Question for 400TMY and 400TMY-2 shooters

[Ryuji]

This is specifically for those who regularly shot 400TMY, and now regularly shoot 400TMY-2.

I used to test TMY regularly, and I didn’t really find surprise, but someone gave me a few rolls of 400TMY (refrigerated) but I didn’t want to use inherited material for anything critical, and so I used it to test my newly repaired camera.

I found this particular roll of 400TMY to be extremely grainy, like Kodak Recording film (if you remember what it is). It is grainier than Delta 3200 developed in the same developer. I didn’t overdevelop, and the negative’s density is about right. When I tested TMY before, it was always very fine grained.

I also inherited many rolls of 400TX, Neopan 400, etc., but I actually don’t recall a single incident where the inherited film behaved differently from the film I buy in bricks and cold stored. So, I’m wondering if others observed erratic rolls of 400TMY before.

Now, another question is whether anyone observed any erratic roll of 400TMY-2.

Anyone?

 

[Tim Gray]

Can't answer the first question, but have never observed any erratic rolls of TMY-2.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Never. Even that 2nd version (or third depending on how you count) was quite fine grained. How was the base fog? Might have had a fairly stressed storage....

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Reticulation?

 

[Ryuji]

No reticulation on this negative.

Attached are a scan of a frame of this neg. The entire roll looks like this. One is full frame 6cm square image. The other is a crop that is about the same as 35mm frame size. The grain is worse than TMZ or Delta 3200.

I also noticed that the speed was slightly slower than usual. Fog level is about usual.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I used to test TMY regularly, and I didn’t really find surprise, but someone gave me a few rolls of 400TMY (refrigerated) but I didn’t want to use inherited material for anything critical, and so I used it to test my newly repaired camera.

I found this particular roll of 400TMY to be extremely grainy, like Kodak Recording film (if you remember what it is). It is grainier than Delta 3200 developed in the same developer.

I didn’t overdevelop, and the negative’s density is about right. When I tested TMY before, it was always very fine grained.

So, I’m wondering if others observed erratic rolls of 400TMY before.

Now, another question is whether anyone observed any erratic roll of 400TMY-2.

Anyone?

Are you absolutely sure that the film was stored as well as the person who gave it to you claimed it was?

I found TMY2 to be an excellent film for studio portraits on medium-format, but I still prefer HP5 Plus for general outdoor photography. Both films perform perfectly well enough for me in D-76 1+1.

 

[Ryuji]

I think 400TMY was introduced in 2003, so it is at most 8 years old. The previous owner always kept the stuff in fridge. I always kept the stuff in fridge. I moved my studio due to expansion of my photo business perhaps 4 times during that period, and of course there could be some time where the film would sit unrefrigerated during the move. Generally speaking, though, I move film in middle of night and together with expensive wine and cheese, so as to minimize exposure to heat.

One thing I noticed is that the foil bag was pierced so that air could get inside. But the film wasn’t fogged or anything. What's noticed are huge grains, poor shadow details, and poor resolution. Maybe the film deteriorated due to air even at 2 degrees centigrade over at most 8 years period?

I also processed Delta 400 that was sitting in a camera for 6 years. It had poor shadow details and very grainy look, but it wasn’t as bad as this freshly exposed 400TMY.

Why do you prefer HP5 Plus over 400TMY-2 for outdoor shoots?

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

One thing I noticed is that the foil bag was pierced so that air could get inside. But the film wasn’t fogged or anything. Maybe the film deteriorated due to air even at 2 degrees centigrade over at most 8 years period?

I also processed Delta 400 that was sitting in a camera for 6 years. It had poor shadow details and very grainy look, but it wasn’t as bad as this freshly exposed 400TMY.

Why do you prefer HP5 Plus over 400TMY-2 for outdoor shoots?

I would throw the 400TMY away and buy some fresh TMY2. I like TMY2 very much, but I just prefer the 'look' of HP5 Plus more despite it being a traditional technology film.

Others swear by Tri-X, Neopan 400 or Delta 400 etc.

To be honest, TMY2 could easily replace both FP4 Plus & HP5 Plus, so no need for me to stock those two films.

 

[Rick A]

Scanned negs always appear grainier than when printed optically. The possibility of poor storage conditions and age coupled with scanning could have contributed to the overly grainy appearance.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I think the perhaps this frame was underexposed?

 

[jp498]

I have never ever had any problem from the film.

That scan image looks either super pushed or underexposed. Do test images in normal lighting.

If it's a developing issue, do note that the film is more responsive to changes in development. Sloppy work regarding temperature, time, etc.. will result in bigger changes than traditional films.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have never seen that from any iteration of TMY/TMY-2, in either 35mm, 120, or sheets.

Color me surprised.

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Ryuji,

I find myself in general agreement with previous responders; TMY grain has never been the slightest problem for me. By the way--could anything possibly be as grainy as the old Kodak Recording Film?!

 

[JaZ99]

Sloppy work regarding temperature, time, etc.. will result in bigger changes than traditional films.

Ryuji and sloppy work?

Punched foil and film oxidation is the most likely cause.

 

[Ryuji]

Punched foil and film oxidation is the most likely cause.

If that's the case, TMY is not a good film to leave in infrequently used cameras... I've developed HP5 Plus that were in fact exposed 10 years ago but came out as if it were exposed yesterday.

 

[Ian Grant]

TMY can suffer from micro reticulation during processing as can Neopan 400. This is reticulation of the surface of the film. Like normal reticulation it's caused by temperature fluctiations during processing.

While I've never had this problem with films I've processed myself I have seen it first hand with 120 TMY. A friend had 2 or 3 roll of film off me and processed them in my tanks, chemistry, thermometer etc. His films had wexcessive grain, my 35mm TMY was fine, the only differnce was temperature control over the whole cycle, I noticed and commented at the time about his not checking the fixer and wash water temperatuers and the tap water was below 10ºC. I always buy film in bulk and the rest of the 120 TMY was OK so it wasn't the film stock.

Micro reticulation doesn't increase the inherent grain of the film itself but the effects of the surface artefacts show up as increased graininess in prints. Usually the effects are so mild it's just a slight difference in apparent graininess and it's rare to see the extremes.

Way back in 1927 there was suggestion to overcome this effect by sandwhiching a negative with a siutable liquid and glass, a technique Ctein used for many years. It's the same reason why high end drum scans are wet mounted.

In recent years most film companies have gone to great lenghts to make films more scanner friendly by better hardening of the emulsions so that the top surface of the film has less effect during scanning. Kodak did a lot of work because the first digital minlabs high-lighted the problem and gave grainier prints than optical.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes Michael but since that thread I've found a lot more about the work done to minimise it, and perhaps more interesting how the effects of the emulsions surface and the increase in apparent graininess in prints has been known about for at least 85 years.

Ctein new about the effects.

Most films are now well hardened to minimise any problem and it seems to be a combination of choice of developer and temperature variations that cause it to be an issue with just a few films.

Rodinal is one developer where it may occur and there's plenty of people who've had issues with Neopan 400 which will reticulate fully and even start to frill away from the base in some instances.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

I guess it is possible. I did not perform the tests with a high pH developer like Rodinal. But what you're referring to now seems like a different supposed effect than what we had discussed back in the old thread, which had to do with whether there is such a thing as temperature-induced "grain clumping/migration" with modern films.

It's exactly what I was discussing in that thread.

The big mistake is that when people describe prints with excessive grain some talk of grain clumping. Kodak talk about the grain size in films and the graininess in prints.

What a films grain looks like under a microscope can be measured and is quite different from the graininess of a print which is also affected by any surface artefacts of the emulsion.

The thread was taken off path by misunderstanding. Micro reticulation is the surface reticulation of a film or paper. With an RC paper it causes a dull sheen and you can easily induce it with temperature changes, steaming reverses the effect, it can happen with colour & B&W papers, RC or FB. Temperature of drying can play a part as well.

Ian

 

[brucemuir]

Oh no, not micro-reticulation again!

Ian, remember that lengthy thread with PE a while back? With controlled temperature shocks up to +/-10C at various processing stages, I could not get this to happen at all with TMX, TMY, Tri-X, FP4, Delta, even Neopan 400 which was supposed to be most prone.

How could we forget

I'll say this, I never cared for the grain in the first TMY's in D76 straight.
I mostly go 1:1 now so maybe it wouldn't be so offensive.

 

[ic-racer]

I think 400TMY was introduced in 2003,

I was following this thread up to here. Are we talking about Kodak T-max 400 that was introduced in the early 1980s?

 

[Ryuji]

I was following this thread up to here. Are we talking about Kodak T-max 400 that was introduced in the early 1980s?

Nope. What you are referring to is marked plain TMY. The mark 400TMY was introduced at the time of change in coating facility in 2002 or 2003. At that time, the development time and packaging changed, but the light sensitive emulsion did not.

Marking 400TMY-2 is given to the latest emulsion introduced in or around 2007.

 

[Ryuji]

UPDATE.

I actually had another roll of 400TMY from the same source, expired 11/2004, but in uncompromised foil bag. I just exposed this roll in the same camera, same lens, same shutter, same light meter. Processed it identically to yesterday's version. The neg is being dried as I post this.

Scanning the neg indicates to me that this well sealed but expired 400TMY is also grainy, though not as bad as the one from yesterday. The grain is worse than Delta 3200 at EI 1600 (and it goes without saying worse than HP5 Plus).

10 years old HP5 Plus stock works just fine, so does this mean 400TMY ages faster??

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't know how old your rolls are, but in general I have found that 400 speed Kodak film does not age well. How was it stored? How 'expired' is it?

 

[Ryuji]

in general I have found that 400 speed Kodak film does not age well.

Is this true with others' experience?

 

[MDR]

Fuji Films keeping properties are usally better than Kodak's at least according to a friend who works in the German Kinemathek as Film restorer.

Dominik