If Kodak whithers our TMX's... Will it be "Hello Delta!" ?

[RalphLambrecht]

I

Reading some of the pessimists here, we seem to be in a replay of Kodak's earlier descent. Growing to love TMX films, I wonder about there forward availability. Soooooooooo..... I figure I ought to give Delta 400 a try. Ditto Delta 3200. At the short end, I've loved FP4+ and not shot TMX 100, so that hook was never set... and I'm not feeling the pull to replace FP4 with either Delta 100 or TMX 100.

My developer of choice these days is Perceptol... and I've got a slew of XTOL and ID-11 for more "at speed" development. But the way I read it here, folks seem to find Delta 400 a clear 2nd best relative to TMX-400... if not a third best with no second place finisher. TMX is just ALL THAT. I've shot plenty of HP5 in my day, but would say TMX seems just... miles more to my taste (not that I don't like HP5). Sooooo the question of whether Delta 400 can deliver the goods, and if so, should I just get started now... and learn this stuff? or is there even a remote possibility Kodak Alaris would ever sell off it's brands if it comes down to folding up shop? Thoughts?

Just to be clear: I'm not in conniptions. Just conjecturing, but as 400-speed shooter (usually at EI 200) I don't want to have to change too drastically on one hand, but am beginning to feel a pull to support ILFORD for the long game.

like Ilford films with the possible exception of HP5 but Kodak Tmax films are hard to beat especially Tmax 400.

 

[JWMster]

Funny about HP5. I'm kind of with you there. When I did some test film shots on first picking up MF, I had HP5 and TMY and the latter just blew HP5 away. Over the summer I'd shot a bunch of FP4 and comparing it to HP5... HP5 took another bath. But I'm not prepared to say I don't like HP5 so much as I haven't figured how to dial it in. TMY and FP4 were just there... no figurin'.
Sure hope Kodak can figure out its finances, and if not, will at least sell off the film lines to those who might. I know it doesn't seem to be the pattern in the industry, but it'd be sweet if their losses weren't ours.

 

[K-G]

I have used Hp5+ quite a lot during the last years and even if it is not the finest grained ISO 400 film,
I have come to realy like it. Am I doing something wrong or is it that my replenished Xtol developer can
pick the best out of any film ? I have a feeling that it is the later statement. My dear three gallon jar of Xtol,
whose origin goes way back in history, keeps serving me in an excelent way. I keep it cool , dark and tightly
caped and once in a while I pat the jar and speaks friendly to it. It makes wonders with any film !

Karl-Gustaf

 

[JWMster]

Karl: Yeah.... the replenished XTOL thread. Haven't tried it yet, but read through the thread and put it down as a "thing to get around to doing". Maybe that will become an 2018 project? Meanwhile, I've enjoyed Perceptol. But yes, I read that replenished... so many of these developers actually deliver the goods in ways those of one-shot folks can't imagine.

 

[Alex400]

I could bare to loose Tmax but not Trix or Acros.

Tmax is a great film but out of the three film I shoot the most (Trix, Acros and Tmax) it has the most unattractive tones by far and it is slow (I rate it at 50). Still, it is the most detailed and has the tightest grain. It was my main 100 (50) film for decades.

Acros tones are much better than Tmax and it is a true 100 speed film. Grain is very tight but bigger than Tmax.

Trix always, invariably, produces the best tones and it is the sharpest of the three. Obviously it captures less detail and has bigger (but beautiful) grain.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Per the previous post : ????? We must live on completely different planets.

 

[Pioneer]

I could bare to loose Tmax but not Trix or Acros.

Tmax is a great film but out of the three film I shoot the most (Trix, Acros and Tmax) it has the most unattractive tones by far and it is slow (I rate it at 50). Still, it is the most detailed and has the tightest grain. It was my main 100 (50) film for decades.

Acros tones are much better than Tmax and it is a true 100 speed film. Grain is very tight but bigger than Tmax.

Trix always, invariably, produces the best tones and it is the sharpest of the three. Obviously it captures less detail and has bigger (but beautiful) grain.

I like TriX, I think it is probably considered unpatriotic her in the good old USA not to like it, but it is a long, long ways from being my favorite film. For starters, TMY 400 is a much better film. As for Acros, I am pretty much a Tmax fan so I don't shoot Acros but once in awhile if I need something with good reciprocity characteristics.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Acros is unique in a couple of ways. It has almost no recip failure at long exp times, and it has orthopan sensitivity. The late Efke 25 was also orthopan. Now Acros has been discontinued in sheet film. I'm personally down to one box of 4X5 and a few sheets of 8X10. Fortunately, it is still being made in roll film. Since it has slightly finer grain and better acutance than FP4, and much better edge effect than TMX, it's a deluxe MF film for me, esp in high mtn light, where the orthopan rendering seems more realistic than regular pan. Since sheet film needs less enlargement, FP4 with a light YG filter gives an equivalent look. Or I uptick the speed to TMY400, which does have superb edge effect, and better shadow separation too. I shot a lot of ACROS 4X5 when it was available in Quickload sleeves - a backpacker's dream come true. Now I tend to carry both ACROS and TMY with 6X9 roll film backs for my 4X5 on long mtn treks. I bag enough 4X5 and 8X10 shots on dayhikes anyway. But I ain't going back to 85 lb packs, not at my age!

 

[RattyMouse]

I shoot more Acros film than every other film put together X 10. If Acros ever gets discontinued in roll film, I'll buy a fridge for my basement and stock up a lifetime's worth of that film.

 

[Pioneer]

Well, maybe I'll have to pull a 5 pack of Acros out of the fridge and give it a closer look.

 

[Alex400]

TMY is not better than Trix. It only has smaller grain. All else is not up to par.

Tmax (both 100 and 400) deliver the finest grain in their class. And although I use them, have a freezer full, and like them in many situations; they have low acutance (more so TMX than TMY), most boring (almost unfixable) tones, and unattractive grain (when visible).

Trix on the other hand, produces the prettiest tones, prettiest grain, ultra high sharpness, and very wide D-range. Prints always look superior, even when grain is visible.

Results may vary based on technique, equipment and how many times you compared the films shooting them side by side. I am fortunate that my Coolscan 9000 has a proper diffuse light source so the grain is scanned true and without any peppering. So I can print Trix at 15x delightfully. Also Trix doesn't require any sharpening before printing while Tmax does.

Acros, even though it uses a new grain technology, produces a much more interesting tonality than TMX. TMX has smaller grain but Acros has true 100 speed where as TMX is 50. So grain-for-speed they are the same. TMX is very muddy and dull compared to Acros.

The Trix - Acros combo is unbeatable.

 

[Alex400]

Dan, I have done plenty of controlled test with Trix, Tmax and Acros. I don't mind sending you (on loan) a full set of negatives together with the scans (all shot side by side with 4 cameras, in different lighting situations and bracketed, scanned and printed).

... Or if you have an FTP I can send you several sets of comparisons.

I think it is easy for subtle light variations to affect the results and toy with our observations.

 

[EdSawyer]

IMNSHO, introducing a scanner into the equation invalidates any results, or at least makes them non-comprable to say wet-printed results in a darkroom. (e.g. tmx vs. acros vs. tri-x).

 

[Alex400]

I wet print up to 16x20 and also print scans up to (44x160). I also use a light table with 100x diffuse microscope. Results are results. Not sure what you mean by "a scanner into the equation invalidates any results".

 

[Alex400]

On Acros and TMX... I shot mainly TMX for decades. Once I was given a challenge to shoot TMX vs Acros side by side (same lens) in natural light. I could never go back to TMX as my main film. Both developed in Xtol 1:1.

This challenge has been passed around my friends over the years, and I do not know of a single case of a person who didn't pick Acros.

Actually, I've never even seen a post on-line of a person who posted a side by side test and didn't pick Acros. I think Acros preference over Tmx is almost universal.

 

[macfred]

Because of those backing paper issues with my last bunch of 120 Kodak TMY2, I tried some Ilford ∆400 - like the results so far.
Due to the absence of 120 T-MAX 100, I tried Ilford FP4 and ∆100 - I'm glad when T-MAX 100 is back in stock here in Germany.

 

[DREW WILEY]

First of all, "better" is a matter of personal taste, and "tonality" can simply be the interface of your own level of skill and your particular paper preference. But when it comes to objective published sensitometry, TMax films can resolves shades to a greater degree than Tri-X because the straight line of the curve goes way further down the toe. This also equates to more contrast and the necessity for careful shadow metering (or placement in Zone jargon). I love TMX for portrait work, but gave up on it for landscapes because there is very little edge effect. But TMY is wonderful outdoors. I've never cared much for Tri-X; but other people have done excellent work with it.

 

[Pioneer]

Dan, I have done plenty of controlled test with Trix, Tmax and Acros. I don't mind sending you (on loan) a full set of negatives together with the scans (all shot side by side with 4 cameras, in different lighting situations and bracketed, scanned and printed).

... Or if you have an FTP I can send you several sets of comparisons.

I think it is easy for subtle light variations to affect the results and toy with our observations.

That is very nice and I do appreciate your offer.

I will pass for now, not because I am not interested, but because I have already done extensive testing for myself regarding TriX vs TMY400. I do not need to redo that testing to know that I like TMY400 for my uses. I am fully away that others prefer TriX and I know from their work that they do great stuff with it. For my work it isn't my preference.

Acros 100 vs TMX100 is another issue. I will do some testing with Acros as my own work with that particular film has been very superficial to this point. In fact I probably should not have aired my opinion at all since it isn't based on serious experimentation, only on my subjective impressions from the little bit of work I have done with Acros.

I may end up preferring Acros...or I may not. I have not noticed that TMX100 is muddy at all. I have shot tons of it in the past few years and I love the prints I get. They are as sharp and clear as I need. I shoot it at EI50, sometimes EI25 depending on the situation, and develop in D-23. But I already know that I do not like TMX's reciprocity characteristics so I have no problem working a bit with Acros to see if it provides a better result for me. This may be a good move for me at this point considering that Kodak has stumbled a bit lately with their backing paper issues. I could end up with two options that I like equally. That is always a good thing.

 

[Alex400]

The difference in tonality can be specifically pop in the midtones can directly be observed in the negatives. Tmax was my bread and butter for a while (partly driven by the smooth grain chase in some applications) and I still use it, but the lack of acutance and poor midtones representation is not subjective nor due to paper choice. To clarify, it is the how different shades and colors translate to density on the negatives that make Tmax dull, not a restriction on the number of shades it can capture. I'll dig out some examples in a few...

 

[Alex400]

Here are some unedited scans side by side with the Coolscan 9000 of Tmas, Trix and Acros. Exposed at -1,0,1.

All shot with identical cameras, same lens and mounted on the same tripod.

 

[Alex400]

Further in...

 

[Alex400]

Further in...

 

[Alex400]

Further in...

 

[Alex400]

I posted just a set of one test, unedited.

 

[Alex400]

Tmax is not muddy. It is just muddy in comparison to Trix and Acros. It lacks ambience, contrast in the midtones and acutance (all relative to the other films).