Shutterbug Mag Review: Kodak’s Revised T-Max 400; A “Classic” Gets A Facelift

[rusty71]

"I still just don't get it's. It's really blotchy in D76;"
Please explain what you mean by "blotchy". Undeveloped portions of the neg? Not cleared properly?
I've never been a TMAX fan, but I never got blotches in D-76, or any other developer.

 

[Early Riser]

I just picked up some of the new t max 400 and will be testing it, once I finish processing my current load of film. It's great that Kodak is still invested in film despite many of their own words. I hope they pass this improvement onto Tmax 100. The type of developer, agitation and other factors greatly affect the qualities of a film. So unless the tester used the same methods and materials as you use, you are always best off testing a film for yourself and not relying on ANY review as the final word.

Magazines usually work well in advance and while they may keep a certain number of pages available for breaking news they sometimes fill that allotment and end up pushing less time critical articles to later publication dates. I was requested by Shutterbug last November to write an article, which I did. The article was originally requested for publication in April, then I was told May or June, now it's October. What can you do? Film or wet darkroom related articles are not what most photo readers are interested in today, so if a hot digital story comes up the film article is going to get bumped.

As for Roger, I feel that he was an excellent contributor and his absence is a loss to APUG. If Sean received a bunch of complaints then Sean is put in the unenviable position of having to ask someone valuable to change their behavior. The problem is that while a small group may have been complaining about a certain behavior (their real issue was most likely NOT about the self promotion) the majority may not have felt that way, however the squeaky wheel gets the grease and it's good bye Roger. Personally if someone is providing me with valuable information or experience I am not bothered by a commercial for their product. Sometimes promoting a useful product is a service to the larger community. How many workshops and exhibitions are promoted here? Many, and that is good for the community.

 

[orto]

Good word, Riser! First - Shutterbug plans articles well in advance. What happened to you is, in my experience, normal. Second - very surely, Apug is the biggest looser in such cases. The excuse of "complains" is a very easy one (members cannot see the complains) and a complain doesn't mean there is a real reason to act in this way. But whatever the police says, the looser is clearly the one that needs this type of police.

 

[jd callow]

Good word, Riser! First - Shutterbug plans articles well in advance. What happened to you is, in my experience, normal. Second - very surely, Apug is the biggest looser in such cases. The excuse of "complains" is a very easy one (members cannot see the complains) and a complain doesn't mean there is a real reason to act in this way. But whatever the police says, the looser is clearly the one that needs this type of police.

I don't know that being loose or looser is such a bad thing nor do I understand how it applies here. Should you wish to read Roger online please feel free to go over to the rangefinder forum where he is waiting to enrich your life. Meanwhile, Roger left on his own when he discovered he would not be allowed to advertise for free. That's the rule; the complaints were symptomatic of the rule's virtue, not the reason for the rule's enforcement. We generally allow members in good standing the occasional advertising post, we have a forum exclusively for workshops that anyone can post to as often as they like, but we do not allow people to continually pimp their product. It isn't fair to all the fine folks and companies that pay the bills around here and its spam -- which the vast majority of APUGers dislike with a passion.

 

[sanking]

The new 400 film was the first time I've ever shot 400 by Kodak; I'm new to B&W so I have no idea how this film used to behave.

I still just don't get it's. It's really blotchy in D76; I almost feel as though I ruined a shoot/session of street photography by relying on this film (then again, I was out testing it, ostensibly). The new Kodak 400 is still not as flexible as anything from Fuji, and it's not quite as romantic as an Efke (or Kodak's own 125 PX, which is also blotchy but in more artistically pleasing ways). A salesman at a local photography store (Nelson's in San Diego) told me that the Kodak film is more suited for enlarging, not scanning (all I ever do is scan).

In short, I just don't get it. Am I missing something? Is the new 400 totally awesome in Rodinal or Pyro or something? Or are there others who feel the same way I do, that TMY2 is insufferably blotchy and makes for a muddled visual statement? I realize there might be those who prefer/choose this film; I'm just wondering if I'm not the only person who feels as though the film's quirks work against them, rather than with them.

I don't know anything about your processing technqiue. However, I have developed a lot of film in T-MAX 400 and scan much more often than I print in the darkroom. It is a superb film, in my opinion, both for printing in the darkroom, and for scanning. Maybe especially for scaning since it has such a long straight line curve that requires very little manipulation in the processing an image file.

Frankly I have no idea what you mean by the term "blotchy", as I have never seen this term applied to film. I also don't have a clue what you mean by the term "romantic" as it applies to film.

Some people have complained about T-MAX films because they don't have as much latitude as traditional emulsion films, and that is a legitimate complaint in my opinion because the long straight line does not give a lot of latitude in exposure and development so one must be extra careful with their technique in using this film. And some people have complained about the nature of the tonal values that result from the fact that the T-MAX films have more sensitivity to red light than most traditional films. That complaint I can also understand, though I don't find it true for my work.

However, I just never think of films in terms of their romantic qualities.

Sandy King

 

[orto]

In my opinion, Kodak will come "back" to the film if not for any other reason at least because they will discover that it was the thing they could do better than whatever else they tried.
Seriously, film will stay and Fuji knows to calculate too - Kodak is just discovering with delay what others saw better. As usual.

 

[orto]

I don't know that being loose or looser is such a bad thing nor do I understand how it applies here. snip .

No surprise, really.

 

[jd callow]

However, I just never think of films in terms of their romantic qualities.

Sandy King

I do when it applies and I think you do in a manner. Or at least I have seen it in a few of your images (projection on my part?). Romantic in the sense that it can be a vehicle for Romanticism (and for many the most abused Romantic theme: sentimentality).

No surprise, really.

I'm predictable that way.

 

[sanking]

I do when it applies and I think you do in a manner. Or at least I have seen it in a few of your images (projection on my part?). Romantic in the sense that it can be a vehicle for Romanticism (and for many the most abused Romantic theme: sentimentality).



I'm predictable that way.

Sure, we can all project emotions on to the print. I just don't know how this apples to film. Film is pretty much all neutral to me in terms of its emotional content.

Sandy

 

[Chazzy]

Sure, we can all project emotions on to the print. I just don't know how this apples to film. Film is pretty much all neutral to me in terms of its emotional content.

Sandy

Well, it's hard to come up with language to describe the look of a film, apart from graininess. I've heard people describe the Tmax look as technical or sterile, but I don't feel entitled to make any such judgments myself, based on my limited experience.

 

[df cardwell]

TMY Fan here.

A friend was sent a ton of the stuff in plain yellow boxes back in the '80s
to shoot up for Kodak, and I got most of it because he was too busy working !
I got hold of a guy in Rochester who asked if I had shot Tri X. "Yes."
Have I shot Royal Pan ? " Yes". He said, pretend it's Royal.

I went out and shot some Boston nightscapes.

A straight line from here to forever, and I fell right into getting it right from the start. MAYBE I was expecting Royal's long straightline, and never confused it with Tri X. Funny how expectations shape results.

Sandy: sorry I haven't read your review. Does it print Palladium OK ?

For Trivia buffs, here's a 1971 curve of good old Royal Pan.

 

[CBG]

The new 400 film was the first time I've ever shot 400 by Kodak; I'm new to B&W so I have no idea how this film used to behave.

I still just don't get it's. It's really blotchy in D76; I almost feel as though I ruined a shoot/session of street photography by relying on this film (then again, I was out testing it, ostensibly). The new Kodak 400 is still not as flexible as anything from Fuji, and it's not quite as romantic as an Efke (or Kodak's own 125 PX, which is also blotchy but in more artistically pleasing ways). A salesman at a local photography store (Nelson's in San Diego) told me that the Kodak film is more suited for enlarging, not scanning (all I ever do is scan).

In short, I just don't get it. Am I missing something? Is the new 400 totally awesome in Rodinal or Pyro or something? Or are there others who feel the same way I do, that TMY2 is insufferably blotchy and makes for a muddled visual statement? I realize there might be those who prefer/choose this film; I'm just wondering if I'm not the only person who feels as though the film's quirks work against them, rather than with them.

The new T-Max films are capeable of very fine results and are made with industry standard quality control, so the first item to diagnose is your own process - end to end.

I'm making a couple of assumptions in the following.

I'm assuming you are new to doing darkroom work, since:

I'm new to B&W so ...

And you are concerned about the new 400 being "blotchy". I assume you processed the film yourself and that the image is uneven with darker and lighter areas or blotches are showing in your image.

If the items I just mentioned are true, then I'm pretty sure your processing is uneven, and that you need to be sure that you, 1. make sure you agitiate the film in the developer enough but not too much and 2. make sure you agitiate the film in the developer very consistently and 3. you make sure your chemicals are fresh and mixed carefully, and exactly according to the directions.

Best,

C

 

[donbga]

Does it print Palladium OK ?

In a word, YES!

 

[donbga]

In short, I just don't get it.

With all due respect, I think you are correct.

If you are new to B&W hope do you surmise that Fuji products are more flexible than Kodak's?

If your results are blotchy then you've got problems with your processing procedures.

 

[df cardwell]

In a word, YES!

I had been holding my breath,
waiting to hear about the NEW AND IMPROVED
UV BLOCKING LAYER !

Big smiles here. Beer for everybody !

 

[jd callow]

Bell's amber please -- I can't get it here in BC

 

[sanking]

I had been holding my breath,
waiting to hear about the NEW AND IMPROVED
UV BLOCKING LAYER !

Big smiles here. Beer for everybody !

Neither the 120 or 4X5 sheet film that I tested had a UV blocking layer. My understanding is that there is a UV blocking layer on 35mm film, but I have not tested the film in that size. It would not matter, anyway, since very few of will be making pt/pd prints by contact printing 35mm negatives.

Sandy

 

[df cardwell]

Thanks Sandy

Great news.

 

[gr82bart]

Anyway, I too miss Roger. I hope he reconsiders and returns. He had some good, informative posts. I've learned that film enthusiasts are 'passionate' folks, and that passion can lead to disagreement. Sometimes very silly ones. Which is maybe why I have the popcorn smiley!

Regards, Art. :munch:

 

[thebdt]

I honestly don't know how to explain myself to you guys better. Not verbally at least.

So here you go:

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Notice the one w/ the African American lady crossing the street. Using most any other film, I would have gotten a better image of her face, even at that scale. With TMY2, I just got a blotchy mess.

If you can work w/ 16-bit tif files, the color range is even more telling: Dead Link Removed

 

[thebdt]

And you are concerned about the new 400 being "blotchy". I assume you processed the film yourself and that the image is uneven with darker and lighter areas or blotches are showing in your image.

Nope, that's not my problem at all. I processed the film correctly alright. Perhaps blotchy is the wrong word to describe it then. Undefined? Imprecise? Not compelling? Blurry detail? Blotchy in the details? I dunno...

 

[Early Riser]

thebdt, I don't see anything that I would call "blotchy" about the tmy tests you show here. What I see are results that are
consistent with the lighting conditions and exposure values. The example you give of the image with the African American woman
crossing the street is a good one. What do you expect the tonalities to be when you shoot someone with dark skin and with the
sun behind them? Her face is in shadow, her skin is naturally dark, there is no directional light in the shadows to give her face
form or much in the way of tonal range. In those circumstances the film did quite well. It was your choice to shoot a back lit,
shadowed black person that is questionable as an example of what this film is capable of. And given the amount of detail that is
still apparent in that image I'd say the film has excellent shadow holding abilities.

The image below looks to me like it's underexposed, maybe by 1 1/2 -2 stops, is that the fault of the film or the photographer?

If you want to test a film you should shoot some gray scales and then measure them with a densitometer. Or at least shoot them
with more normal lighting conditions and make certain to expose them properly.

 

[Ian Grant]

Looking at your TIF file I have to agree with Early Riser, I don't think you've chosen the right combination of ISO and Developer/time. It's difficult to say whether you've "processed the film correctly" perhaps not because Tmax400 is a superb film and capable of first class results, but it's not as forgiving as other films to uderexposure.

Ian

 

[Lee L]

If I got the images you've shown from my own shooting, I'd start with adjustments to exposure and developing. The person crossing the street and the interior shot at the convenience store are underexposed and overdeveloped for my taste. The shadows need more exposure and the highlights need to be dropped a bit.

As Don and others have mentioned, TMY is a straight-line film, a bit unforgiving of overexposed or overdeveloped highlights, and dropping rapidly in the shadows. I'd try a stop more exposure and about 10-15% less development to start, then adjust from there. The T-grain films from Kodak respond more quickly to development time adjustments than more traditional films, so don't start out with the larger adjustments recommended for other films.

Lee

 

[Tom Duffy]

TMAX 400

I did my own printing, on Ilford fiber, of the new tmax, which I had developed in pyrocat. No lie in terms of grain, it's a major step forward. The grain does seem to approach tmax 100 territory. You can get a real deep black which distinguishes itself from the slightly lighter dark grays.

I really don't get it though. The tonal scale is nowhere near as nice as Tri-X 320. It seems to be a "convert to monochrome" in terms of visual impact. Although there are parts of the print that seem rendered with a delicacy you don't find in Tri-X, the print, over all, isn't nearly as pleasing.

Maybe it's good for scanning, or for alternate processes, but for prints on silver, if you didn't like old tmax, you won't like new tmax.

Take care,
Tom

Sorry to break into the Roger Hicks thread like this.