Does anyone like TMY but not TMX

[BetterSense]

I am a huge fan of TMY. Sometimes I just want the same thing but finer grain, but I do not find TMX to be "slower TMY". Something about the highlight contrast or sharpness is not there. So I find myself just choosing TMY, even when I might prefer a couple stops less speed. Luckily, TMY has very fine grain already. Because of that, I don't see the point of trying other 100 speed films. I find Foma 100 and Plus X are almost as grainy as TMY.

Thoughts on getting TMX to look just like TMY, or other films to try?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you like TMY, why don't you just stick with it then? I love that film.

 

[Konical]

Good Evening,

I'm glad there is a TMY, and I hope I'll always be able to get it. I do not, however, want to have TMX resemble TMY. For me, the extremely fine grain structure and the very considerable flexibility the film has depending on how it's developed make it my all-round favorite, assuming that I don't need the greater speed of TMY.

Obviously, varying opinions will no doubt appear as responses to this thread appear, so I offer mine above as just that--an opinion. It will be interesting to see the views of others.

Konical

 

[MattKing]

One of the challenges of TMX is that it is so fine grained that results sometimes appear to be less sharp.

That is because the appearance of grain tends to make film images appear sharper - when there are visible edges to detail, the detail may appear to be sharper, even when the resolution of that detail is less.

If you want to increase apparent sharpness with TMX, choose a developer that tends to give higher acutance.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Why would you expect TMX to be a slower version of TMY and everything else to be the same. They are different emulsions.

 

[albada]

I am a huge fan of TMY. Sometimes I just want the same thing but finer grain, but I do not find TMX to be "slower TMY". Something about the highlight contrast or sharpness is not there. So I find myself just choosing TMY, even when I might prefer a couple stops less speed. Luckily, TMY has very fine grain already. Because of that, I don't see the point of trying other 100 speed films. I find Foma 100 and Plus X are almost as grainy as TMY.
Thoughts on getting TMX to look just like TMY, or other films to try?

TMX, in some developers, has an early and prolonged shoulder which will compress highlights, as you discovered. I saw this in my sensitometric curves while devising a new ascorbate developer. Before abandoning TMX, you might try a different developer.

Mark Overton

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am a huge fan of TMY. Sometimes I just want the same thing but finer grain, but I do not find TMX to be "slower TMY". Something about the highlight contrast or sharpness is not there. So I find myself just choosing TMY, even when I might prefer a couple stops less speed. Luckily, TMY has very fine grain already. Because of that, I don't see the point of trying other 100 speed films. I find Foma 100 and Plus X are almost as grainy as TMY.

Thoughts on getting TMX to look just like TMY, or other films to try?

for my type of photography(portraits and nudes )TMY is just the perfect film.TMX is harder to control for me.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

TMX, in some developers, has an early and prolonged shoulder which will compress highlights, as you discovered. I saw this in my sensitometric curves while devising a new ascorbate developer. Before abandoning TMX, you might try a different developer.

Mark Overton

Yes, and try selenium toner too.

 

[removed account4]

i like it in caffenol, gives a nice grain !

 

[Xmas]

Neutral density filter?
Or try Ilford, Kentmere, Adox, slow films.
Maybe 5222?
They are all different.

 

[BetterSense]

This description is consistent with my hunch that it is highlight contrast that is causing me to think TMX is less sharp and less suited for portraits. If it were just the fine grain, then equally fine grain films like Acros would give me the same impression, and they don't.

What I like about TMX and TMY is that kodak instructions are to use the same development time so that sheets of both or rolls of both can be developed together. I am starting to think that this is wishful thinking. If I have to use a different developer or different time, I could use a number of other films.

TMX, in some developers, has an early and prolonged shoulder which will compress highlights, as you discovered. I saw this in my sensitometric curves while devising a new ascorbate developer. Before abandoning TMX, you might try a different developer.

Mark Overton

 

[Konical]

"What I like about TMX and TMY is that kodak instructions are to use the same development time so that sheets of both or rolls of both can be developed together. I am starting to think that this is wishful thinking."

Good Morning, Better Sense,

It's been years since I checked specific recommendations for TMX and TMY; since I normally use T-Max Developer, except for night shots when my dwindling stock of Technidol comes into play. The times I use for TMX and TMY are very close, but not exactly the same. I base my T-Max developing on the information which appeared in a magazine article test (which magazine?--dunno, it was probably 25 or 30 years ago); the recommendation was that TMY should get 9 minutes and TMX 10 minutes in a 1:7 solution. I use those times as "normal" and deviate from them depending on my perceived or recalled evaluation of a given subject's contrast level. For example, shots taken with direct flash on TMY, with slightly generous exposure, would probably get 8 minutes or 8¼ minutes development time, because of the relative harshness of the light.

I agree that, for non-critical work, both films could be processed together, say for 9½ minutes with at least acceptable results for each. If I were using roll film in that situation, I might also put the TMX on the bottom, the TMY on top, and pull out the TMY roll(s) with lights off a minute or so prior to the end time for TMX. The TMY would just get an early start in the film washer while the TMX went to completion.

I have followed the procedure(s) described for at least a couple of decades with no problems; I don't have any experience with other developers.

Konical

 

[MattKing]

What I like about TMX and TMY is that kodak instructions are to use the same development time so that sheets of both or rolls of both can be developed together. I am starting to think that this is wishful thinking. If I have to use a different developer or different time, I could use a number of other films.

As noted elsewhere, this is only the case with certain developers, like some dilutions of HC-110.

 

[Axle]

I'm not a fan of TMY but I am a fan of TMX especially shot at ASA-32 and souped in Xtol.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I use them both, but for very different purposes. I quit using TMX for landscape subjects long ago because it has relatively poor edge effect,
so doesn't look very crisp despite being able to carry a lot of detail. That characteristic comes in handy for portraiture, however, where a
certain degree of softness might be preferable. I do use lots of TMX sheet film for unsharp masking in the darkroom and related color separation negatives. TMY, however, is perhaps my favorite current 8x10 black and white film. A bit expensive but versatile with excellent
quality control. And the grain is fine enough for 4x5 use too, unlike most films at that speed. I also love it for snapshooting with my Nikon.