Kodak TMAX TMY 400 Film

[blgray]

I recently shot several rolls of Kodak "TMAX TMY 400" Film. I followed all of the correct, temp, chemical and time proceedures, but all of the negatives turned out extremely THIN. In fact I couldn't even stop my enlarger down far enough to print them. After wasting 3 rolls of "TMY 400", if went back to "Tri-X 400" and produced good negatives.

Has anyone else had this problem with "TMY 400" and thin negatives?

Please advise me if you have.

Thanks,
Barry:confused:

 

[fschifano]

Nope, can't say that I have. I doubt the film is to blame. I've used more than a little bit of this film both before and after the most recent reformulation. By your description, the problem could have been caused my many things. Maybe you metered incorrectly. Maybe the temperature was too low. Maybe you mixed up the developer at too high a dilution. Could be anything really. I've used more than a little bit of this film since it was introduced. Fantastic stuff in XTOL or D-76. Just follow the recommendations on the tech sheet.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I could never get the hang of the stuff, like you I was a faithful Tri-X user. For me to get negatives that are good and dense I have to expose at 250 and process normally.. Perhaps my technique is sloppy, I don't know.
I just know that for some odd reason they are thinner than normal (at least using the recommended developing times) for me too.

In college my photo instructor had us ignore the kodak box for tmax. I forget the times but in D76 they came out similar to Tri-X but with much less grain. Nice stuff actually, once you get the hang of it.

TMX on the other hand.. i've never had a problem with. Weird, eh?

 

[PhotoJim]

I don't shoot a lot of TMY (and haven't tried any of the newest version yet), but the dozen or two rolls I have shot have turned out in the ballpark of being fine. I've used T-Max developer, D-76, and ID-11 and all worked fine.

When you have really thin density it makes me suspect some sort of user error. My theories:
- bad exposure (but your Tri-X looks good; did you shoot them together? Is there something about the situation where you shot TMY where you could have had an equipment problem, metering issue, etc.? Maybe mis-set ISO?)
- bad development (did you get the proper time for development? did you dilute the developer properly, if appropriate? is your developer really old and failing? Given that you get good Tri-X negatives, the most likely candidate here is that you are using a wrong development time)
- bad film. Kodak's quality is industry-leading (Fuji is probably right there too, and Ilford is not far off) so this is highly unlikely, although it is remotely possible.

Properly processed TMY negatives look at first blush much like properly processed Tri-X negatives. The differences are subtle (grain and tonality) but the negatives should look broadly similar hanging from the clips to dry. If your TMY negatives are really thin, something is awry somewhere.

 

[PhotoJim]

One other question: did you shoot all the TMY together, and did you process it all together, or were there different shoots and/or different development batches?

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Never been a fan of the T grain films.
To each his own.........

 

[Chuck_P]

I would strongly suspect the wrong ISO rating (too high) that gave underexposure to film.

I went out on Saturday, shot my first sheet, went to expose the next sheet and noticed my spot meter was set to ISO 400 (2 stops underexposure) from what it should have been at 100. The first sheet exposed at the 400 setting was done so with a zII placement (three stops below the metered value); those 3 stops plus the 2 stop exposure "error" is a full 5 stops below the metered value and would make for a very thin negative------------it happens.

 

[Konical]

Good Afternoon, Barry,

TMY shouldn't present any unusual difficulties. I've found both TMY and TMX to be extremely predictable.

Are the edge markings of normal density/contrast? If so, your processing is most likely OK, and your problem is almost certainly in the camera exposure. If not, you need to zero in on a processing problem. Try T-Max Developer 1:7 at 9 minutes for normal-contrast scenes; that should be a good starting point.

Konical

 

[MikeSeb]

I've shot both the "old" 400TMY and the "new" 400TMY-2 at box speed in both Xtol and D76 with splendid results, so I think in this case the fault must be on the proximal side of the elbow.

 

[Stock Dektol]

Check your development times. TMY should be developed for 5 mins. At least in Hc110 Dil. B. I have had the best results with that setup.

 

[tom_bw]

TM* films are much more sensitive to developer time or temperature changes than a film such as Tri-x. Assuming everything else is OK, perhaps your thermometer is reading higher than the real temperature. You might not notice a 1-2 degree change with Tri-x, but from what I understand with TM*, such a change would be profound.

TMY2 is my standard film now, and I have very nice rich negatives that print very will on G2/G3 paper with lots of shadow detail. I shoot at ISO 200 (as I would with Trix) and develop in Rodinal 1:50 for 10 at 20 deg C.

 

[blgray]

I tried two different cameras with the same result. I was using the Ilford equivalent of HC-110. But, good news, I just finished shooting a roll of TMY at Mount Spokane State Park today. This time I used XTOL undiluted for 8 minutes instead of the suggested 6-1/2 minutes and the negatives turned out perfect. I read at a different forum about the "Thin Negative Problem" and the person suggested developing for 15 to 22% longer than recommended. Eight minutes is about 22% longer than the recommended 6-1/2 minutes for XTOL. It worked, so I am happy. Thanks for all the input and suggestions, although I have never tried D-76 with this film. I just recently mixed up 5 liters of XTOL, so I think I will stick with it for a while.

Thank you all,

Barry

 

[removed account4]

hi barry

i agree with konical --
tmx, tmy are very predictable .. i've been using them often since they were originally
introduced. i've never used the new tmx though.
the only time i had thin negatives can be attributed to "user error" when i set my light meter
to the wrong asa and underexposed the film. i never shoot at box speed and always over expose by 1 fstop.
i have wandered away from the tmx tmy films the last few years, in favor or plus x and tri x again.
i never liked how the film came out using xtol, very thin and no punch to it.
eventually, when i used xtol i would overprocess my film by quite a bit, maybe 30-40%

good luck figuring out your problem!
john

 

[df cardwell]

In my world,
TMY / TMY2 are easier to expose than Tri X,
and while it helps to be fairly sober when you process the stuff,
it isn't tricky at all. As good as TX is,
I haven't had reason to use TX since TMY first came out in plain yellow box from Kodak.
Wonderful, dependable, and nearly miraculous film.