I scan, I don't have any room for an enlarger and printing.
Resolution doesn't do anything for me when the image looks bland.
I would guess based on my limited experience, the first two are Tmax and the last one is something else (the large girl) of all of them the large girl image is the only one that's semi-interesting but even that doesn't "do it" for me (not commenting on photographic skill, just it's characteristics).
The sheep is cropped to square 35mm 'old' TMax (TMY, not TMY-2) and pushed to 1600, the portrait of Andrew is Tri-X 400 120, and the woman is TMax 400 TMY-2 in 120. All developed in replenished Xtol and printed on Ilford paper.
The whole 'TMax is flat' thing I could never understand. It is exactly what you make it.
Well I guess if I'm not the only one then I'm not entirely wrong, but all those images are flat.
I'll try shooting 400 as 320 maybe that will help.
Flat? Please explain.
The whole 'TMax is flat' thing I could never understand. It is exactly what you make it.
I was using your words, you said "I never understood the whole "Tmax is flat" thing..."
The highlights just don't POP for me, it's very low contrast, which I dislike.
Look at my B&W images in my gallery...
The hate isn't hate, it's reality, Kodak will soon be gone. Someone will probably buy the Tri-x formulation, but knowing the age and size of the machines that coat the film, it might not make financial sense to re-design smaller machines and the larger machines are too big for demand.
Aren't both Tmax and Tri-X made in a relatively new factory that Kodak only put up a few years ago?
Aren't both Tmax and Tri-X made in a relatively new factory that Kodak only put up a few years ago?
Flat? Please explain.
This! I totally agree! +1
Also the picture of the woman is great, good detail and smooth tones and a very natural composition. as well as some nice lighting from the window.
Start out with Tri-X, its what everyone starts out on.
The hate isn't hate, it's reality, Kodak will soon be gone. Someone will probably buy the Tri-x formulation, but knowing the age and size of the machines that coat the film, it might not make financial sense to re-design smaller machines and the larger machines are too big for demand.
But that is a consequence my taste in final print quality and how I treat the film, not the film itself. I understand that different photographers have different tastes, and I wasn't posting my images for any reason other than to show that it's incredibly hard to tell a difference between something like Tri-X or TMax 400 unless you know what it is first.
The type of dark shadows and intense highlights you seem to prefer is equally possible with TMax as with Tri-X. You just have to change how you process TMax in order to emulate the tone curve of Tri-X. TMax has a straight line, and Tri-X has a shoulder. If you agitate less when you process TMax, say every three minutes or so, you will bend its straight line to resemble Tri-X. Tri-X has a bit longer toe too, while TMax has a more abrupt toe, so you can either expose TMax less, say EI 800 or 1,000, and push some of the shadow values onto the toe of the curve, and use something like Xtol to 'rescue' them again, but with a hair less definition than box speed. Or you can give Tri-X more exposure to keep its shadows off the toe, to look more like TMax does at box speed. There are so many additional variables that contribute to what a negative looks like at the end of the day, other than the film itself.
For what it's worth, anyway...
Aren't both Tmax and Tri-X made in a relatively new factory that Kodak only put up a few years ago?
harry
just more gloom and doom chatter. i have a feeling tri x will be made for a long time
probably longer than fuji will continue making film ... but what do i know,
I don't think anyone is able to predict the future of Kodak films. The demand for film rather than digital is large in some countries. Not everyone in the world can afford to discard their film cameras and buy digital ones. So film lives on at least for the near future.
When Kodak renamed all their films a few years ago they were reformulated and manufactured in a new modern coating facility so their machines are not old. At that time the packaging was changed and the name Tri-X 400 became 400TX. All the films from this facility have the speed given first to show the change. The new 400TX is very different from the older Tri-X 400. So in reality your father's old Tri-X no longer exists. The new film is finer grained than even the last version of Tri-X.
I don't think anyone is able to predict the future of Kodak films...
How come a thread where the OP specifically asked for a non-Kodak film end up having nothing but Kodak talk??
If you are shooting 35mm only you have several options, where I find Fuji neopan to suit me the best.
If you want to shoot 35mm and 120, you best option is Ilford, then Rollei, then Foma (IMO)
Please take you Kodak discussions in a separate thread.
Why are you prejudiced against Kodak?
Wouldn't waiting 3 minutes between agitations introduce bromide drag?
As much as this is interesting, I have a system...
Thanks for the advice. I'm always open to learning its just sometimes I know myself and prefer simplicity over struggle.
Quality control and consistency are important. If you stick with Ilford, Kodak and Fuji, anything that goes wrong is your fault. If you use other names, all bets are off. They are all resurrected brand names and who knows what you're really getting, who makes it, or if it's just repackaged old stock.
I don't want to worry about emulsion defects etc. when I shoot.
It is made in the USA, the land who bullies the whole western world and most of the rest too. Don't ask, i do not want to start a political debate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?