I'll ship you some Rodinal ha! Force you to do my work for me! Lol
it wont' be using one of the developers you use seeing i don't use any of them
i will process them in what i have ...
and i don't have any road races around here so i will just do "something else"
gotta find the film ( hope i still have tmy2 lying around ) ..
But if you want to look at some work by a real
modern master of Tri-X, try Roman Loranc. He gets wonderful shadow separation by making a "thick" neg, just as I described. The upper mids do get all
gritty with grain. Then the highlights also blow out - there is very little detail up there. But he tones the print to give a lot of character to the upper tones
anyway.
I'll ship you some Rodinal ha! Force you to do my work for me! Lol
If you want to be like Peter Lik, I'd suggest you obtain the color sense of a kindergartner eating finger paint, take a lot of LSD, and learn how to abuse
Fauxtoshop to the limit. You don't even need a camera and film to come up with his kinds of hokey visual abominations. Or you can just resale black velvet
Elvis rugs for a half million dollars apiece, given that you'll be marketing to the same potential clientele. ... But if you want to look at some work by a real
modern master of Tri-X, try Roman Loranc. He gets wonderful shadow separation by making a "thick" neg, just as I described. The upper mids do get all
gritty with grain. Then the highlights also blow out - there is very little detail up there. But he tones the print to give a lot of character to the upper tones
anyway. I'd rather use TMY400 and have my cake and eat it too, with respect to full-range tonality.
I have used mostly TMY-2 in 120 and 35mm (a few hundred rolls) and a little bit of 4x5 (maybe 50 sheets), and very little TXP in 120 and 4x5 (maybe 10 rolls and 50 sheets).
My appreciation of the two films is as follows:
1. TMY-2 has grain that is far finer than TXP.
2. TMY-2 sees color differently. It is as though the UV blocker combined with an altered blue and red sensitivity makes for darker skies without a filter.
3. TXP has a longer toe, which essentially means that more of the shadow details will get buried in base fog once the film has been developed than with TMY-2, and it does so gradually (TMY-2 has an abrupt and short toe). As Drew points out, TMY-2 has the ability to reveal shadow detail VERY deep into the shadows, and that is because its curve shape (or tonality response) is flatter. Once you hit the toe on TMY-2, though, the details are gone, because it is very steep.
4. TMY-2 records a much longer brightness range than TXP, which means it is much more tolerant, or forgiving, of exposure extremes than TXP.
5. TMY-2 is more sensitive to development alterations, which means that it needs more control in terms of developer temperature, developing time, agitation, and such. It simply reacts faster to changes. That makes TXP more forgiving of developing errors.
6. TMY-2 can be shot at box speed and maintain great shadow detail. My experience is that TXP can not.
7. If you shoot TMY-2 at about EI 1,000 to 1,250, and then process the film in something like Xtol 1+1, you can get tonality that is confusingly similar to TXP. This is true of TMX also, if you shoot it at about EI 250-320 and process appropriately. I've done this comparison, and while grain and color rendition remains dissimilar, the tonality can be very similar indeed.
With all that said, I have stopped worrying about differences between films. Like Eddie, Michael, Mark, and others have said, the final output is infinitely more variable with exposure and developing technique than the intrinsic differences between different films. Among TXP, HP5, and TMY-2 none of those films are going to make my pictures any better. Right now I have a film stash that is way too mixed for my liking, but I can't say no to free film, so I have Tri-X 400, HP5, and TMY-2 in 120 rolls, and after I shoot with either of them, process, and make prints, the final print quality from either is so good that I basically don't care which is which. I only wish I could become a better photographer, and a better printer; I know that my materials will always be able to match and exceed my skill, and give me what I need.
I must say that ever since I came to that realization my photography life has been a lot simpler and more enjoyable. But to each their own, whatever makes you happy. Have fun!
Guess you're one of those guys who thinks a Big Mac is gourmet food because billions of em are served. But maybe even that kind of greasy
thing would be a little too pricey for someone hoping for a career in the arts. And I sure as hell can call Lik's work utter visual trash if I want to. What's the point of even being a photographer if you have to whore yourself out to the lowest common denominator of bad taste jsut to make a buck? That's someone I call a loser. You might as well be an honest crook instead and go to work on Wall St. And don't ask me to answer your last misspelled question, cause you wouldn't like the actual answer.
I have seen a few Loranc's print in person in Carmel galleries. They look just fine, better than the books of course. Not sure what you mean by sloppy.
So after NINE PAGES of posting, what film are you going to use?!!
Shawn - Roman is a remarkable printer, but you do need to see actual examples. His books also tend to be very well done; but web images are predictably uninformative except for nominal subject matter. But he is somewhat hit and miss, because the complex toning regimen he prefers is very difficult to exactly replicate from print to print. And where the toning doesn't come adequately into play, the highlights are rather blank and devoid of interest - the risk of making a "thick" neg. To appreciate his shadows, you need strong display lighting. I say all this as someone who personally dislikes Tri-X quite a bit, not only due to the grittiness, but due to the fact that you can't dig way down into Zone 1 or 0 during extreme contrast outdoor scenes like you can with more of a true straight line film.
I wasn't all that impressed with his prints but I guess I'm not much of a fan anyway. I didn't find the dark values particularly interesting or rich in tonality. In general his printing style is too in-your-face contrasty for my taste, but that's only my taste.
Thank you so much, another great evaluation, and another one that makes me think that I've made the right choice with TMY-2 thank you so much really honestly thank you.
My pleasure. I hope my experience is of use to you.
I have seen a few Loranc's print in person in Carmel galleries. They look just fine, better than the books of course. Not sure what you mean by sloppy.
So after NINE PAGES of posting, what film are you going to use?!!
His work looks even worse in his galleries - reminds me of an oversized backlit Hamm's Beer sign in a cheap bar. I almost vomited the first time I saw anything of his. No resemblance to lighting in the real world. Just taking stereotypes of nature like a common postcard, just oversized, and slathered with gooey loud makeup like a cheap whore. He never "went" anywhere other than to his Fauxtoshop station, because when he did go places he obviously didn't care enough to actually look at anything. He just wanted some cornball postcard stereotype he could pimp out by slathering jam and honey atop sugar cubes. No editing skills involved - it's largely all fake. Period. Maybe you should get out and start looking at some real prints by real printmakers, who at least have a little respect for their subject matter. But yeah, I apologize for
comaparing Lik to kindergartners - those little kids don't deserve to be insulted in that manner.
2. TMY-2 sees color differently. It is as though the UV blocker combined with an altered blue and red sensitivity makes for darker skies without a filter.
Thomas:
I think this is the second time I've seen a reference to a "UV blocker" and TMY-2 in this thread. It is my understanding that T-Max 100 has a UV blocker, but TMY-2 does not. Am I in error?
TMY-2 sheet film does not incorporate any UV-blocking.
Like I said, Stone.... ya gotta learn to look at real prints. I'm tryin to be nice to ya, cause you're interested in LF, and its nice to see another
generation coming up with that kind of interest. ... but I sure hope you take your acting more seriously than your photography, cause ya jes
don't seem to git it....
^^^ and that's how it's done folks...^^^^
TMY-2 sheet film does not incorporate any UV-blocking.
Here's where I saw it:
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/professional/products/films/bw/bwFilmQAs.pdf
Page 3 of 4, second paragraph directly under the two pictures of 35mm cassettes.
Evidently it's for 35mm film only.
...But I don't think you're the best person to be directing behavior on the forum, Stone.
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?