New TMY review

I shot three rolls of the new TMY last Saturday. I took it to a very good lab for developing and printing, and...and...I'm really disappointed.
I found the grain to be quite pronounced--to the point of being distracting---almost like 1970's TXP.

In all fairness to Kodak, here are the finer details:
Film:35mm TMY Improved
Camera: Olympus Stylus, autofocus
Location: Interior of a church with stained glass window casting all sorts of colorful hues onthe subjects(my reason for goingwith B&W)
Skin tones: Swedish, for the most part.
Developer: Tmax

When I asked the clerk I was told that the grain was a product of thier digital printing which is set up for RA-4 color negatives.

Can anyone here comment on this? I've been eager to shoot some 8x10 TMY but at $5/sheet I'm suspicious (and I've had great results with the old TMY) I know that LF effectively takes grain out of the equation but I've never had anything like this happen with the old TMY in 35mm either.

I've shot a couple rolls of the new tmy in 120, souped it myself in tmax developer 1+4 and enlarged a couple to 11x14. Less grain than tri-x for sure. I've switched to tmy in 120. I know, $5/sheet is steep.

John Kasaian said:

I shot three rolls of the new TMY last Saturday. I took it to a very good lab for developing and printing, and...and...I'm really disappointed.
I found the grain to be quite pronounced--to the point of being distracting---almost like 1970's TXP.

In all fairness to Kodak, here are the finer details:
Film:35mm TMY Improved
Camera: Olympus Stylus, autofocus
Location: Interior of a church with stained glass window casting all sorts of colorful hues onthe subjects(my reason for goingwith B&W)
Skin tones: Swedish, for the most part.
Developer: Tmax

When I asked the clerk I was told that the grain was a product of thier digital printing which is set up for RA-4 color negatives.

Can anyone here comment on this? I've been eager to shoot some 8x10 TMY but at $5/sheet I'm suspicious (and I've had great results with the old TMY) I know that LF effectively takes grain out of the equation but I've never had anything like this happen with the old TMY in 35mm either.

Click to expand...

Maybe the clerk was right. Also what film developer/developing procedure did they use?

Was it the same lab and processes that you used for the previous version of TMY - that you liked?

I've had no problems with the new TMY (35mm and 120 rollfilm). I develop it in Pyrocat-MC

I don't know what happened to your film, but I can relate my experiences with TMY-2. First, I'll start by saying that the original TMY was one heck of a good roll film. Different, to be sure, from Tri-X, HP5+, and every other film in its speed class, but a first rate product just the same. Grain was never a problem. The new stuff is even better. I developed two rolls in D-76 1+1 for 8 minutes at 75 deg. F. (24 C) and have nothing but good things to say about it. Grain? What grain? 8x enlargements don't show anything unless you put a magnifier to the print, and the tonal range is fantastic. Some of the shots were made in very difficult light, yet the shadow areas held all the important details without the highlights being all blown to hell. It's not the film, it's the processing.

I've used TMX & TMY in all version since they were launched, both are superb films low grain excellent tonality. It's remarkably difficult to get grainy images with either even with 35mm.

You answered your own question when you said the prints were made using digital printing. Tmax and the minilab film scanners aren't meant to be compatible, only C41 process films are compatible.

Ian

John Kasaian said:

When I asked the clerk I was told that the grain was a product of thier digital printing which is set up for RA-4 color negatives.

Click to expand...

I would believe the clerk.

The results you are seeing can not be used to draw any conclusion other than the process was the wrong one to use.

Try another roll, develop in D-76/Microdol/Xtol and make prints with an optical enlarger. That's what the film is designed for. Use it in some other fashion and poor results are what should be expected. For digital prints the right film to use is a memory card.

Your title is quite false this isn't a review, it's you asking why your chosen route doesn't give you good results.

Lets face it you aren't even using a first rate film camera, you not metering or exposing correctly and you expect superb results . . . . . . . .

Ian

Ian Grant said:

Your title is quite false this isn't a review, it's you asking why your chosen route doesn't give you good results.

Lets face it you aren't even using a first rate film camera, you not metering or exposing correctly and you expect superb results . . . . . . . .

Ian

Click to expand...

Ian, it is a review in my experience, it is just that I can't believe it is an accurate review which is why I asked for comments. As far as whether or not the camera or automatic exposure has anything to do with the outcome is debateable. Who is 35mm TMY marked for? Or better who isnt it for? People with point and shoots? That represents a lot of 35mm camera users!

Obviously by what has been said here, the issue isn't with TMY but with the printing. I have no problem with that, I print my own semi-serious work using traditional processes but the average consumer will take his film to the photo store like I did and wonder Whiskey Tango Foxtrot went wrong with that 'spensive film Kodak reps are all giddy about.
Am I correct?

Its the lab! TMY2 is my favorite film and i will swear by it. Grain has never been an issue for me.

Do I take it that the graininess is what you see in the prints? It seems your negs were developed in proper B&W TMax developer from what you have written so I am at a loss to see how the clerk's comment about digital printing on RA4 paper is relevant. If you are sayig that the negs are grainy then I don't know how that happened if the proper B&W developing process was used as it seems to have been.

Or is the problem in the prints? Hence the clerk's comments about being set up for digital printing using RA4 papers. All I can say is that my local minilab uses digital scanning from film onto RA4( Fuji) paper and while the prints aren't neutral as they would be if printed onto B&W paper I couldn't see any more graininess in the prints compared to those on Ilford paper.

Based on this, it makes me wonder about the quality of the lab. I just cannot see how new TMY processed properly in TMax developer could come out as you describe. I do not doubt that what you saw was what was there but it clearly shouldn't have been.

Can't comment on whether the camera's metering and exposure was right( it can't be your metering etc as the camera is a fully automatic P&S) but I have a MjuII which I think is the european equivalent to the Stylus and in nearly all cases it has done a good job on exposure. Maybe your shots in the lighting conditions were particularly difficult for a point and shoot camera to cope with.

I'd be tempted to try some "normal and easy" outdoor shots with the Stylus using TMY2 and giving the lab another chance. If the negs and prints are just as bad then I'd be inclined to go elsewhere.

Better still buy a tank etc and try developing it yourself. That way you are guaranteed success and you'll also have an answer on whether the lab is at fault.

Best of luck

pentaxuser

The problem isn't so much the fact that RA4 paper is the output medium. It's that the scanners used to get the image to the paper that are to blame. The scanners in mini-labs, not unlike the film scanners we consumers buy, are geared towards capturing images from dye based (C-41 and E-6) films. When processed these types of films do not contain any silver. An image in these types of film is made of translucent dye "clouds" which form around silver grains during processing. The final processing steps for both C-41 and E-6 then remove all the silver and leave the dye clouds behind. When light passes through C-41 and E-6 films it is filtered, but not scattered. With traditional B&W films, any light hitting the completely opaque metallic silver will scatter. What results looks like grain, but is really an artifact of the scanning process commonly known as grain aliasing. It is precisely for this reason that slightly thin B&W negatives work better in a scanner than do negatives exposed and developed to a higher density and contrast index. So while you can get decent results from a scan of traditional B&W film, it's not easy and you have to be able to live with the limits imposed upon you by the scanning process. If you want good B&W from a mini-lab or a home scanner, the best bet is to use a monochrome C-41 film. The best prints from traditional B&W films are made when an old fashioned enlarger is used.

John Kasaian said:

I shot three rolls of the new TMY last Saturday. I took it to a very good lab for developing and printing, and...and...I'm really disappointed.
I found the grain to be quite pronounced--to the point of being distracting---almost like 1970's TXP.

In all fairness to Kodak, here are the finer details:
Film:35mm TMY Improved
Camera: Olympus Stylus, autofocus
Location: Interior of a church with stained glass window casting all sorts of colorful hues onthe subjects(my reason for goingwith B&W)
Skin tones: Swedish, for the most part.
Developer: Tmax

When I asked the clerk I was told that the grain was a product of thier digital printing which is set up for RA-4 color negatives.

Can anyone here comment on this? I've been eager to shoot some 8x10 TMY but at $5/sheet I'm suspicious (and I've had great results with the old TMY) I know that LF effectively takes grain out of the equation but I've never had anything like this happen with the old TMY in 35mm either.

Click to expand...

Your lab has screwed the processing up plain and simple. TMY-2 in all formats is an extremely fine grained film.

If you are processing and printing sheet film why aren't you doing the same for 35 mm film?

In short your lab screwed you.

More on the scanner bit: minilabs in my experience only scan negatives at a high enough resolution for the print size - so if it's 4x6 prints, they scan a 1200x1800 or 1000x1500 sized file. I've found when you scan trad B&W negatives, grain appears larger if you don't scan at the highest resolution of the scanner. I've heard it called grain aliasing amongst other things.

Take home message - if you are going to scan and print digitally, scan at 4000 dpi and then down res the file to the print size - grain will look much better.

I'd suggest that it's hard enough to evaluate film, or whatever, when there are waaay less uncontrolled variables and unknowns.

Best,

C

I exposed my first roll of TMY 2 last week with my Leica M equipment and developed it in undiluted ID-11 pursuant to Kodak's instructions for developing it in D-76. The results shown on my 5x7 Ilford RC glossy paper prints? Wonderful with no grain intrusion at all!

John Kasaian said:

Ian, it is a review in my experience, it is just that I can't believe it is an accurate review which is why I asked for comments. As far as whether or not the camera or automatic exposure has anything to do with the outcome is debateable. Who is 35mm TMY marked for? Or better who isnt it for? People with point and shoots? That represents a lot of 35mm camera users!

Obviously by what has been said here, the issue isn't with TMY but with the printing. I have no problem with that, I print my own semi-serious work using traditional processes but the average consumer will take his film to the photo store like I did and wonder Whiskey Tango Foxtrot went wrong with that 'spensive film Kodak reps are all giddy about.
Am I correct?

Click to expand...

John, as a review, your experience suggests that silver gelatin B/W film is not for the 'average consumer', if that means using a photolab that may over-process the film, resulting in excess contrast and grain; and then scan the image in a scanner not optimized for silver gelatin emulsions.

And I don't know how easy the average consumer will find a custom lab that processes silver gelatin films to their optimal condition for scanning, or actually optically prints said negatives.

You review suggests that silver gelatin films are for the photo enthusiast, not the average consumer, who are specialists in eeking the best out of the medium. Which may, in part, help us understand the decline in market share of said films.

~Joe

John Kasaian said:

When I asked the clerk I was told that the grain was a product of thier digital printing which is set up for RA-4 color negatives.

Click to expand...

Trust me. As someone marooned without the ability to print (only develop my negatives, then have them scanned), those commercial color scanners will make your life miserable. I am just finishing up a roll of 100TMX hoping for better scan results than I've had with APX400. Your experiences are not heartening- I'll have to hope you either have high standards or the aplce you took them has an exceptionally B&W-hating scanner.

It's the scanner. It's almost always the scanner.

Some interesting points raised in this discussion that I'd like to comment on:

[1] Yes, I agree: Josephine or Joe Average Photographer shouldn't expect stellar results using [traditional] B&W film run through a modern [digital] photo lab. Mine here is very conscientious, and I notice digital [zig-zag edges] in B&W prints made from real silver-grain negatives. This doesn't bother me, as the price is reasonably low. Higher-resolution scans cost more. Chromogenic B&W films seem to be the partial solution here.

[2] My 120 TMY negatives were exposed generously, and they were dense. The photo-lab results were awful. Perhaps the scanners - as mentioned - don't work at all well in this case. I expect they will optically enlarge just fine.

[3] I don't think it's in the nature of modern B&W traditional films that toss a wrench into the hypothetical B&W snapshooters' results. It seems to me it is the printing. If we, as a culture were willing to pay for traditional optical enlargement and printing, the results would likely be superb. Many technical "advances", it seems to me, are aimed at reducing cost; little else. I do not quarrel with this. Mass desire seems to be for "the lowest price is the law".

Thanks for hearing me out.

The new TMY is a really good film, I just did a roll of 400-TMY2 in ID-11 diluted 1+3 for 15mins, and I can really say that everything that is at fault on the negative is down to the camera and the user, not the film.

Joe VanCleave said:

John, as a review, your experience suggests that silver gelatin B/W film is not for the 'average consumer', if that means using a photolab that may over-process the film, resulting in excess contrast and grain; and then scan the image in a scanner not optimized for silver gelatin emulsions.

And I don't know how easy the average consumer will find a custom lab that processes silver gelatin films to their optimal condition for scanning, or actually optically prints said negatives.

You review suggests that silver gelatin films are for the photo enthusiast, not the average consumer, who are specialists in eeking the best out of the medium. Which may, in part, help us understand the decline in market share of said films.

~Joe

Click to expand...

Joe,

I think you've hit the nail on the head. My TMY-2 negatives look fine enough. I'll make some prints on Galerie and see what transpires.

My purpose isn't to bash Kodak, btw, but to report on my experience as a consumer using this new film. It appears that the infastructure to support conventional B&W at the ground level is minimal. This makes me consider the possibilities that:
1) Custom Lab that specialize in B&W need to be supported and publicized, or else the average consumer may give up on B&W film.
2) B&W in general has become a "niche" activity.

As others have implied or said here, having conventional B&W films processed and "printed" by consumer photo labs is a hopeless exercise in futility, if the results matter to you at all. They just aren't set up, most of them, to do it right. Giving the local drugstore or big ol' retailer a roll of 400TMY2 is like giving me a basketball and starting me in the NBA--you can do it, but the results will suck. Makes me almost weep to send a good soldier like 400TMY2 into a situation of certain death!

If you aren't in a position to do it yourself, you will be happier with C-41 B&W films, or with color negative film that you then print or s--n yourself.

John Kasaian said:

Joe,

2) B&W in general has become a "niche" activity.

Click to expand...

Bingo. I can't think of any B&W use that isn't amateur or art. I'm excluding X-ray (going digital) or aero (going digital?) and such.

Freestyle offers via contract real B &W processing.