I love TMax 100 in 35mm...

[Marco B]

Hi all,

Recently been working on some enlargements from TMax 100 in 35 mm format. These were the largest prints I have ever personally made from 35 mm format (28.0 x 42.0 cm true image size, eh... 11 x 17 inch that is?), and I was pleasantly surprised at the very fine, barely visible, grain and high detail. All shots made from tripod, which probably helped too.

I love it!

What are your experiences with TMax 100 at about that enlargement size?

Marco

 

[fschifano]

I don't usually print that large, but I do crop so the magnification is up there. Yes, TMX is really good stuff. I have no complaints with it.

 

[Venchka]

120 Tmax 100 & Xtol 1:3. I'm being lured away from Plus-X by this combination.

 

[Konical]

Good Evening, Marco,

Wait until you try it in 4 x 5!

Konical

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I also like Tmax 100 in 35mm and 120. Good stuff.

Jeff

 

[Carter john]

It is definitely my favorite for 35mm, and I like it even more with 120. Both my developers work great, and with HC-110h it is creamy smooth.

this 6x7: http://www.flickr.com/photos/carter3john/2978183913/in/set-72157604205002579/

 

[Marco B]

Good Evening, Marco,

Wait until you try it in 4 x 5!

Konical

Hehehe, well, looking at the current results of 35mm film, 4x5 should give plenty of detail for razorblade sharp enlargements up to 1x1.25 meter..

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Marco, it is a wonderful film in all formats, that's for sure. But its super strength really shines through in enlargements from 35mm negatives. Very sharp, and its fine grain is very conducive to making large prints from a small negative. I think it's probably the sharpest film out there.
I actually prefer Tmax 400, its tonality suits me better, but for max resolution and a sharp large print, you'll be hard pressed to find a film more suitable.

But then again, people make 30x40" enlargements from Delta 3200 pinhole negs...

 

[Marco B]

I actually prefer Tmax 400, its tonality suits me better, but for max resolution and a sharp large print, you'll be hard pressed to find a film more suitable.

But then again, people make 30x40" enlargements from Delta 3200 pinhole negs...

This is what I keep reading: this or that film gives me this-or-that tonality / look. Now of course, there is some truth in that, but in my experience, the actual lighting situation plays a big part in the overall look too.

The images I printed yesterday, although taken under slightly misty conditions with a sky clearing up, did have some very dark shadows and subjects in them (wet tree trunks). They look extremely "punchy" and sharp, as per TriX look, yet with all the detail of a 100 ISO film.

I think most films can look "creamy" or "punchy" depending on the light situation, exposure, and also subsequent development...

 

[removed account4]

tmx is a great all around film for available light ...
BUT if you use artificial light, tmx has the tendency to block highlights
no matter what kind of developer you use ( i used it with a handful of different things and it didn't help).
i used to shoot it a lot with a flash on assignment, and switched to tmy instead.


have fun!
john

 

[Marco B]

tmx is a great all around film for available light ...
BUT if you use artificial light, tmx has the tendency to block highlights

Do you mean with "block" that the highlights blow out, e.g. to high contrast or to high max density of negative?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

TMX is not as linear as TMY, so TMY is easier, in my opinion, to work the highlights with, while TMX can block up the highlights if you're not careful.
I think it's more about process control, really, but TMY gives me a better yield per roll than TMX.

Blocking up highlights = there is too much density in the highlights to yield detail when printed.
Some people like to call this 'blow out' highlights. I was once asked the question - What do you mean by "blown out? Does the film explode? Does it exhale? Is it like blowing your nose? WHAT does that MEAN? LOL
I'm sorry, but 'blown out' is quite possible the worst words you could pick for describing highlights that are too dense in the negative.

This is what I keep reading: this or that film gives me this-or-that tonality / look. Now of course, there is some truth in that, but in my experience, the actual lighting situation plays a big part in the overall look too.

The images I printed yesterday, although taken under slightly misty conditions with a sky clearing up, did have some very dark shadows and subjects in them (wet tree trunks). They look extremely "punchy" and sharp, as per TriX look, yet with all the detail of a 100 ISO film.

I think most films can look "creamy" or "punchy" depending on the light situation, exposure, and also subsequent development...

 

[Marco B]

I'm sorry, but 'blown out' is quite possible the worst words you could pick for describing highlights that are too dense in the negative.

Well, as you know, English is not my mother tongue, so I am just picking up on some of the phrases and popular sayings here on APUG

But it seems there is quite some confusion at times, a recent thread discussed the merits of "mat" versus "matte" for describing that piece of cardboard we use to frame our prints , and my English dictionary even shows "matt" = "mat" to add to the confusion... not even mentioning the confusion when looking in the Online AskOxford English dictionary:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/mat?view=uk
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/matt?view=uk
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/matte?view=uk

Not to mention the possible differences between UK, US, CAN and Aussies English...

Marco

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Marco, it does get funny sometimes, doesn't it. As it happens, English is not my native tongue either. I was born and raised in Sweden, and have been in the US for eight years now.

I learned one thing. When in doubt - simplify. So I use 'mat', when I refer to the passepartout... But I have NEVER 'blown out' any highlights (at least not in the last year or so). It sounds dangerous! LOL

Regardless, the Kodak TMax range of films is remarkable. We mustn't forget the venerable TMZ in this discussion either. Take a look at the work of Clay Harmon some time, and his night shots using TMZ wide open with an f/1 Nokton lens on his Leica. Amazing stuff.

For the sake of patting TMX on the shoulder, I've used a good deal of it in the 120 format for pinhole shooting. The lower contrast I get from pinhole shooting is perfect for TMX.
Do you process TMX in Rodinal? I've had fantastic results with Rodinal, later Pyrocat, and now Xtol (replenished).

 

[removed account4]

Do you mean with "block" that the highlights blow out, e.g. to high contrast or to high max density of negative?

hey marco --

i mean it has a high density and when printed
it will be totally blocked with no tone .. no fun