Difference between Tri-X Pan (320) and Tmax400

[removed account4]

Heck I'm just honored you spent the time and wasted your film for this experiment/proof Thanks.

it was fun stone, glad i could help ...

just to add to my original post ... ( with the attached negative skhanns ) ...

this is an enlarged crop ...

the difference between the sun and not sun when i took my incident meter reading was about 4stops...
the one on the LEFT is tri x pan 400, right is tmy-2

 

[StoneNYC]

it was fun stone, glad i could help ...

just to add to my original post ... ( with the attached negative skhanns ) ...

this is an enlarged crop ...

the difference between the sun and not sun when i took my incident meter reading was about 4stops...
the one on the LEFT is tri x pan 400, right is tmy-2

Blacks are the same but definitely different mid tones and the Tri-x highlights go fast and TMY much more gradual, thanks this confirms things already commented on.

 

[removed account4]

Blacks are the same but definitely different mid tones and the Tri-x highlights go fast and TMY much more gradual, thanks this confirms things already commented on.

not exactly what you said

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

and it is obvious that what you said wasn't true at all.


not mad, just slapping people in the face with an obvious statement. yes, stone, anythng can be developed,
there IS a difference between getting the shot with tonality, and low+high highlights ( as i illustrated ),
and getting something with all the highlights in the tri x pan blown (as you claimed would happen) ...
yes, with the right look that you wanted ( and were expecting ) using the same developer you always use,
processing the film as NORMAL nothing special .. no workaround to get the shot ... just SSDF
and having it look the right way because not so much that you were using "theright effing film" but because you don't believe
what most people say is "the truth" and because, well you have done it before and you know what to expect.

don't believe all the crap you read on the internet most of it is just that, crap.

i wouldn't bother with trix 400, or tmy anyways ,, i'd use ilford hp5+

 

[markbarendt]

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

I think one of the things jnanian, as well as others, are trying to get you to see and it is actually "my agenda"; is to get you to understand that it is not the film that gets you the look you want, it is you. It really is that simple.

Films are very flexible, the traits we are discussing, that you are trying to nail down, are just tendencies, not absolutes. Shoot any of these films at box speed and meter well and you won't be missing any shots with any of these films and you will be able to get exactly what you want and be able to make prints that will be virtually indistinguishable from prints of the other two.

I pushed you earlier on HP5 because A) you have it, and B) if you can't do it with HP5 in 4x5, then I'm 99% sure you can't do it on the others either.

If instead, you had had TMY in the fridge and were looking at switching to HP5, I would have made the exact same arguments and just inserted the other film names.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I can certainly think of quite of few shots that would have failed with Hp5 that I bagged with TMY, or visa versa, even though they're
nominally the same speed and pan sensitivity. There is a reason so many different films are made. You can't print something that doesn't exist on the negative in the first place. It ain't all the person. Even Michelangelo wouldn't have been able to scuplt the Pieta with a shovel, or paint the Sistine Chapel with a broom. I'd agree that for a beginner is probably best not to get too worked up about all this until the limitation of a relatively limited number of films, developers, and papers is learned. The simpler the better. But once you get the hang of it, one can explore widening the horizons. Sure, it makes no difference whether you choose to play a tuba or a trombone.... they too are all the same, that is, in the sense a beginner will sound horrible with either.

 

[StoneNYC]

John, that first sentence had to do with something someone else said not the comment I had made earlier.

Mark, I only have a small box of HP so it's not as if when I run through this I can't try something else, I already compare the two in 120 already, so I already realized that I preferred the TMY-2 for this project, I was just questioning whether the TXP would be even better.

For once I actually agree with Drew, really there are many different films and they all look different, it doesn't matter how good you are in the dark room, there are always certain traits that you just can't repeat with different films, you can't get the Neopan400 @ EI800 and pushed in Rodinal look any other way than with Neopan400 unless you're using a film of a different film speed but then you can't shoot it at 800 and natural light... I certainly know that I can't get that look with HP5+ I highly doubt I could get that look withFOMA400, but I wouldn't even try because the emotions are ... Unpredictable...(spotty) and neither kodak B&W films can get that look... And if you actually know the way to get that specific look of Neopan400 you know the one I'm talking about, you better damn well tell me how to do it.

 

[eddie]

Stone- I think what everyone is trying to do is help you avoid a "jack of all trades-master of none" situation. Using multiple emulsion and developer combinations will not get you the knowledge gained from limiting your materials. Learning to manipulate one (or two) film/developer combinations will serve your photographic desires better than flitting from one to another, to another, to another.... You really have to get to thoroughly know your materials before you can definitively say what they can, and cannot, do.

 

[markbarendt]

So Drew, you're telling me that if HP5 happend to be the only film you had on hand (in the 400ish range) that there are shots you couldn't do? I simply can't believe that. :confused:

I'm not suggesting there are no differences in the films. What i'm suggesting is that the differences are more akin to choosing between a 00 and a 000 brush than between a broom and a 00.

I am suggesting that given Stone's shot count, subject matter (say that runner), and method of printing; that any differences he will see will be pretty random and buried in the clutter of a bunch of other variables.

------

Stone, I'm not disparaging your ability to take a good picture or electronic processing.

I'm saying that if you want to see the differences your methods will need to be a lot more disciplined and practiced than you have described so far.

 

[markbarendt]

Stone- I think what everyone is trying to do is help you avoid a "jack of all trades-master of none" situation. Using multiple emulsion and developer combinations will not get you the knowledge gained from limiting your materials. Learning to manipulate one (or two) film/developer combinations will serve your photographic desires better than flitting from one to another, to another, to another.... You really have to get to thoroughly know your materials before you can definitively say what they can, and cannot, do.

Yes, yes, yes.

The other thing about knowing one really well and being able to bend it to your will is that it shortens the learning curve for other films if you switch, and it gives you the knowledge you need to describe what that original film struggles with for you.

 

[StoneNYC]

So Drew, you're telling me that if HP5 happend to be the only film you had on hand (in the 400ish range) that there are shots you couldn't do? I simply can't believe that. :confused:

I'm not suggesting there are no differences in the films. What i'm suggesting is that the differences are more akin to choosing between a 00 and a 000 brush than between a broom and a 00.

I am suggesting that given Stone's shot count, subject matter (say that runner), and method of printing; that any differences he will see will be pretty random and buried in the clutter of a bunch of other variables.

------

Stone, I'm not disparaging your ability to take a good picture or electronic processing.

I'm saying that if you want to see the differences your methods will need to be a lot more disciplined and practiced than you have described so far.

All I know is given I have a set parameter with this project I'm working on, and have already shot many scenes on digital, and am now using both digital and film, and the look that gets closest is TMY-2, that this is what I'm going to use. I don't see why that's the WRONG move to so many of you.

 

[removed account4]

mark and eddie

you say what you say so much better than what i think thanks

stone

i don't think that is wrong at all,
processing a boatload of sheet film will help you get chops.
don't be stingy or cheap using film because that is where you learn.
too many people buy 100 sheets of film and expose 1 sheet every month
and complain about costs and effort and not getting the results they crave.
just expect the unexpected and enjoy the ride because
sometimes you will have to push yourself, not your film
to figure out what is happening, and to make it happen again.

i've been using ansco130 or something like it since about 1996 give or take a year
and coffee-stuff going on 7 or 8 years so i tend to know what to expect ... and i don't usually
use too many different emulsions seeing i bought a shopping cart of it just before 9-11
and have used it in a boatload of different circumstances ...

good luck getting to that part of the trip ( knowing what to expect ) !

john

 

[eddie]

TMY-2 is a fine film. There's nothing wrong with choosing it. I think the advice your getting is, pick one (TMY-2) and stick with it, for almost everything. Get to know whatever film/developer you choose intimately.
I think, if you looked at the work of photographers you respect, they work with a very limited materials palette. The consistent excellence their work exhibits is due to their complete control over those materials. I also think it helps with the creative process, as the technical end is so intuitive, it becomes second nature. Their "focus" can be on image making. I can add, in my case, it makes photo life less stressful, and more enjoyable. Using just 2 emulsions/ 2 developers, I don't have to "hope" I get results. There was a time I played with about a half dozen films, and an equal number of developers. Life is simpler, now...

 

[markbarendt]

All I know is given I have a set parameter with this project I'm working on, and have already shot many scenes on digital, and am now using both digital and film, and the look that gets closest is TMY-2, that this is what I'm going to use. I don't see why that's the WRONG move to so many of you.

It's not wrong Stone, but given what you've told us so far, it looks to me like that is just the luck of the draw or a happy accident rather than a deliberate adjustment to get what you want.

I'm okay with happy accidents. Once I have one though I like to figure out what happened so that I can apply or adapt that experience to the next project.

Out of curiosity have you read this? (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Dinesh]

Out of curiosity have you read this? (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

A well written article from Don.

Here's hoping Thomas lets him out his basement sometime soon.

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks guys.

And John... didn't you tell me you were going to quit LF when you ran out of film because prices were so high? LOL

 

[removed account4]

yeah stone, i have said that ... i can't afford to buy as much film as i like to shoot ...
mainly because i don't scrimp and save on materials ... and i have to feed myself and my family
more than mac + cheese or ramen noodles ... ( when i was single, i didn't mind living on the-edge )

so when i runout of film AND PAPER and liquid emulsion ...
the problem is i have a lot of paper and film and liquid emulsion
and making emulsion isn't as expensive as buying it, or buying
paper / film already coated ... and ilford film and european feed my jones
since they are extremely affordable ... ( and i have a fondness for ilford materials ! )

unfortunately, i am also a true sucker and there are always people getting rid
of perfectly good film and paper ultra cheep who have no idea how to tweek life out of them
( you know, like selling me 2000 sheets of tri x pan 5x7 film for 1¢ / sheet
or 8000+ sheets of fiber paper for the haul &c )

so it might take a while for me to
run-out ... and ... get-out ...

it sucks, and unfortunately
i'm addicted to the darkslide


BUT YOU!
you are single,
no morgage over your head
no wife + kids to feed, no survivalist shelter to build in your backyard
it's just you and your camera
and i am sure you have footlockers of doubloons + pieces of 8
stashed in your backyard ...
and i am sure you can hold on longer than me
have fun with your project !

 

[markbarendt]

unfortunately, i am also a true sucker and there are always people getting rid
of perfectly good film and paper ultra cheep who have no idea how to tweek life out of them
( you know, like selling me 2000 sheets of tri x pan 5x7 film for 1¢ / sheet
or 8000+ sheets of fiber paper for the haul &c )

I too snap up film and paper that others just don't want around anymore. This is one of the reasons I understand that most any film can be coaxed into doing what I want.

I need to find your deals though!

 

[removed account4]

I too snap up film and paper that others just don't want around anymore. This is one of the reasons I understand that most any film can be coaxed into doing what I want.

I need to find your deals though!

hi mark
YES, COAX!
and i helps to have low expectations

when i hear of another sweet-deal, i'll let you know ...
you might have to drive to the east coast to pick it up though

i'll send you back-west with a case of ramen and a hot pot for the road

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

A well written article from Don.

Here's hoping Thomas lets him out his basement sometime soon.

Maybe. Maybe not. He's very nice to keep around. Good conversation. Enjoys coffee. Lots to learn from him. Too valuable to give up.

 

[markbarendt]

I have generally not found the films I've tested to be as "bendable" as I once thought, rather that most of them are more similar than different in their inherent characteristic curves.

I don't disagree a bit.

I will clarify that when I say "coax" I mostly mean "print". The films in this discussion, and especially in 4x5, simply aren't different enough to keep me from printing what I intended to print. One may need a little dodge, another a little burn, the third a little more general exposure, and the next time the tweak may be different because the subject has a different complexion or a cloud came by.

Films aren't the magic bullets of photography, our skills and imaginations are.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't disagree a bit.

I will clarify that when I say "coax" I mostly mean "print". The films in this discussion, and especially in 4x5, simply aren't different enough to keep me from printing what I intended to print. One may need a little dodge, another a little burn, the third a little more general exposure, and the next time the tweak may be different because the subject has a different complexion or a cloud came by.

Films aren't the magic bullets of photography, our skills and imaginations are.

I agree that films are more similar than they are different, and frankly I'm not even interested in analyzing the differences that are there. It's not worth my time.
There are so many more meaningful ways of improving our photography than to learn comparatively small differences between film emulsions.

It's also true that a film's qualities will not make or break a great photograph. I view it as more of a distraction than a benefit, to have many films to choose from. All of the films we have today are better than what was available to the masters of years past, whose work we admire so much. That is worth considering in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I would simply pile on here. The last few years I've been striving for the simplest and most repeatable way to make 'average' negatives. Enough shadow detail, enough highlight detail and even development. Given those things I feel pretty confident that I can take care of the rest at the printing stage...

 

[markbarendt]

I would simply pile on here. The last few years I've been striving for the simplest and most repeatable way to make 'average' negatives. Enough shadow detail, enough highlight detail and even development. Given those things I feel pretty confident that I can take care of the rest at the printing stage...

I do the same thing, I can't even remember the last time I adjusted development away from my norm for any film.

 

[removed account4]

I do the same thing, I can't even remember the last time I adjusted development away from my norm for any film.

+ 1

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Average" pretty much sums it up. If that's all you aspire to, then your "average" negatives should work. Otherwise....