Kodak TMY revised

Ron,
So am I to understand that the new TMAX 400 is essentially in design a 200 speed old tech T grain film, with the new technology added making it a 400 speed film? If so this would mean this is a totally new film as in a TMAX 200 with sensitization making it a 400 speed. What grain size I wonder this new film will be comparable to- Plus X? Any ideas why this never carried over to TMAX 100? I couldn't imagine how fine a grain that a new version would have if they gave the new tech to it.

Roger Hicks said:

Shutterbig has already agreed a review; Frances is waiting to hear from David Corfield; and we'll certainly give it some thought for the site.

Cheers,

Roger

Click to expand...

Looking forward to reading the reviews, although I doubt I'll swith from my current Fuji Velvia.

braxus said:

Ron,
So am I to understand that the new TMAX 400 is essentially in design a 200 speed old tech T grain film, with the new technology added making it a 400 speed film? If so this would mean this is a totally new film as in a TMAX 200 with sensitization making it a 400 speed. What grain size I wonder this new film will be comparable to- Plus X? Any ideas why this never carried over to TMAX 100? I couldn't imagine how fine a grain that a new version would have if they gave the new tech to it.

Click to expand...

Scott;

I really don't know what they did. There are several possibilities. For example, they could take the 400 speed film (with 2e sensitization it becomes 800 speed) and then dye it back with acutance dyes to 400 to get a super sharp film at the same grain.

That is one example.

They could take a 300 speed film to 600 and dye it back to get 400 with better sharpness and better grain both.

So, I can think of several possible ways to get what they got. They may have gone for a complete redesign by blending 4 emulsions instead of 3, etc, etc..

All I know is that they improved the film and that should be enough for all of us. I'm happy.

PE

Wow, the interesting thing here is the notion of the "S" curve theory on technology adoption...(i.e. the adoption of digital when there is still room on the analog front...).

I'm not overly-fond of the present TMY's gradation, but I'm certainly keen to try the new one.

I have to admit that I am a bit confused by the messages from Kodak's marketing department about the new TMY being the sharpest and finest-grained ISO 400 B&W film ever, because I would have described its predecessor as already possessing these qualities. IMO, it was already sharper and finer-grained (though I never liked TMY's grain where it did show up) than Delta 400. And if we include C-41 B&W in the mix, I doubt that TMY's grain could ever become fine enough to unseat B+W400CN or XP2 Super in the grain department.

I don't expect we'll see much changes in the D&R curve or spectral sensitivity of TMY given the Sexton sea-scape image that accompanies the Kodak announcement on their site, but I'll gladly put down $15 for a few rolls to satsify my curiousity.

Here is a link to some additional information from Kodak about the new T-MAX 400 film:
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/....17.14.6&lc=en
__________________
John Sexton

I wonder why Kodak didn't list their T-MAX Developers in the list of developers for this film. I have always used T-Max RS developer for both T-Max films. Is it possible that this film won't work well with their T-Max developers?

DODDATO said:

Here is a link to some additional information from Kodak about the new T-MAX 400 film:
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/....17.14.6&lc=en
__________________
John Sexton

I wonder why Kodak didn't list their T-MAX Developers in the list of developers for this film. I have always used T-Max RS developer for both T-Max films. Is it possible that this film won't work well with their T-Max developers?

Click to expand...

Well the processing PDF mentioned in the FAQ sheet does include times for T-MAX RS.

In any case, it also states that a new EK tech pub (F-4043) will be released for the revised film, so we should have all the info. shortly.

AFAIK, XTOL has been the most highly-recommended developer for TMY since EK introduced it in the mid-late 90s.

I get a 'page not found' message.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

I get a 'page not found' message.

PE

Click to expand...

I think the link got truncated (or more accurately made non-expandable) in a cut-and-paste operation. See if this works:
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins...s/bw/bwFilmQAs.pdf?id=0.2.26.14.17.14.6&lc=en

Lee

Perhaps I'm the only one who has mixed feeling about this news. While I think it's great that the great yellow father is introducing a fast fine grain film. I'm thinking I may miss the current 400TMY. I may be in the minority, but I like the look of the grain at 9X to 16X enlargement. It almost seems like rough charcoal on paper with nice little salt and pepper dots; and I like this look with my street photography. I fear losing this. Am I alone here?

cao said:

Perhaps I'm the only one who has mixed feeling about this news. While I think it's great that the great yellow father is introducing a fast fine grain film. I'm thinking I may miss the current 400TMY. I may be in the minority, but I like the look of the grain at 9X to 16X enlargement. It almost seems like rough charcoal on paper with nice little salt and pepper dots; and I like this look with my street photography. I fear losing this. Am I alone here?

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. Personally, I like the look of Tri-X better for that sort of work, but to each his own. I love the old TMY for its pushability. I'm looking forward to trying some of the reformulated stuff for comparison.

cao said:

Perhaps I'm the only one who has mixed feeling about this news. While I think it's great that the great yellow father is introducing a fast fine grain film. I'm thinking I may miss the current 400TMY. I may be in the minority, but I like the look of the grain at 9X to 16X enlargement. It almost seems like rough charcoal on paper with nice little salt and pepper dots; and I like this look with my street photography. I fear losing this. Am I alone here?

Click to expand...

I don't know if you're alone...but I certainly didn't care for the grittiness of TMY's grain when processed near or at its box speed. It had a tendency to show up in the subject matter where it was least welcome (broad expanses of sky, women's skin tones, etc.) and really called attention to itself in 35mm.

I wonder if Ilford will see this as yet another reason to bring the 3200 speed
sheet film to market that Simon mentioned at APUG Toronto and has mentioned again every now and then. Mentions are nice, but 8x10 and 7x17 product in hand feels so much better.

John Powers

The new tech publication for revised TMY (f-4043) is now available online from Kodak. Looking forward to making the switch from the old 35mm emulsion to the new

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/databanks/filmDatabankBW.jhtml?i

DeanC said:

In light of the tmx update a few years ago, it's encouraging to see that they're explicitly saying that the sheet film won't be UV opaque (the 35mm and 120 will).

Click to expand...

I've just today printed two strips of 120 negatives, each containing the same pictures. One is TMY, the other the new reformulation. I made these negatives in the same location, using the same lighting, exposure, camera and lenses. The only difference was the film. I didn't shoot complete rolls so that I could cut the exposed portions off and fit them both on the same reel for development. They were developed together in a tank of Panthermic 777.

I am happy to report the following:

1) The new TMax is faster. The shadows are more open than the old TMax 400. I don't think it's quite a stop faster; perhaps about 1/2 stop, but definitely noticeable.

2) The prints from the newer film showed much greater contrast. I printed the two strips together onto a sheet of Canadian Grade 2 Azo, the lowest contrast paper I have. The TMY is flat and a little muddy. The reformulated TMax negative next to it is dazzling. And it's just a first proof. This is the most exciting feature to me about this new film, as I would like to be able to print more negatives on that paper.

3) There is absolutely no visible degradation due to any UV opacity from dyes in the backing. Mike Kadillak, if you're reading this, please confirm with Kodak that the rolls I was sent incorporated the blocking. If they did I'll be ecstatic, because it means that I can make contact prints with this rollfilm unlike TMX, which I find unprintable.

If the sheet film outperforms the current TMax to this extent, Kodak will really have given us something here. Those of us who print on Azo or pt/pd will probably have to adjust our processes to reduce contrast (boo hoo!) but without sacrificing the short toe, long (well over D 2.5) straight line characteristic curve, and virtually no shoulder. We shouldn't have to push nearly as much to obtain the contrast we're getting now with low SBR scenes.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

They were developed together in a tank of Panthermic 777.

Click to expand...

Would you be willing to share your dev time in Panthermic 777?
Just started using it but haven't dialed in on the TMY yet.
Thanks.

jan

UV

John-are you absolutely sure you have the new film??The new boxes are marked different. I have NEVER had any problems printing with AZO and the older version. I'm speaking of the 120 and sheet film. if so great news!!
Best, Peter

Peter Schrager said:

John-are you absolutely sure you have the new film??The new boxes are marked different. I have NEVER had any problems printing with AZO and the older version. I'm speaking of the 120 and sheet film. if so great news!!
Best, Peter

Click to expand...

If you're addressing me, the name is Jim, and yes I'm positive. Kodak sent me ten test rolls. Instead of TMY there is 000 on the border.

The have stated publicly that they are incorporating something in the backing which blocks UV as they have been doing for a number of years now with TMax 100. That film is totally unprintable as far as I'm concerned. I was worried that I would no longer be able to make contact prints from roll film negatives with this new formulation. My fears appear to be unfounded, unless since these were test rolls they didn't incorporate it because they only wanted to test the emulsion. That's why I want Michael Kadillak to check it out with his contacts at Kodak.

They have also stated that no such blocking is planned for sheet film, so it's a non-issue for large format negatives anyway. I can't wait to shoot this stuff in sheets. Just can't wait.

Jim Shanesy
Gaithersburg, MD