Opinions on TMAX ISO 100 Film?

[Kisatchie]

I'd like to try some Kodak TMAX 100 film. I hear it's excellent, but also that it scratches easily. Does anyone have any experience with that?

Thanks for your replies.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I have never had scratches, personally. And it is an excellent film. The negs have produced some pretty decent prints for me as long as my exposure is on. Most times it is.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have used TMAX 100 over the years. First 35mm than 120. Excellent film overall. I never had any problems with scratches, but then again I always was carefull how I handle film. Try it you might like it!

Jeff

 

[tkamiya]

I've used Tmax400 and 100 for over a year in both 135 and 120 format. Never had scratches with any of them even when I handled it rather roughly. (it was my test roll)

 

[Ian Grant]

Tmax 100 is a superb film, it needs a little taming which is very easy, since the demise of APX100 it's the best 100 ISO film available. I used it from it's release mid 80's until recently.

It's no more prone to scratches than most other films and far less so than Foma, EFKE or Fuji Neopna 400. All films wit scratch

Ian

 

[removed account4]

if you are planning to use a flash be advised
that tmx really loves to get blocked-up ..
maybe this is what ian was suggesting when
he said it needs "taming" ...

 

[ic-racer]

T-max 100 has been around for a long time and is an excellent film. Interesting to note that when I started photography, Tri-x 35mm was only 20 years old. Whereas 2010 is the 28th year of T-max 100.

 

[Ian Grant]

I was referring to Tmax's true film speed which was fudged by having the ISO standard changed I used it happily with flash with no blocking up at all at 50 EI.

Ian

 

[fschifano]

It's good stuff, and isn't more prone to scratches than any other modern film. If anything it may be even more scratch resistance than some. I like the way it looks in XTOL or D-76, and I get full box speed from it.

 

[Casey Kidwell]

I don't like it for people. I know some folks have good luck with it for portraits but I've just found that if you overexpose it life is no fun in the darkroom.

 

[BetterSense]

Acros is everything TMAX100 is, but better. In roll formats it's cheaper, too.

 

[photoncatcher]

I'm not really not a fan. To me it doesn't have the exposure latitude of PXP, or Tri x. I never personally found the "T grainn" to be any finer, or smoother that the traditional emulsions. I also find that the film takes 2 to 3 times as long to clear in the fixer (even fresh stock) than my beloved Plus X. Just my opinion, experiance.

 

[BradS]

The Kodak TMAX films are hands down the very best film technology available today. They are not like traditional films and so take some getting used to but they are far superior by almost any objective measure. Ilford's Delta films may be equal - I have little experience with them...but have found Delta 100 to be an excellent film (I prefer it to 100TMX).

Kodak films are generally speaking far less prone to scratches than most other brands.

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Kisatche,

T-100 is my favorite film in 35mm, 120, and 4 x 5. I guess that's partly because I don't like graininess, but it's also because the film is so predictably controllable with processing variations. I agree with those who have never had any particular problem with scratches.

Konical

 

[BetterSense]

Oh, I should have mentioned that TMAX 100 is as far as I'm concerned, completely grainless. You would have to enlarge a negative far more than I ever do in order to see grain. I cropped a 35mm negative, developed in D23, to slightly less than half the image area and then printed an 8x10, and there was still no visible grain. You start to see the lens imperfections and micro-camera shake, and dust mites before you ever see the grain. Which makes it a real good film for copying and duplicating. I use TMAX 400 for nearly everything, but I'm glad we have TMAX 100 for duplicating and copying, and making B&W internegatives from slide film.

 

[Kisatchie]

Thanks, everyone, for your responses.

Looks like I'll be ordering 10 rolls of TMax 100 to try out.

:munch:

 

[2F/2F]

Almost every film made is excellent. T-Max 100 is great if you want extreme sharpness, extremely fine grain, and lots of "bite" (i.e. contrast). These very things might not be desired in some instances, however. T-max 100 is one of my favorites for shooting landscapes in overcast weather. I usually would prefer Plus-X or FP4 for people, or landscapes in sunny weather, in which FP4 will have plenty of bite for me. T-Max is also nice and forgiving if you are less than technically squared away. It does well on underexposure, and holds tons of highlight information while keeping tones separated, which helps a ton with overexposure and overdevelopment.

 

[tkamiya]

Looks like I'll be ordering 10 rolls of TMax 100 to try out.

You might also want to consider Tmax400. It's grainness is about the same as traditional ISO 100 films but has the advantage of 2 stops more speed.

 

[Kisatchie]

You might also want to consider Tmax400. It's grainness is about the same as traditional ISO 100 films but has the advantage of 2 stops more speed.

I already have some TMax 400 in the freezer, waiting for the day I use the last of my expired Tri-X.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I love Tmax 400 and have used it for many of my best images. I prefer it in 120 size. The 35mm is good, but I usually use 400 film in 35mm (If I need better quality, I go all the way and use my Hasselblad). Develop in D76 1+1 or Rodinal 1+50.

Tmax 100, EI 50, Rodinal 1+50

Tmax 100, EI 50, Rodinal 1+50

Tmax 100, EI 50, Rodinal 1+50

Tmax 100, EI 50, Rodinal 1+50

 

[DrPablo]

I really don't care for the aesthetic results of Tmax 100, even with perfect exposure. The way the film treats highlights and shadows is almost indistinguishable to me from DSLR images. It's very sharp and high resolution, and it scans very well, but for me it's just missing the phenomenal range and gorgeous highlight shoulder of films like FP4+.

 

[clayne]

The way the film treats highlights and shadows is almost indistinguishable to me from DSLR images.

Do you print your negs?

 

[DrPablo]

Do you print your negs?

Yes. That is the basis of my opinion. Prints from traditional emulsions look far better to me than prints from Tmax 100.

The only exception, where I like the look of Tmax, is when I have metallic subjects. It seems to render specular highlights off of metal well. On the other hand, it is murder on sky and pale skin.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I see people online claiming that Tmax films look 'digital', whatever the heck that means, all the time. To me that means flat tonality since most digital camera photos converted to BW that I see online suck because the people doing them don't know how to use Photoshop correctly (which is as essential for digital as darkroom skills are for film) so the photos look flat and lifeless. If you're getting crappy results in the darkroom, you're using the wrong paper (as Phil Davis often wrote, the paper's tonality has to match the film's for best results, not all combinations work well!) or developing the film wrong.

 

[DrPablo]

I see people online claiming that Tmax films look 'digital', whatever the heck that means, all the time. To me that means flat tonality since most digital camera photos converted to BW that I see online suck because the people doing them don't know how to use Photoshop correctly.

That's not what I meant by it. Tmax does not have flat tonality, but its exposure:response relationship causes highlights to suddenly blow out at the end of the range -- exactly what digital does, and just as no curve will save a blown highlight, no paper can print detail that does not exist.