• 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

Designing T-Max Films: TMX speed; In response to David Williams' request

laser

Advertiser
Advertiser
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
1,074
Format
4x5 Format
One trade off was the speed of TMX. The first specification was for a family of speeds 200, 400, and 1000 speed films. These speed points corresponded to the consumer color negative films of the 1980's. We made a series of coatings that varied the grain size and consequently the speed of the 200 speed film. I liked the fine grain of the slower films in the series. 100 was much faster than Panatomic-X EI 32. With 100 speed t-grains the grain was finer than Panatomic X and the MTF was better. So we changed the goal and worked on making the film 100 speed. It took some additional work but it proved to be worthwhile. Many give-and-take decisions are made in film design.


I occasionally see comments that Panatomic-X is missed but in a side by side comparison I still feel that TMX is a better film. I still have the prints from a Pan-X and TMX experimental film comparison set that I made in the early 1980s. In an ideal world film manufacturers would still make the old films from days gone-by. But the manufacturers have to minimize the number of films in the product line. In nearly all product lines there is a conflict between marketing and manufacturing. Marketing would like a customized product for each class of user. Manufacturing would like one product for all customers. This conflict is no unique to photography. Food products have the same dilemma.

www.makingKODAKfilm.com

Bob Shanebrook
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did a video a couple years ago, comparing TMX and Panatomic-X. They were almost identical in their renderings, but TMX's resolution and grain were superior.
 
Thread title tweaked - for those viewing on tiny screens.
 
Can you comment on T Max developer? What are it's advantages or disadvantages compared to Xtol or D76?

With the passage of time, T Max developer seems to have passed from consciousness in the general photocommunity, perhaps it has been overshadowed by Xtol? I'd be curious where you see it fitting in the marketplace.
 

You don't need a 5L bucket and a paddle with T-Max developer . So much easier for people who don't have dedicated space. (Wait you didn't ask for my opinion)
 
mshchem said:
You don't need a 5L bucket and a paddle with T-Max developer . So much easier for people who don't have dedicated space. (Wait you didn't ask for my opinion)
Click to expand...

I do have a 5L beaker though! My magnetic stirrer works with it.
 
TMX in TMax developer was my first try back then, but I like D76 (talking about 120 film in small Jobo tanks) better as the highlights don't build up that fast/dense.
Pyrocat is great, too...
 
Craig said:
I do have a 5L beaker though! My magnetic stirrer works with it.
Click to expand...

I use a SS propeller mixer, variable speed. Magnets bounce, not enough torque. Preheat my RO water in a dedicated microwave. Takes a couple minutes max.
 
JensH said:
TMX in TMax developer was my first try back then, but I like D76 (talking about 120 film in small Jobo tanks) better as the highlights don't build up that fast/dense.
Pyrocat is great, too...
Click to expand...

Do you make up your D-76 from the formula or buy it in a pouch? D-76 works for everything. I use Jobo 1500 series tanks and stock XTOL. Have to say I'm hooked on the Jobo systems.
 
mshchem said:
Do you make up your D-76 from the formula or buy it in a pouch? D-76 works for everything. I use Jobo 1500 series tanks and stock XTOL. Have to say I'm hooked on the Jobo systems.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I just use the original Kodak pouch for a gallon.
Yes, I have 1500 series tanks, too - ass well as Kaiser ones.
Indeed Jobo is a great company with very good customer service and really nice stuff (like their 30xx lf tanks)...

@ Bob: Btw, that makes me wonder if it is true, that the TMax "prototypes" were first tested/optimised for D76???
 

Bob: Thank you!!

Trying to get this back on-topic...

In addition to the fundamental change in the "speed vs grain vs resolution" relationships, there were many other changes that came with the two initial films and their successors which I've read were part of the product objectives for these products to meet the requests by pros and other advanced photographers...

Greater responsiveness to changes in development times for contrast control and control offer H&D curve shape (and conversely, what some see as over-sensitivity to processing variations),

A very short toe, with more shadow detail at or about box speed than many others in their speed classes,

Notably different spectral sensitivity, with blues rendered as if they were shot with a mild yellow filter

So in other words, you led the creation of a completely new technical design of film that still produces a unique and valuable set of characteristics for us today.

....SO, thanks for that!!!!!
 
Last edited:
No problem-o!

Thanks for the update, although in the original Welsh I suppose William's would also be perfectly accurate.
 
Last edited:
David R Williams said:
No problem-o! Thanks for the update, although in the original Welsh I suppose William's would also be perfectly accurate.
Click to expand...

In the original Welsh, wouldn't it have been longer, and much more lyrical
 
I find the film engineering and manufacturing stories very interesting, much appreciated Bob.

Recall late PE writing that alongside the ca.2007 overhaul of TMY, TMX was looked into and already was as good as B&W could be made; any improvement would be very slight for the 100 film.

TMY-2 really is peak B&W technology, haven't shot it much due to pricing in my side of the pond but I recently got a slightly expired roll in 35mm.

As of the customized "old film" products, arguably their simple tech can be covered by other manufacturers and new entrants... But of course, no TP, Pan-X, Plus-X or etc itself.
 
MattKing said:
In the original Welsh, wouldn't it have been longer, and much more lyrical
Click to expand...

Likely! And instead of being prononouced "WILL-yams", it's "will-YAMS". Very strange to first hear it in a Welsh-English accent.

...back to the matter at hand, I've had great results with TMY-2, but still struggle with getting the acutance from TMX that I'd like to see.

Whereas TMY-2 is great in anything once dialled in, with TMX I started with XTol stock, 1:1, and replenished, and more recently FX-39, Perceptol 1:3, and Pyrocat HD.

Although TMX looks great in those developers and has superb detail resolution, I can't get the same apparent sharpness from TMX as I can (easily) from TMY-2 in either 35mm or 120.

(And optics shoulder be an issue: Zeiss glass on 35mm and 120, and Rodagon N's on the enlarger with a glass carrier.)

Any other thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Does T-MAX 100 handle expiration about the same as other B&W 100 speed films? I have a cache I bought on sale a while back and just wondering how critical it is to use it up quickly.
 
I don't know about TMAX_100 but my experience with Kodak is that they keep outstandingly well. The only exception I would make would be 120 rollfilm of almost any make, although my Neopan400 20 years old is still doing well.
I'm occasionally using Tri-X 4x5 from the previous century for portraiture with a bit of adjustment for speed and a little fog.
 
loccdor said:
Does T-MAX 100 handle expiration about the same as other B&W 100 speed films? I have a cache I bought on sale a while back and just wondering how critical it is to use it up quickly.
Click to expand...

I bought 40 rolls that expired in 2013 from someone here on the forum. They'd been kept cold since purchase and the test roll I shot looks identical to the fresh TMax I've got in the fridge.
 
David R Williams said:
Although TMX looks great in those developers and has superb detail resolution, I can't get the same apparent sharpness from TMX as I can (easily) from TMY-2 in either 35mm or 120.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the MTF curves. As Bob Shanebrook has stated above, there are trade-offs involved. Ilford Delta 100 may be a bit sharper than TMX, but there are costs elsewhere.

You could try something like Ilfosol 3 with TMX and see if that helps a bit - however (and counter-intuitively for those permanently welded to the rather out-of-date thinking that more dilution=more sharpness), it really needs to be used at 1+9. PQ developers of the right design, with a carbonate buffer and using powerful organic restrainers like Phenylmercaptotetrazole can be quite a bit sharper than MQ.
 
TMX looks sharp enough to me.

I think the whole TMX lacks acutance stuff is another of those not quite reality things that seems to have originated early on and became established oral tradition by sheer repetition. It probably had at least something to do with fineness of grain. As we know the subjective impression of “sharpness” is influenced by a number of things.


 

TMX is plenty sharp - though it's maybe a little less so than Delta 100 or TMY-II's eye-grabbingly high responses in the low frequency range - but I think that trade-off gives TMX its incredibly fine, clean granularity (and it has a very long 100+% MTF response, with all that means for image content transmission) which confounds the (often inherently error ridden) oral tradition about granularity and sharpness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register