Difference between T-Max 100 and 400 in medium format?

[pkr1979]

Hi all,

When comparing these two films in medium format - at what enlargements will you notice a difference in sharpness, resolution and grain?

Cheers
Peter

 

[wiltw]

The emulsion is identical, it is merely the width of the acetate and the perforations in the acetate which are the difference.
Tri-X is one of the last emulsions (Tri-X vs. Tri-X Pan which was n/a in 135) in which there was any difference between the formats.

 

[retina_restoration]

Hi all,

When comparing these two films in medium format - at what enlargements will you notice a difference in sharpness, resolution and grain?

Cheers
Peter

Peter, you're going to get a lot of different opinions on these two films, and many opinions appear to conflict. Some people prefer one over the other and the reasons are many.
However, it is the general consensus that TMY gives the impression of better sharpness than TMX does, which seems counterintuitive. I understand that the reason for this is that TMY has greater acutance (the perceived sharpness of edges in an image, which is a function of edge contrast) than TMX. However, I find both film types do a wonderful job and is smooth tonal rendering is something you value over acutance, then by all means use TMX.
Obviously TMX has finer grain (Grain? what grain??) than TMY, but TMY has the finest grain structure of any 400 speed B&W film.

Brace yourself for a landslide of seemingly contradictory opinions!

 

[GregY]

The emulsion is identical, it is merely the width of the acetate and the perforations in the acetate which are the difference.
Tri-X is one of the last emulsions (Tri-X vs. Tri-X Pan) in which there was any difference between the formats.

What "perforations" ? it's 120 film. The OP asked specifically about medium format.

 

[GregY]

Peter, you're going to get a lot of different opinions on these two films, and many opinions appear to conflict. Some people prefer one over the other and the reasons are many.
However, it is the general consensus that TMY gives the impression of better sharpness than TMX does, which seems counterintuitive. I understand that the reason for this is that TMY has greater acutance (the perceived sharpness of edges in an image, which is a function of edge contrast) than TMX. However, I find both film types do a wonderful job and is smooth tonal rendering is something you value over acutance, then by all means use TMX.
Obviously TMX has finer grain (Grain? what grain??) than TMY, but TMY has the finest grain structure of any 400 speed B&W film.

Brace yourself for a landslide of seemingly contradictory opinions!

I could easily use TMY-2 for anything medium format. If there's lots of light and i'm working off a tripod....i have no complaints about TMX. But handholding TMY-2 is my go to.

 

[djdister]

In medium format, you would have a hard time telling them apart in enlargements up to 20 x 20 inches, if then...

 

[GregY]

In medium format, you would have a hard time telling them apart in enlargements up to 20 x 20 inches, if then...

Yes, both fantastic films!

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot Tmax 400 in 6X6 and 6X9, in the past did shoot Tmax 100, in the sizes I print grain is not an issue, I think apparent sharpness is a bit better with Tmax 400, and course, 2 stops faster, and 800 is almost as good as 400, the contast is not much of an issue with Tmax 400. So unless high resloution is needed I shoot Tmax 400.