Difference between Tri-X Pan (320) and Tmax400

[StoneNYC]

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 ) ..

I'll ship you some Rodinal ha! Force you to do my work for me! Lol

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

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.

Drew,
I have been all over Roman's website and have enjoyed many of his images for years... but I've never seen any of his prints in person. How are they? I've heard they are very heavy handed, almost sloppy... but then again I've heard a lot of things that aren't true. I like the look of many of the scans I've seen but a small file on the web doesn't tell very much.

Enjoyed your BW story in another thread BTW.

 

[removed account4]

I'll ship you some Rodinal ha! Force you to do my work for me! Lol

sorry i don't use that stuff and im no one's lap dog ....
sorry sir i am retracting my offer, you will have to do your own tests LOL HAHAHA

 

[Richard Man]

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?!!

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

Yes but who is making more money?

Also Drew, have you actually been to one of Peter licks galleries, they aren't terrible, yes summer saturated, but they don't really seem any more saturated than any shots that I've taken on Velvia...

They are definitely full of color, I wouldn't say kindergartner, and it does take some skill to do what he did in terms of where he had to go to hike and travel to get some of the images, especially before he became wealthy and had access to things like helicopters, he had left it on foot and it put in his time.

Any successful person is going to be criticized, that's just how it is I understand A little bit of subconscious jealousy I suppose.

If you have to hundred people who is Peter Lik, and another hundred who is Drew Wiley, what do you think the numbers would be?

What is the same? Posed but about Peter Lik and Roman Loranc? I'm sure more would know that Peter, then about Roman. And talking everyday people not photographers... The people that actually by the images, if they were so terrible they wouldn't sell so obviously they're good for a majority of people.

Anyway this is way off topic, I do love off-topic discussions and the main discussion is kind of going out anyway so why not.

Let me clarify to say that I don't think that someone like Peter lick is exactly who I want to be, and I certainly don't want my imagery to be the same as his, but I certainly wouldn't mind his fame and his connections and his money and his helicopters and his team and his printing production system, it's certainly better than yours, I don't say that to goad you, I say that because I'm sure after seeing his photos, that you couldn't print like he prints but I'm sure he could print like you. I'm certainly sure that he could make larger photographs then you could

And of course I'm sure that you've both met Angela Adams and had him handpick you to be in a show right?

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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!

 

[StoneNYC]

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!

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.

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm in toes my opinion too, I don't think his work is the best but certainly don't think that it's Visual trash either, anybody who thinks that it's trash entirely is just blind it's obvious he went to some amazing places with real cameras on film and shot some beautiful imagery I don't know how you can call that trash even if some of it is overly saturated. I really think you should just go to a gallery and see if yourself, I think that's one of the things I don't think you've done? I'm not sure what makes him a crook, he selling item that people like and they're buying it it's not a cheap quality, it's highly engineered it's done with real photography skills and real editing skills I don't see how it makes him a crook.

And yes I use a dictating system when on here on my phone, it's just too much to text and my thumbs get tired, sometimes I don't proofread the whole thing, my apologies for that.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

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?!!

Sloppy isn't my word, just something I heard so I'm not sure.

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.

The hit or miss makes sense based on the different things I've heard about them. He's on my list of shows I'd like to see. Thanks, Drew.

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.

Speaking of hit or miss, that's how I feel about his images in general. Some I like considerably, others, not so much. But then again I could certainly say that of my own work. When the in your face contrasty thing works it can be cool but it's hard to do consistently.

That being said I'd much rather have any one of Roman's prints than my choice of a Peter Lik... hahaha lol

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

 

[StoneNYC]

My pleasure. I hope my experience is of use to you.

^^^ and that's how it's done folks...^^^^

 

[StoneNYC]

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?!!

TMY-2 as a starting point

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

Okay Drew, send me your best color work in the mail, make a real amazing print for me of your best landscape image that you have and I'll compare it to Lik's and see if I feel that I should change my opinion

By the way I'm just kind of kneeling you cause it's fun at this point, I honestly can't remember any images that you took or posted on APUG, I have to go look at your gallery to see.

EDIT: went to look, as it turns out you're not even a subscriber, what's up with that? You should join and then put some of your images so I have something to look at and understand from your perspective what you consider to be a grand image

 

[MattKing]

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?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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?

I think there is one in roll film, but not sheets. I am not 100% sure of it. I just know what the film does in practical terms.

If memory serves me right, Kodak talked about it when they launched TMY-2.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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....

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

 

[StoneNYC]

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....

Sorry Drew, I'm probably being a little rude to you, for that I apologize. You just sometimes make me laugh because you're just about as opinionated as I am.



Yes of course I would love to see you real print, in person, but in the meantime it would be good to sort of get a sense of what your style is and what your perspective is, it does a lot to see in artist work and have an idea of what they consider beautiful, it allows you to analyze them as a person and as an artist, and also to decide if you want to take advice from them because of all the advice I've ever gotten, the best was from somebody famous that I met, I can't recall if it was Rosie O'Donnell, or Donald Trump, I know that seems strange but those are the two people I've spoken to the most about careers from my recollection, anyway it was a while ago and they said "never take advice from someone who isn't already successful at the thing you're trying to accomplish"

Another version of this when it comes to vetting yourself might be "put your money where your mouth is"

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

^^^ and that's how it's done folks...^^^^

Well, Thomas is a super nice guy and a hell of a photographer... But I don't think you're the best person to be directing behavior on the forum, Stone.

TMY-2 sheet film does not incorporate any UV-blocking.

Correct. I've made contact prints from TMY2 onto UV sensitive silver chloride paper without problems.

 

[StoneNYC]

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.

Makes sense if it's for static exposure prevention. Thanks for finding it.

 

[StoneNYC]

...But I don't think you're the best person to be directing behavior on the forum, Stone.

Hehe, very, very, very true...