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 with TMX.(love it in 35mm) 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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Their spectral sensitivity graphs are slightly different. TMX has slightly more red sensitivity than TMY. TMY has more "peaks" in the spectral curve from green to red, which could translate to slightly better colour separation in that area.
In D-76 (and XTol) TMY has a shorter toe which translates to slightly better shadow contrast/separation. TMY also has a much straighter straight line section, translating to better midtone/high light separation.
TMX has better resolution. TMY has better acutance.
I wish I could afford to shoot this stuff in large format, like I once could. It's probably the best film ever made.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depends. I can detect visible grain from 6x7 or 6X9 TMY400 in a 16X20 print, but it's still very small, and visible only close up. I mainly shoot TMX100 in 120 instead, but with a developer tweak which increases its acutance and evident resolution, which cures its otherwise disappointing edge effect.

I shoot both in 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film as well, though not as often as I once did due to budget constraints. (I have plenty in the freezer, but need to meter it out conservatively, since the present price is over four times as much as I paid for it.)

For 35mm camera use, I prefer TMY400 for its convenient hand-holdable speed, and simply print it small.

 

[loccdor]

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

Right, and that's why I don't see the point in focusing on grain-reducing films in medium-format, unless you are making really huge prints. The only film I found grainy at this size was Delta 3200.

In medium format you're free from worrying much about grain, decide your favorite based on characteristics like it's spectral sensitivity curve, tonality, etc. That makes it easy in my opinion... Tri-X or HP5... Acros if you need reciprocity handling or huge enlargement.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's all relative. For me, grain quality is most important in medium format, since I often mix medium format images into the same portfolios as sheet film work. Anything like HP5 or Tri-X would stand out like a sore thumb, even in 11X14 print size, even worse with my typical 16X20 prints, or 20X24 in color.

 

[retina_restoration]

I wish I could afford to shoot this stuff in large format, like I once could. It's probably the best film ever made.

I think many of us — myself included — can relate to that. Sigh.

 

[Dave Lusby]

You'd be hard pressed to complain about grain with TM100 in 4X5. Even with 6X9 cm.

 

[Craig]

I wish I could afford to shoot this stuff in large format, like I once could. It's probably the best film ever made.

At $8.30 per 4x5 sheet it is very expensive. It's almost 2.5 times more expensive than Delta 100.

 

[mshchem]

I couldn't see grain in TMY, TMY-2 using my little Paterson "grain" focusing scope, several years ago I found a used Micromega focusing scope could finally see it. I don't make really big enlargements mostly 8x10 from medium format negs. I have used mostly TMY for the last 30 years along with XTOL. These films and the T-grain Kodak color negative films were revolutionary. Still are.

 

[pkr1979]

Thanks guys. T-Max 400 is one of my favorite films - and I have used quite a bit of it in 8x10 - I drum scan it and also like it with Adox Lupex. But, as some of you point out - it isn't really that affordable. So I need to find something else for 8x10, but considering the replies here I should be happy keeping it for 120 - I rarely print larger than A2.

 

[mshchem]

Thanks guys. T-Max 400 is one of my favorite films - and I have used quite a bit of it in 8x10 - I drum scan it and also like it with Adox Lupex. But, as some of you point out - it isn't really that affordable. So I need to find something else for 8x10, but considering the replies here I should be happy keeping it for 120 - I rarely print larger than A2.

Have you tried enlarging on Lupex?. Theoretically it's possible. I have Fomalux and Lupex in my cool storage haven't used any contact paper (Azo) in a long time.

 

[skahde]

With TMY2 you will be able to perceive granularity in a 16x20 print in smooth skies, depending on developer and process. If this bothers you, TMX can be one possible solution.

 

[pkr1979]

Have you tried enlarging on Lupex?

Nope - Ive been using Lupex with 8x10 sheet film only.

 

[GregY]

With TMY2 you will be able to perceive granularity in a 16x20 print in smooth skies, depending on developer and process. If this bothers you, TMX can be one possible solution.

Both brilliant films!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have enlarged onto Azo. A reasonably bright halogen colorhead and enlarging lens with a large maximum aperture will do it within a reasonable time exposure. But I don't really see the point of enlarging onto slow contact papers, except experimentally.

 

[mshchem]

I just wondered if the pure chloride will tone nicer? I don't know. Another beautiful day today. I am going for a bike ride, to heck with the darkroom for another day

 

[laser]

I am gratified by all the kind comments on Kodak T-MAX Films. I was the product development engineer and by the time it was introduced Worldwide B&W Product Manager. Because the team working on the project was small, I was responsible for everything from the business case and pricing to writing the specification to measuring the performance to deciding on emulsion performance trade-offs to selecting the names to designing the packaging to presenting the announcement press conference. Gordon Brown suggested the name by combining the T for tabular and MAX for DMax (maximum density) . As I recall I started the work January 1, 1981, almost 45 years ago. The time has flown by, I was having fun.
www.makingKODAKfilm.com

 

[xtol121]

I just wondered if the pure chloride will tone nicer? I don't know. Another beautiful day today. I am going for a bike ride, to heck with the darkroom for another day

Foma 131 is really great for toning compared to Ilford warm tone. In selenium toner 1+9 I find 131 reaches a similar level of toning in 30-45 seconds that would take Ilford warm tone 5 minutes to reach. I haven’t had a chance to experiment with gold or brown toners but I imagine it will be much more responsive than Ilford’s offerings.