Is someone using Tmax100 as a versatile film?

[Juan Valdenebro]

The film that’s been considered the most versatile film for decades is Ilford’s HP5+: superb for MF and LF with correct exposure and development. It also works very well in the world’s most appreciated developers of late, Xtol and Pyrocat-HD. And in 35mm, it’s amazingly versatile, from very small grain in Perceptol at EI160-320, to decent grain and outstanding tone at EI400-800 in standard MQ developers, and even with great usable tone for wet printing in Microphen at EI1600 and 3200 if the scene is of normal contrast.

TMax100, one of the best films ever, is used by most people in one of two ways: some people use it -landscape and other uses- for MF and LF tripod work, exposing it at EI50-100 with small aperture values, for fine detail rendering; and some other people use it in 35mm for the same high definition reasons, and when tripods are out of the story, TMax100 allows us to use it handholding with relatively wide aperture values like f/2.8 and f/4 depending on light… This means TMax100 is a film for focusing, and not for zone focus, if the case is street photography.

In my personal system for street photography (in 2020 I published an educational book in B&W film photography in my country) years ago I've used ISO400 films at EI640 for f/11 and at EI320 for f/8: that for no tripod and zone focusing… When I use TMax100 inside my system (a system that “names” the same way different intensities of light no matter the format, film or EI used) I keep my lenses at f/4 and expose it at EI80 when handholding: that’s for focusing every scene, and that works well most of the times, but some of you doing street photography know there are situations -and those are not uncommon- when whe have no time at all for focusing…

Years ago I tried to make FP4+ (at EI160 in Microphen) a film for street: in my system that implied f/5.6 as fix aperture, so a 28mm is what I used in that case because it gives similar/enough DOF as a 35mm at f/8 (EI320) or a 50mm at f/11 (EI640)… It worked well, but, you know beautiful FP4+’s temper: its middle tones are sweet at EI64 only, and of course at EI160 it leaves us hoping for a lot more from its tone and grain…

So, now I’m working on 35mm TMX at EI160 for street at f/5.6 with a 28mm trying to exploit its high definition, and it seems it’s useable even for zone focusing…

Of course I’m not interested in pushing TMX: at EI200 and above I prefer ISO400 film…

Is someone using TMax100 for 35mm zone focusing?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Nope. Never liked it. I like TMY, though. If there were no HP5, it would be my main medium speed B/W film.

 

[Helge]

You just have to be good at judging distance.
It’s a skill you can learn. And it gets easier the further away your subject is of course.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If it were me in your situation instead of shooting TMX at a higher EI I would use TMY-2. Both films are superb, but If I need a little more speed than TMX I don’t hesitate to use TMY-2 regardless of format because it is so good it has nearly the same image structure characteristics as TMX. In that respect TMY-2 is totally unique in its speed category.

Totally agree, Michael.
That's what I do.
I use TMY for f/11 at 640 in D-76 stock, and at 320 for f/8 in Perceptol.
But I can use the 28mm with comfort at f/5.6 for zone focusing too...
Precisely I'm trying to see if TMX at 160 can be technically better.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

You just have to be good at judging distance.
It’s a skill you can learn. And it gets easier the further away your subject is of course.

Hi,
I'm 49.
I've been doing it for decades.
Thanks.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Nope. Never liked it. I like TMY, though. If there were no HP5, it would be my main medium speed B/W film.

Hi. What exactly didn't you like in TMX at EI160 for zone focusing with a 28mm at f/5.6?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

In fact it's the tone of TMX, sometimes described as soft (even if we can shape it) what makes me see it as a good candidate for the expansion/slight push at EI160, for common street overcast light... At Kodak they advertise TMY's granularity as very close to TMX, I know, but I also know I see visual differences in grain between both films...
We'll see.

 

[Pieter12]

Don't particularly like the grain of the TM films. I prefer tradition grain, like HP5+ or TriX.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hi. What exactly didn't you like in TMX at EI160 for zone focusing with a 28mm at f/5.6?

Not sure what you are talking about.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Don't particularly like the grain of the TM films. I prefer tradition grain, like HP5+ or TriX.

Hi,
Do the films you like give you an option for zone focusing with ISO100 film?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Not sure what you are talking about.

About the subject of this thread...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Dear forum members:
This thread is about TMX at 160 for 35mm zone focusing.
A film is called versatile when we can use it for both types of photography: tripod work in all formats (focusing, because we have enough time), and zone focusing in 35mm format (without focusing, because we have no time).
Thanks.

 

[Pieter12]

You have a particular, personal method for shooting. Don't expect many others to be doing the exactly the same. I prefer at least ISO 200 and f8 on a 35mm lens for street work and zone focusing.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

You have a particular, personal method for shooting. Don't expect many others to be doing the exactly the same. I prefer at least ISO 200 and f8 on a 35mm lens for street work and zone focusing.

Nothing particular or personal in my method: just what most masters have done for a century.
Of course I expect few people knowing seriously about all this.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

You have a particular, personal method for shooting. Don't expect many others to be doing the exactly the same. I prefer at least ISO 200 and f8 on a 35mm lens for street work and zone focusing.

You get the same depth of field with a 28mm at f/5.6.

 

[MattKing]

Mostly I use TMX in two different circumstances:
1) in a camera and lens combination that can, when used on a tripod, give me lots and lots of fine detail and near grain-less rendition; and
2) In a box camera that was originally designed for something like Verichrome Pan, or a pinhole camera - because the reciprocity behavior is good, and an EI of 100 gives me times that are practical with the manual shutters on pinhole cameras.
I have cameras that I scale focus, but I don't normally do much work in a scale focus environment.
Even if I did use TMX for street or other fast changing, impromptu work, I wouldn't expose it at an EI of 160. An EI of 50 would be much more likely. The combination of under-exposure and increased development is not to my taste..

 

[Pieter12]

You get the same depth of field with a 28mm at f/5.6.

Yeah, but for me you have to work too close to the subject to get the framing I like.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Yeah, but for me you have to work too close to the subject to get the framing I like.

I agree with you, and the 35 is my main lens because of that too.
Just checking the limits of TMX... Thanks, Pieter.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Mostly I use TMX in two different circumstances:
1) in a camera and lens combination that can, when used on a tripod, give me lots and lots of fine detail and near grain-less rendition; and
2) In a box camera that was originally designed for something like Verichrome Pan, or a pinhole camera - because the reciprocity behavior is good, and an EI of 100 gives me times that are practical with the manual shutters on pinhole cameras.
I have cameras that I scale focus, but I don't normally do much work in a scale focus environment.
Even if I did use TMX for street or other fast changing, impromptu work, I wouldn't expose it at an EI of 160. An EI of 50 would be much more likely. The combination of under-exposure and increased development is not to my taste..

Hi Matt, you're right. Correct exposure is (sometimes) mandatory: mostly to give film an amount of light that's as generous as to allow us a short development time, appropriate for sunny scenes without blocked highlights but with detail in the shadows...
But, say you're working inside a series of landscapes without direct sunlight... In large format... Soft light... I bet TMX can be very well used for low contrast scenes at EI160.
Not for direct sunlight. That's the common case in street photography: soft light...
My TMY at 640 looks perfect for soft light. I even use it at 800 and 1000... Above that, not my taste as you said. But just two thirds of a stop above box speed, for overcast, tone is totally clean, and there's no feel of underexposed shadows. Of course, just my opinion, and just how I see.

 

[grain elevator]

If you zone focus, especially at not so small apertures, what's the point of using a film which can resolve much more than what will be sharply focused? I think you get more resolution overall using a 400 speed film and closing down two stops. If you do focus and are ok with larger parts of the scene oof when it's darker, there is a point.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If you zone focus, especially at not so small apertures, what's the point of using a film which can resolve much more than what will be sharply focused? I think you get more resolution overall using a 400 speed film and closing down two stops. If you do focus and are ok with larger parts of the scene oof when it's darker, there is a point.

Definition in the focused zone.
Which is also increased -subjectively- because of the OOF zones.
But I agree with you: sometimes it's better to have the two more stops of DOF with a faster film... Indeed, that's what I prefer with my Hasselblad always: in MF f/8 is little DOF for close subjects with the 80mm.
But in 35mm format f/5.6 is great DOF with a 28mm.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

So? What makes you think you can do it well? Look: having lived to 49, you haven't developed the skill to be less passive-aggressive towards people who try to answer your questions, so it's entirely possible that you can't zone-focus either.

Hi Gregg,
I'm OK with your posting here. You're welcome!
Do you know something about this thread's subject?

 

[Helge]

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.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

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

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Tmax 400 shot a year or two ago with Nikon N6006 35mm in auto mode (focus and aperture).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157716777378896