Is someone using Tmax100 as a versatile film?

[Juan Valdenebro]

Push to 200. In daylight you’ll be fine.
You can post flash, or better yet latensify the roll to bring down contrast.
It’s still markedly smoother than TMY @ box speed.
I shot a roll of TMX 645 yesterday, in sunshine and sunshine shade, on a zone focus Ikonta.

I was there @ f8 with a yellow filter at box speed with speeds going from 200 to 25.

Real sharp on almost every frame.
You have quite a slice of sharp to play with.

Especially for medium format, judging distance and using your body is 90% faster than faffing about with a rangefinder at max or close to max aperture.
SLR focusing is even worse.

Zone focus was introduced with the Leica, for film that was markedly slower than today’s slow film.

Cool !

 

[Pieter12]

People who have not zone focused think it's difficult: it's very easy. Anyone can be good at it in a week.

If you want to shoot in the street, quickly and on the move, zone-focusing is the only way to go. I sometimes don't even lift the camera to my eye, having a good idea of the field-of-view of the lens I am using. The resulting shots can be much more dynamic and interesting. I use zone focusing with AF cameras, too--it is faster, eliminates focus-hunting and the need to place the subject in the autofocus zone.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If you want to shoot in the street, quickly and on the move, zone-focusing is the only way to go. I sometimes don't even lift the camera to my eye, having a good idea of the field-of-view of the lens I am using. The resulting shots can be much more dynamic and interesting. I use zone focusing with AF cameras, too--it is faster, eliminates focus-hunting and the need to place the subject in the autofocus zone.

Absolutely.
Zone focus is the only way for many situations.

 

[NB23]

Zone focus? I never do that.
I always focus and compose my shots.

One thing a photograph does is to show everything, it doesn’t lie. You difn’t compose? It will show.
You got lucky? It will show.
You got the moment but the composition is shit? It will show.
You have been very careful? It will show.
You are good? It will show.
It will show. That’s photography: it shows.

And if you ask me, a good composition always wins above all else.

 

[Helge]

Zone focus? I never do that.
I always focus and compose my shots.

One thing a photograph does is to show everything, it doesn’t lie. You difn’t compose? It will show.
You got lucky? It will show.
You got the moment but the composition is shit? It will show.
You gave been very careful? It will show.

And if you ask me, a good composition always wins above all else.

Very careful could also be very contrived.

Of all the crap HCB spewed, the one about sharpness being a bourgeois concept is probably the one with the most truth to it.
And truth is what’s it’s about. In some sense.
If you are after capturing a moment, and really capture it, you’ll never ever have time to think about focus.
Composition is about “standing in the right place” to use another trite quote.
Moving fast and deftly and anticipating situations, like your subject does, is what it’s about.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

We compose with our eyes.
As it's always been done.
I take my camera to my eye just to click the shutter and check the limits of the image I composed an instant before with my camera down.
No problem if you focus doing street: you'll just miss some good scenes, but you'll get other scenes.

 

[Cholentpot]

I zone focus with Tmax 100. I don't find 100 speed to be particularly slow. I'm not one to keep off of lower shutter speeds while handheld.

Tmax100 is one of the greatest films available in my very humble opinion. I love the stuff, almost as good as Plus X.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I zone focus with Tmax 100. I don't find 100 speed to be particularly slow. I'm not one to keep off of lower shutter speeds while handheld.

Tmax100 is one of the greatest films available in my very humble opinion. I love the stuff, almost as good as Plus X.

Yes, with a 28mm at f/5.6 we get both DOF and sharpness at 1/60 and even 1/30 with some care... At EI160, I mean...
That covers from bright light to gray overcast: all common types of light outdoors for street photography subjects.

 

[Don_ih]

Zone focus has to do with the selected aperture. Film speed has more to do with shutter speed, in that instance. If you have a nice, bright place (say, somewhere near the equator), you can shoot iso100 film at 100 using f8 and zone focus,. because your shutter speed likely won't go below 1/60. You can zone focus PanF+ if there's enough light.
Many people find Tmax films too muddy for something like street photography. I'd agree with them. Yes, the film is sharp - but it seems to be made for scanning, not for enlarging. I always add borax or sodium carbonate when I develop the stuff because it's too flat, otherwise.
There's nothing magical about zone focus. It's not secret knowledge. The information is printed on every lens you own.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

You can zone focus PanF+ if there's enough light.

As in Mercury and other few planets...
PanF+ for constant zone focus is stretching things a bit.
But if you can do it, great for you.

 

[Don_ih]

As in Mercury and other few planets...
PanF+ for constant zone focus is stretching things a bit.
But if you can do it, great for you.

The point is, it can be done. It's one stop slower than tmax100. Go use it on the beach - you won't have any trouble zone-focusing.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Don,
Only if we talk about beaches where clouds are not allowed.
One thing is an ocassional photograph, and that can happen with lots of light, yes, but a very different thing is a system allowing a fix f-stop as for zone focusing in different but all very common types of light.

 

[Craig75]

Wtf....

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I shot tmax100 at EI 64, as more exposure in the shadows is important to me. Doesn't matter what film I use for zone focusing. I've used many. Prefer the look of HP5 and tmy over tmax.

 

[MattKing]

Many people find Tmax films too muddy for something like street photography. I'd agree with them. Yes, the film is sharp - but it seems to be made for scanning, not for enlarging.

Pfft!

T-Max 400 is a wonderful film to enlarge from.
It is just different than other films, so one has to learn how to take advantage of it.
Most of my exhibition prints during the last several years have been optically printed from T-Max negatives.
From a T-Max negative:

 

[Bill Burk]

Past few days I shot two rolls of TMAX100. I carried a 35mm and 135mm lens and used a tripod most of the time.

I set my meter at 32 so as to rate the film at 64 including compensation for a yellow filter.

When I couldn’t meter because it was too dark I may have shot at f/2 and 1 second without the filter.

For landscape shots I did scale focusing. I focused the nearest object and moved it to a depth of field mark that gave me infinity on the other side. Then I set that f/stop and made the corresponding shutter choice.

I metered while the sun was behind a cloud, and explored some compositions and took some drab pictures. Then when the sun came out I returned to the previous spots and quickly took several shots without changing any settings. I may have checked close focus but I used the same f/stop as I composed, checked/adjusted the camera horizon level. More often than not it was skewed. I recomposed (correcting skew didn’t significantly affect the composition I saw, but often moved significant elements out of frame).

 

[Cholentpot]

Yes, with a 28mm at f/5.6 we get both DOF and sharpness at 1/60 and even 1/30 with some care... At EI160, I mean...
That covers from bright light to gray overcast: all common types of light outdoors for street photography subjects.

100 or 160 is close enough to make no difference. That's a half stop, I'd wager most of my cameras are off a half stop somewhere or another.

 

[DREW WILEY]

TMax films were engineered into existence in the first place as a potential replacement for several important older films via its tremendous development flexibility. But old dogs don't learn new tricks very well, so there was some growling and barking. But the concept was very solid, the quality control is superb, and yes, it's hard to think of more outright versatile films. The caveat is that you need to understand specific distinctions, and how to control these. I'm very familiar with many films of today and many of yesterday, and shoot formats all the way from 35mm to 8x10. I can (and have) explained on numerous threads the real advantages of TMax films, and don't intend to repeat much of that here. I do love other films too, including FP4, HP5, Acros, etc etc. But my most trusted product in terms of all the subjects and wide range of lighting conditions I personally encounter is TMax (I shoot it in both speeds). Is it the best beginner film? No. It's not as forgiving of errors, like that shoot from the hip "latitude" nonsense on the previous thread. Get a real light meter, and be sure it's properly calibrated.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

100 or 160 is close enough to make no difference. That's a half stop, I'd wager most of my cameras are off a half stop somewhere or another.

Two thirds of a stop are a difference: even one third. It can be seen in wet prints.
Also, it's not the same 2/3 of a stop if we talk about over exposing an ISO400 film, than underexposing an ISO100 film, which has less room for pushing from a film design point of view.
Apart, developers react differently to that... With 2/3 of a stop below what Perceptol needs, we lose all of that developer qualities.
Trying to get a good 160 from TMX requires metering skills: it's a more precise task than trying to get 640 from HP5+. Or than exposing HP5+ at 250...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

TMax films were engineered into existence in the first place as a potential replacement for several important older films via its tremendous development flexibility. But old dogs don't learn new tricks very well, so there was some growling and barking. But the concept was very solid, the quality control is superb, and yes, it's hard to think of more outright versatile films. The caveat is that you need to understand specific distinctions, and how to control these. I'm very familiar with many films of today and many of yesterday, and shoot formats all the way from 35mm to 8x10. I can (and have) explained on numerous threads the real advantages of TMax films, and don't intend to repeat much of that here. I do love other films too, including FP4, HP5, Acros, etc etc. But my most trusted product in terms of all the subjects and wide range of lighting conditions I personally encounter is TMax (I shoot it in both speeds). Is it the best beginner film? No. It's not as forgiving of errors, like that shoot from the hip "latitude" nonsense on the previous thread. Get a real light meter, and be sure it's properly calibrated.

Yes.
Tmax films are amazing. I've seen prints from TMY at 1600 with amazing tone and controlled grain.

 

[NB23]

Too many misconceptions in this thread

 

[Bill Burk]

Too many misconceptions in this thread

I get what you mean about composing and focusing versus shoot from the hip. I explained shooting from the hip to my son Saturday on one of our walks. I setup for it. But I didn’t take a shot with that setup because no interesting subject appeared. Well, no. There were some people walking in an interesting scene but I was still talking so I missed the shot.

 

[DREW WILEY]

TMax muddy ?????????????????????????????????? On which planet? Doesn't enlarge well? Do you use a Coke bottle for an enlarging lens? Ordinary folks didn't scan anything when TMax films came onto the market. It was meant for optical enlarging and contact prints from day one, with relatively minor improvements since then.

 

[Cholentpot]

Two thirds of a stop are a difference: even one third. It can be seen in wet prints.
Also, it's not the same 2/3 of a stop if we talk about over exposing an ISO400 film, than underexposing an ISO100 film, which has less room for pushing from a film design point of view.
Apart, developers react differently to that... With 2/3 of a stop below what Perceptol needs, we lose all of that developer qualities.
Trying to get a good 160 from TMX requires metering skills: it's a more precise task than trying to get 640 from HP5+. Or than exposing HP5+ at 250...

Sure, on paper and technically it all makes sense.

I'm shooting this stuff with a Signet 50 and no meter. Or a Nikkormat Sunny16ing, iffy shutter speeds and a lens that either is fungsy or going yellow. Photos had all the dynamic range I needed. Down to the nitty gritty? Dunno, but they photos came out just fine to my eyes. I'm sure technically it's not perfect

Nikkormat, Micro Nikkor 55 w/yellow filter, Tmax 100 expired '07, D-76 1:1

Could have upped the contrast in post but I liked the flat grey look.

AE-1, 50 1.8, Tmax 100 expired, D-76 1:1

Here's some Tmax out of a Voitlander Vito II, a scale focus camera

Signet 50, another scale focus

And an Olympus Pen EE3, not scale focus but fixed.

And a last one out of a Promaster SLR that shows the range.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Too many misconceptions in this thread

Sure!
People confusing zone focusing with shooting from the hip.
Maybe some bitter people feeling unhappy with their photography or their lives too... But who knows?
And that's not this thread's subject, as OP says.