Well it could be a combination of factors. 1 stop of overexposure + 1 grade of over development = excessive grain and density. Base density can be caused by fog from light, either in the camera or during film handling, age and heat, and chemical fogging, where the development is so active that the developer starts to act upon non-image silver. You can decide which to eliminate from your situation.
TMY can build contrast to a great degree which is why a lot of folks like it for non-silver printing processes. DD-X is a high energy developer designed to get full speed, and is a good choice for push processing. I think you might want to do some more testing, dialing everything back, but maybe just one variable at a time. I don't know what you mean by the shadows being blocked, but blocked highlights points to the over exposure/ over development issue.
Yes, I've used 4x5 tmy-2 with excellent results. I just wish the stuff wasn't so expensive, I'd like to use it in 8x10 too. I use FP-4+ a lot as well, it is also an excellent film. My primary developer for both is Pyrocat HD. I think TMY in pyrocat is just about perfect for my tastes.
Also I find the T-max 400 having more coarser grain. I find the Ilford grain much smoother and more uniform.?
You are comparing a 125 ISO film with a 400 ISO... no wonder the FP4 beats TMax 400 in terms of grain.
You are comparing a 125 ISO film with a 400 ISO... no wonder the FP4 beats TMax 400 in terms of grain.
The original TMY claimed to be equivalent to the fine grain of Plus-X (ISO 125) but with almost twice the speed.
If TMY 2 really had the grain of 100 ISO films as Kodak more or less boasts, why would Kodak still bother to produce 100 ISO film?
TMY-2 does not give up very much to FP-4 in terms of grain, I'd say they are on a par. They do other things differently so yes for sure a different "look". I just had a look at some negatives and if anything the TMY base seems less dense than than that of the FP-4, although there is very little difference.
If the shadows are blocked and by that, I assume you mean that the shadows are lacking in details, then that is an exposure fault. Use a lower ISO setting on your light-meter. If in doubt, bracket your exposures and keep notes. As for the highlights blocking, that is most likely due to too long development or too high developer temperature or both, use a shorter development time. Also, make sure that you are using the appropriate paper grade or contrast-filter if you are using variable contrast papers for your enlargements.I found this problem only with my sheet film, not my 120 films...I don't think the exposure is so incorrect, but it looks like I need to decrease the film developing time about 1 contrast grade. Though I do not believe this should create the coarse grain and unclear film base. I actual have to double exposure time when I make the print, compared to when Ii make prints from fp4...
I tried to deveop it in two different finegrain developers, Ilford DD-X ad Foma Excel, with very similar result.
I find both shadow and higlights a bit blocked.
I found this problem only with my sheet film, not my 120 films...I don't think the exposure is so incorrect, but it looks like I need to decrease the film developing time about 1 contrast grade. Though I do not believe this should create the coarse grain and unclear film base. I actual have to double exposure time when I make the print, compared to when Ii make prints from fp4...
I tried to deveop it in two different finegrain developers, Ilford DD-X ad Foma Excel, with very similar result.
I find both shadow and highlights a bit blocked.
I doubt if that claim is really substantiated, instead of a Kodak advertisement claim...
I have used TMY 2 in 35 mm and 4x5, and Plus X in 35 mm. Plus X beats TMY 2 in terms of fine grain in my experience. And I am pretty sure the Acros 100 I shot in 4x5 is also finer grained than the TMY 2, but I still need to have a closer look, as I haven't used these films much in 4x5 (mostly been using TXP 320 and HP5)
If TMY 2 really had the grain of 100 ISO films as Kodak more or less boasts, why would Kodak still bother to produce 100 ISO film?
The Kodak sheet films have a retouching base on the back side of the film. The film base therefore looks as if it has a light gray haze on it. Because it does. This has no effect in printing.
If you have to "double exposure time when I make the print" then clearly your film is too dense. And graininess is directly related to density, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the film is also fairly grainy.
If your shadows are blocked, it means you underexposed when you made the photograph.
In total, it sounds like you both underexposed and overdeveloped (by a lot) your film. Not hard to imagine that you don't like the results. If you take the time to find your personal exposure index (EI) for the film / developer / processing, and your normal "N" development time, you'll perhaps find the film performs more like you think it should, which is to give you a couple of stops more real film speed (compared to the FP-4+) while exhibiting about the same level of graininess. It will also give you a very straight response curve which you may or may not like.
Do you find TMY a bit slower to print than FP4? Can you see any difference of the film base?
I wonder how the film can be fogged, since I made sure also to open the second package in the box and test it also. It cannot be the film holder, since the the fogging is then perfectly uniform, even all the way to the borders. I also tried to develop a blank unexposed film.
Could it be that during shipping something have happened?
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?