I’ll have to try some TMax one day… sounds like a miracle film.
Didn’t one of them block UV, making alt process difficult/impossible? Does it still block UV??
TMX in sheet film formats (so not 35mm or 120) will block around 3 stops of UV, yes. AFAIK the base was never changed in this respect and it still does this. TMY doesn't and should work fine for alt. process printing.
And yes, both are great products.
Unlike many here, I did not begin with black and white photography, but will color printmaking; and it is as an adjunct to that I learned tight process control of black and white sheet films, densitometer plots n' all. That coincided with the Cibachrome revolution itself, and its need for serious supplementary masking contrast and color balance controls.
Nearly all the extant literature revolved around SuperXX, along with Pan Masking film and Ortho Litho in relation to dye transfer printing. Well, dye transfer dyes bleed a little, so somewhat disguise the graininess of Super-XX; but Ciba was an incredibly crisp medium. Meantime, Kodak was beginning to give mixed signals about their commitment to dye transfer and those films particularly related to it. Parallel to that, they were formulating a whole new generation of films centered around TMax, not only in relation to general photography, but also industrial usage and even astronomical plates. That made a lot of sense going forward, but also brought the necessity of a whole new learning curve.
Meanwhile, once I had some momentum going in my color printing success, it brought me into interaction with dye transfer printers and their own knowledge base, and that whole generation who prized the old classic films like Super XX for their special qualities in general. I had an itch to experiment with them in the context of black and white printmaking too, but at the time, was only shooting 4x5, not yet 8X10; and Super-XX was just too grainy for my taste.
TMax 400 came to the rescue, although it didn't yet have the smooth evenly dispersed grain of the present TMY400 product, but was still a big improvement in look. FP4 served as my medium speed film, but was frustrating when deep deep shadow gradation was desired, along with specular highlight detail. And VC papers weren't impressive yet. I did a lot of shooting up in the mountains above timberline. But my background in fine-tuning various films for sake of technical applications in color printing was invaluable. I understood how curves work, and how to choose and control them. So to me, seeming subtleties in distinction between "straight line", medium toe, and long toe films, are not inconsequential, but critical aspects of choosing an appropriate film to begin with. It does make a difference. But alas, Super-XX did not survive the TMax asteroid strike, and was given a blow which soon proved fatal. And with Bergger 200 now gone too, it's kinda the end of an era. TMax has won.
I tried TMAX when it first came out -- and was hoping for the best. I was very disappointed -- and I know I wasn't the only one.
Several pages back, someone suggested that we use currently available films to support the manufacturers, rather than using discontinued/long-expired emulsions. An admirable sentiment... in fact there are tiny amounts of Super-XX (or Plus-X, Ektapan, Royal Pan, Super-Pancho-Press, or any other long-gone film) left to shoot. So my using a couple of Tri-X film packs from the '70s can not possibly affect Kodak and Ilford's bottom line. Even if I love the way this 50-year-old film looks, there isn't enough of it to make a serious body of work. and I'm continuing to shoot fresh FP4+ alongside it. Making pictures with these old emulsions is just an enjoyable curiosity!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?