Ok, one more time and then I promise I'll stop
Which would you rather have: good information, bad information, or no information (ie do it yourself)?
Unless controlled side by side testing is done, the personal examples/comparisons you're asking for regarding TXP and TMY-2 are worse than no information at all. As you've already realized, ask 10 people, get 10 different answers, and you don't know who's even worth listening to (probably nearly nobody).
There exists objective data, and it is pretty straight forward, but you're not into it. Ok, then the two options left are still the ones I gave you. And in the end option 1 (test and shoot lots of both films yourself) is probably the best.
Do you know how aggravating that is?
Stone, go back and read the majority of your posts on other peoples threads...
(insert circus music here)
I have shot many sheets of both TXP320 and TMY2 developed in Pyrocat HD and Rodinal 1+100ish. In the type of terminology you seem to be asking for I would say the following:
TXP320 drops shadow details faster with underexposure. (this refers to all that toe nonsense people keep bothering you with...)
TXP320 looses highlight contrast faster with over exposure or over development. (this refers to all that shoulder nonsense people keep bothering you with...)
TMY2 is considerably finer grained...
TMY2 was almost a stop faster for me in either developer. (this is related to the shadow detail/toe nonsense)
TMY2 responds to colors differently... this is hard to quantify and will probably only be understood by shooting a ton of it next to a more standard film.
Good luck hahaha lol
The parts of your paragraph I changed to bold font are exactly the point. ie: I really don't think the personal opinions, examples etc. you've asked for will give you a better starting point, nor will they provide good information. Actually they could be misleading, incorrect etc., which is worse than no information.
Ok I know I promised I was done but your last post simplified the argument a little.
Also re Kodak-hating, I don't know what that's all about. Both TXP and TMY-2 are excellent films (as are all current Kodak films). TXP and TMY-2 can each do whatever you need, even if they might need a little different exposure/development.
Just to be clear, mine is a significant simplification... but I suppose it is directionally correct.
Also, I agree completely with Michael, Eddie and several others who have posted.
One final suggestion, considering the amount of jumping around you seem to be doing; Take careful notes about lighting, exposure and development so that you can make meaningful visual comparisons later on.
Stone ... these films have very different personalities with a different look. Tri-X even on 4x5 tends to have very conspicuous grain in textureless upper
midtone areas. Some people like this, others hate it. TMY is much finer grained, even at its higher true speed. TMY will handle a greater range of contrast
and still resolve the deep shadow detail nicely, but need to be more carefully metered. It has a much steeper, straighter toe than Tri-X. Which one you
like is up to you, but I personally find TMY400 to be extremely versatile. But until you actually print these films, it's largely academic. Next time you are
scrounging in the dumpster looking for leftover bit of pizza to supplement your acting career, it's entirely possible you'll stumble onto some scraps of black
polyethylene which will be useful for turning the dumpster into a darkroom. Add a half-empty bottle of kitchen vinegar and you've got stop bath. .. halfway
there already!
you need to remember that tmy-2 i think has that UltraViolence BLOCKING LAYER
so if you plan on using any of this film while thinking of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ..
you will have troubles
Okay so say I'm shooting a runner coming down the street at a finish line, with my 4 x 5, on a tripod, and I have an option to shoot a film that effectively exposes at 200 instead of 320 which is what I've Heard a lot of people say is really how it exposes properly, but also having the option of shooting a 400 speed film that can be shot at 800 without pushing anything, and I would like the person not to be blurred, but frozen, and for the highlights in the image to be subdued, but the exposure at 1/250th of a second, at my max aperture of f/4.5 means that I have to shoot at 800 or underexposed image, do I choose TMY-2, or do I choose TXP? TMY-2 of course.... Because TXP CANT GET THAT SHOT without either under exposing by two whole stops, or by blurring the subject which would ruin the idea of the image in the first place, or by pushing the TXP to the point where many of the highlights would be blown ... Not every film is made for every situation, I don't know why you keep saying that it's like as if you only think one film for every shot in the whole world will be fine, which is just silly to say...
stone
if you look at the kodak data guides
i believe with you can often process BOTH films normally in BOTH situations
for decades pro labs did just that ... they 'batched' films together for processing ..
(iso 200-800 together &c ) ...
Well, you're just proving my point, Stone. I'd ask those people who "dispute" TXP's ISO rating to explain it. I'd also note there are many people who also think TMY2 is an EI 200 film. Then I'd ask which film will lose shadows faster with underexposure. Then I'd ask what they mean by blown highlights, because that's usually all wrong.
See what I'm getting at? It ain't as simple as "TMY-2 of course", or "TXP of course".
No, not every film is right for every shot. Of course there are differences. But within a speed family there are generally more similarities than differences when it comes to "tonality", and I think it is more difficult these days to rule out or rule in a film given a situation.
Sorry for getting on your case.
You won't get 800 speed out of either TXP or TMY2.
If you meter at 800, most likely both films will be under-exposed.
Push development doesn't improve the film's light sensitivity (much).
It improves the contrast of the mid-tones and near shadows - at the expense of highlight detail.
The films' response to under-exposure is well described above. If you push develop the films, the reduction in highlight detail will be quite different between the films.
It probably wasn't me who recommended the different agitation but I'm glad you're getting the results you were after. In the end that is what counts, of course.
UGH... NOT WITHOUT BLOWING THE HIGHLIGHTS IN THE TXP!!! Lol
Not mad, just slapping people in the face with an obvious statement.
Yes anything can be developed, but there's a difference between getting the shot, and getting the shot you wanted, with the right look that you wanted, not the look that was attainable only because of having to do workarounds to get the shot, and still have it not look the way you want because you didn't have the right effing film
not necessarily true stone,
i have had friends who have worked in pro labs over the years and that is exactly what they used to tell me
batch processed ...
not "current emulsions" though, this was in the 80's and 90s ...
so today YMMV
i have some txp and tmy2 will do my best shoot them at 200 and 800 and process them "normally" this week
when i scan the prints i will upload them and post to this thread ...
if i can't do it this week, i will do it sometime soon ...
and considering this thread willprobably be 40 pages long at that point
i won't have any trouble finding it ...
Well anyway, I've learnt something in this thread - I didn't know Stone was an actor. Screen or stage?
Make sure to make exact side-by-side comparisons with exact copies of each image with both films Mr. tester
I see you picked up on one fact. If you overexpose TriX to make it look like TMY, by forcing the scene up onto the straight part of the curve - what ole timers referred to as a "thick" negative (not to be confused with a thick emulsion) - you risk blowing out the highlights. Some people liked the effect for long scale alt processes, like George Tice. And a "thick" high-density neg will be harder to scan, if that is what you still have in mind. There was quite a span where contact printers in particular were divided between the Tri-X school and the Super-XX school. TMY400 is a lot more like Super-XX in application, just way finer grained. I know this might not mean much to you right now; but if you get out and look at actual prints from the era, it will. It can really be hard to evaluate such distinctions by looking at images on the web. What is your long-term goal for your negatives, once you get rich and famous and can afford to do anything you want with them?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?