Difference between Tri-X Pan (320) and Tmax400

[eddie]

I think you're asking a question which is impossible to answer (except for their different grain structures). How you rate the film, how you meter, how you develop, what developer you use, and how you output all have an effect on what you're asking. Only you, by using them, can answer the question.

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

I don't know how to explain this any other way, but you guys are telling me to pick a film tested for a very long time, and then learn its properties. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO! However to have a better starting point from a film that is more likely to give me the results I want for a given situation, I decided on choosing between two TO TEST, of those two I was trying to get some information about the two from others who had used it in order to make the most educated decision on which TO TEST. I'm simply choosing a different starting point then all of you seem to want for some ridiculous reason. I'm not sure if it's simply some kind of missed placed hatred for Kodak, some kind of extra additional support for Ilford (which I can understand since they are so obviously awesome), or just to be difficult.

Anyway, after all of this, as I said earlier in the thread, I will continue to use HP5+ and I will continue to purchase new HP5+ but I will also be purchasing now TMY-2... part of that decision came based on the information that a few of you actually gave me about this particular film and the characteristics to which I liked, it also was the more logical of the two considering that TXP is not available in the other formats, so I would only be specializing in this particular format, where as TMY-2 I can use in every format and therefore can import my knowledge to other formats more easily if I should choose to.

For the record, HP5+ pushes beautifully, I love it's highlights etc. TMY as it is written on the data sheets, can be shot at EI800 with no adjustment in development times, therefore I wouldn't have to push it in an 800 ASA shooting situation, which would give a completely different look no matter how you slice it, pushing the film will pop the highlights more, so if I'm in a situation to which I don't want to pop the highlights, but I NEED a film that can reach 800 to get the shot without motion blur/camera shake etc, I wouldn't want to use HP5+ now would I? Especially if I want a more fine grained look to the image, rather than HP5's beautiful film grain.

In addition, I did do some comparison testing of my own between HP5+ and TMY-2 in 120 during the photo shoot for a project I'm working on, I've already set up the lighting conditions and the exact look I want while using…digital... But would prefer to use film for some of it, and so having already set the parameters, and shooting between these two films, I preferred the TMY-2 for this project. I cannot show you these image comparisons unfortunately, because they are very intimate in nature, but can't say that they are macro shots, and that I did back-to-back comparisons without moving the subject matter, lighting, etc. and switching backs between the two films back-and-forth on a whole roll at different angles both developed at the given times both using Rodinal both the same agitation technique I use, both look exposed the same. And after looking through the images scanning them at 3200 dpi which is A reasonable size to be able to zoom in and look at the grain structure, and the shadow structure, edge effects, etc. And then looking at the image full-blown but not zoomed in, to fully get the idea of the two films side-by-side.

I decided, again for this project only, that I wanted to choose the TMY-2 but I know that TXP was another Kodak style image that might be an option and I wanted to get some detailed information on the comparison between the two. There aren't many 400 ASA films out there, and I don't like FOMA's emulsion issues even if I like the overall look of the films, so all that was left was to get an idea about TXP...

So I asked, expecting that maybe someone had actually compare the two films themselves, without me having to go out and spend $200 on film just to test...

Trust me I have enough stock of HP5+ to last me a few years... I bought into it Ilford's ULF run and have a few rolls of 70mm perf, 70mm non-perf, and 46mm, coming to me of HP5+ at 50 feet a pop...

I will easily be able to test HP5+ very thoroughly....

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

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

 

[StoneNYC]

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

OMG THANK YOU!!!

See guys this is the kind of post that I was looking for all along... Was that so hard??

Also I think I'm going to take a snapshot of this post because information about toe and foot and ear is actually really helpful when simplified just like that for me...

FINALLY!!!

Also yes I totally and completely recognize how annoying I am on other people threads, so I guess this is karma coming back at me

THANK YOU!!!

This also confirmed my suspicions really succinctly that I should in fact choose TMY-2 as a starting point.

Yes!!!

 

[removed account4]

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

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

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.

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

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...

 

[DREW WILEY]

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!

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

Thanks, I do value everyone's info, but yours was the kind of simplified type I needed for understanding for my tiny little brain

(Sadly my brain is in tiny at all, just dysfunctional, many of my friends compare me to a sexualized version of "Dr. Sheldon Cooper" from Big Bang Theory ...)

 

[StoneNYC]

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!

Hah! Yeah that's my other problem Drew haha, the fact that I support my film career with my acting career.... I'm a winner! Hahahahaha

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

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

That was awesome!

 

[removed account4]

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 ) ...

 

[StoneNYC]

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 ) ...

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

 

[StoneNYC]

Beating a dead horse... Shot on film....

 

[Darkroom317]

I usually shoot either TX in 120 or TXP in 4x5. I also shoot TX in 35mm rated at 250. My usual developer is Rodinal 1:50. I've only used TMY-2 for class projects when I run out of film because that is all that is available here. When I have used TMY-2 I found the prints to be very muddy and the grain to be awful. I know TX is grainier but I like that grain. For some reason TMY-2 and I just don't get along. The stuff I have done with TX and TXP has all came out beautifully.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

Well if you read the Kodak data guide which is a pretty good place to start from as far as actual real data and not just made up stuff by observance, being at there so particular to begin with, it specifically says that TMY would be better at getting 800 that's all I'm saying...

You're your advice is valuable, and I think it was you who told me that I should learn different agitation technique with TMY-2? Because IT was having trouble getting the look I wanted at the exposure I wanted? I think that with you, I viewed it as a 200 film also. Kept messing with it and I discovered that two things are wrong, one is that with every other film I often would give it a little push because of the way that I like the image to look, and that seem to work fairly well for each film that I tried, specifically in Rodinal, however as I said a couple times it looks like TMY doesn't like pushing, so that was the first issue, the second was simply that the scanner that I was using was auto correcting for a purposeful blown outlook, and therefore made it appear as if they were underexposed when really it was just fine I just had to get the settings back to where they should've been. I also followed the variation of that agitation technique, and it's paid off beautifully, so I do listen, and I do try things that other people say I'm not completely close mind

Anyway as I said again and again and again at this point, I have made my decision!

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

Supposedly TMX can be shot at 200 with no ill effects just as supposedly TMY can be shot at 800 with no ill effects and not having to push anything, so I'm testing out right now with TMX that I have on hand, and if that seems to be correct, I'm going to try it with TMY-2, if I'm satisfied with the results then I will be happy and if not I will also be happy simply because I will have tried something and learn something.

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

Hmm is another guy that I always mixup with you, I get the two of you confused, I can't figure out what it is, but it must be something in your names that is similar enough that I keep thinking you're the same person, oh well. Lol

 

[removed account4]

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

RETRACTED

 

[StoneNYC]

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 ...

Make sure to make exact side-by-side comparisons with exact copies of each image with both films Mr. tester

 

[DREW WILEY]

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?

 

[StoneNYC]

Well anyway, I've learnt something in this thread - I didn't know Stone was an actor. Screen or stage?

Screen mostly, but I mostly work in the Background. I'm just a little bit more important than an "extra". There are three main jobs that I do most of the time, The lowest of which would be playing a paparazzi, I get hired a lot for that because my camera equipment, I was always working on shows like gossip girl, or in any political show where flashing crazy people were needed... I'm often the only person who actually has a really good camera, the rest have really junky stuff haha! Secondly I work as a precision driver, this means that I work with the stunt guys in driving sequences, in which for example I am the car that the stuck guy is spinning/swerving around that he doesn't hit (hopefully). Or in a car that's driving by the main actor that is walking down the street, or more specialized stuff, for example there was a movie called "Remember Me" with Robert Pattinson, there's a scene where he's upset and he's riding his bicycle down the street, and there are cars behind him, I am the car directly behind him, they hired me because it one point his bike chain locks and he comes to a quick stop and they needed someone who would run him over. So they hired me because I'm a trained precision driver. And the third thing I do is a job called stand-in, basically you do with the actor does before he's actually onset, so the camera guy and the lighting guy and the director and everyone else concert of figure out what's happening and the set up looks right to the actor can just come and do his lines and not have to worry about waiting for everyone else, which might be distracting or ruin his character because he's trying to emulate something that is emotional and it's very difficult to do that if you're waiting for long periods of time. I also sometimes work as a still photographer, however that's for very very small indie films, and many of those can't really be listed because they have to go through a qualification process in order to be considered important enough for IMDb

I'm not very good at self-promotion and I also haven't had the money to update my profile in a while, but here is my small IMDb...

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5192397

I know it's not much, but you can't just make one and make stuff up, you have to be vetted, the producers have to acknowledge that you have actually been enough particular movies etc. so since I'm sort of on the lower totem pole, many of the things that I've done that were significantly important, are listed, simply because the producers didn't really want to take the time to bother adding that info about me because I'm not really that big when it comes to movies obviously since I'm poor haha

 

[removed account4]

Make sure to make exact side-by-side comparisons with exact copies of each image with both films Mr. tester

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 ) .

 

[StoneNYC]

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?

Hah! At that point I'll just own a whole facility they can do all of the groundwork for me, and I can just go out and take photographs, just like Peter Lik, I won't be the best, but I sure as hell be making lots of money selling my stuff