New TMAX 400 observations/complaints

[jeroldharter]

I have been using a bunch of TMY2 4x5 sheet film lately. I like the film but the base seems much thinner and flimsier that my TMAX100. I wonder about its flatness when enlarging as I don't want to use a glass carrier.

Also, the emulsion seems very fragile. I use BTZS tubes and have never had a problem handling other films. But with TMY2, I have had problems with scratches trying to remove the film from the tubes. Because the base is relatively flimsy, it either adheres tightly to the sides of the tube or else tries to flop out when the tube is open.

Anyone else have these issues? Any remedies? I have about 100 more sheets of exposed film to process.

 

[Mahler_one]

gosh that's alot of film to process Jerold....how many sheets thus far have had the problems you describe? In an emergency, can you go back to the Jobo? I suggest contacting Kodak directly, and ASAP. Do you have the emulsion numbers of the sheets you have exposed? You might consider getting in touch with Fred Newman to see if Fred has knowledge of similar issues. Also, leave a message on the BTZS.org site to see if anyone else using the tubes has had a problem. Please let us know what you find out, and a sincere wish that everything turns out as hoped.

Ed

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I haven't used it in 4x5, just 35 and 120, but it is a great film that I am coming to really like a lot. It has nice tonality and very fine grain (though grain isn't an issue with 4x5 with any 400 film, is it?)

 

[Tom Stanworth]

crikey - why not use a glass carrier for 5x4? I use glass for all formats and the improved sharpness is dramatic. Cleaning is even less of an issue with 5x4 compared to smaller formats as the enlargement factor is lower so the area to be spotted (if at all) is tiny. Just use glass and get perfectly crisp prints from corner to corner assuming everything is aligned! Newton rings are no issue with AN class on top and no issue with older films with tooth on the non emulsion side even with regular glass.

 

[MikeSeb]

Dang Jerold, you got a motor drive on that 4x5, or has your darkroom door been blocked by economic stimulus checks?

 

[bobwysiwyg]

.. or has your darkroom door been blocked by economic stimulus checks?

 

[Bruce Watson]

Interesting. I've got 5x4 TMY-2 here, and find the base the same as TMX and Tri-X in 5x4 sheets. It seems the same thickness, stiffness, and they all lay perfectly flat.

When I switched to TMY-2 from Tri-X I also stopped using a hardener with my Kodak Rapid Fix. I expected to have some trouble with a softer emulsion but haven't see anything to indicate that yet.

For the record, I'm processing in a Jobo 3010 tank, CPP-2, 20C, 30 rpm, XTOL 1:3.

I'm *most* impressed with TMY-2. Enough that I got rid of all my other B&W films. It's the only B&W film I use now. It's hard for me to believe a film can be this good!

 

[eclarke]

I have not had any of the scratching problems and use a glass carrier but I liked the look of the old stuff a little better. I was really tuned up on it and sorely miss it...Evan Clarke

 

[sanking]

I am with Bruce on this. TMY-2 appears to have the same thickness, stiffness and flatness as the old TMY. Also, the curve shape is virtually identical. Depending on developer you might need to shorten or extend development times with TMY-2 to match the CI of TMY.

The only difference I have been able to detect between the old and new stuff is that TMY-2 has higher resolution and finer grain. If you liked the old stuff no reason why you should note like the new film even more. For LF there is really no reason to use anything else, unless you need to save money, or just need a lower film speed.

Sandy King

Interesting. I've got 5x4 TMY-2 here, and find the base the same as TMX and Tri-X in 5x4 sheets. It seems the same thickness, stiffness, and they all lay perfectly flat.

When I switched to TMY-2 from Tri-X I also stopped using a hardener with my Kodak Rapid Fix. I expected to have some trouble with a softer emulsion but haven't see anything to indicate that yet.

For the record, I'm processing in a Jobo 3010 tank, CPP-2, 20C, 30 rpm, XTOL 1:3.

I'm *most* impressed with TMY-2. Enough that I got rid of all my other B&W films. It's the only B&W film I use now. It's hard for me to believe a film can be this good!

 

[msage]

I agree with Bruce and Sandy. I recently processed both films and printed both. Found no differance in the thickness or hardness of the new stuff.
Michael

I have been using a bunch of TMY2 4x5 sheet film lately. I like the film but the base seems much thinner and flimsier that my TMAX100. I wonder about its flatness when enlarging as I don't want to use a glass carrier.

Also, the emulsion seems very fragile. I use BTZS tubes and have never had a problem handling other films. But with TMY2, I have had problems with scratches trying to remove the film from the tubes. Because the base is relatively flimsy, it either adheres tightly to the sides of the tube or else tries to flop out when the tube is open.

Anyone else have these issues? Any remedies? I have about 100 more sheets of exposed film to process.

 

[Mahler_one]

Given the information Jerold has received, is there any rational reason for his observations? He is, as we know, an experience LF photographer. Could it be the emulsion "batches" that he received? Kodak has a reputation for delivering the best consistency in film...if the emulsion batch was faulty, then such event must be most unusual. Jerold?

Ed

 

[jeroldharter]

Thanks for all the replies.

With regard to the thickness/thinness issue, I was comparing the new TMY-2 with TMAX 100. I never used the old TMAX400. Either way, the film is definitely thinner than TMAX100.

I use a Beseler Negaflat carrier which works very well with good flatness (with TMAX100) so that is why I don't want a glass carrier. So I hope that the Negaflat works as well with the flimsier base of TMY2.

For the scratches, I think I am ham-handing the film too much. I have been processing more today and just using more care. The problem arises when removing the film from the tube, so any scratches are in the corner of the film near the notch (I don't like the single, effete notch either - give me something definitive). But I am doing better today.

No I did not receive a stimulus check. In fact, I plan to work less so I am not paying an inordinate share of the bill. I went to Death Valley for 4 days all by myself to take pictures. I exposed 122 sheets. I took a bit of a gamble, using a new camera with a new film and new developer with a different meter and metering system (incident BTZS). So far, everything looks a bit overexposed and dense but much better than underexposed.

I met one guy from Montana who had a Fuji 6x9 and a wooden 4x5. He was the only other person who was not digital. Somewhat depressing but not really when I think about it. They seemed to be using toy guns.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

a different meter and metering system (incident BTZS). So far, everything looks a bit overexposed and dense but much better than underexposed.

Hmmm, I've found I'm pretty good at getting overexposed and dense without BTZS. There is nothing like the zone system for really getting the exposure wrong.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

There is nothing like the zone system for really getting the exposure wrong.

Could you clarify that statement?

Thanks,

Tom.

 

[jeroldharter]

Hmmm, I've found I'm pretty good at getting overexposed and dense without BTZS. There is nothing like the zone system for really getting the exposure wrong.

Yes, I am perfecting the art. However, I am not sure they are really overexposed. I think I tend to underexpose TMAX so I am curious to print these. They look really good on a lightbox but denser than usual during processing.

 

[donbga]

Anyone else have these issues? Any remedies? I have about 100 more sheets of exposed film to process.

Nope. The film doesn't seem prone to scratching developed in BTZS tubes and lies as flat as other 4x5 sheet film such as Tri-X.