x5 I found I like TMY-2 for most shots. As others have mentioned they are both practically grainless. I have enlarged TMY-2 over 12x and the grain is minimal, and hardly bigger than Acros. In 4x5 I frequently am using speeds of 1/2 to 2 seconds with TMX or Acros. With TMY-2 I get 2 or 2.5 stops faster shutter speeds so less subject movement from the wind. I also find that with the faster film I have more options for moving water shots. At several seconds it is very smooth with no real details. While I like that, I don't like to be locked into this look. The faster film is thus more versatile with regard to moving water.

For medium format I find I still use Acros the most. It's low price in 120 format certainly doesn't hurt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register