T-max 400 questions...

[wiggywag]

Hi!

After faithfully using Ilford FP 4 sheet film for a while, I'm testing out Tmax 400 (tmy-2) since I like the idea of increased speed.

After doing some initial film tests I have found out that the film base comes out more darker than the FP4 which has a very clear base. I have been doing extensive fixing and used Hypo Clearing Agent as recommended for this film so there is no pinkish cast left.

Also I find the T-max 400 having more coarser grain. I find the Ilford grain much smoother and more uniform.

The funny thing though is that this mostly affects the Tmax sheet film. When using Tmax 400 in 120 film format, I find the grain smoother and the film base clearer. How can that be? Is the emulsion thinner/different in 120 compared to 4x5 sheet film?

Also I wonder how the change to T-max 400 (if I'm going to do it) will affect my printing og the results compared to FP4?

 

[erikg]

Dark film base and coarse grain? That should not be an issue with TMY. Could be an issue of fogging or over exposure, or over development. Slight differences in film base density between film types are not something to worry about, but it could indicate something else going on. How do they print? What is the contrast like? Are they especially dense overall?

 

[wiggywag]

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.

 

[erikg]

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.

 

[wiggywag]

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.

have you tested the sheetfilm variant?

 

[erikg]

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.

 

[wiggywag]

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.

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?

 

[wiggywag]

I found out that the TMY is thicker as sheetfilm than the 120 variant.

 

[Marco B]

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.

 

[wiggywag]

You are comparing a 125 ISO film with a 400 ISO... no wonder the FP4 beats TMax 400 in terms of grain.

yes, but my TMY 120 has nicer grain than my TMY 120 sheetfilm variant. Not strange Im a bit confused here...

 

[Chuck_P]

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. For 4x5 TMY-2 to be coarser-grained than 4x5 FP4, seems strange to say the least, I would think it would be at least as fine as FP4 to be touted as the sharpest 400 speed film made. I'm primarily a TMX user, however, never used the TMY-2.

 

[Marco B]

The original TMY claimed to be equivalent to the fine grain of Plus-X (ISO 125) but with almost twice the speed.

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?

 

[Chuck_P]

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?

Perhaps it would not have the same "look" and "feel", IDK. I'm going to find out though because I will be getting a box of TMY-2 and will do some testing, just haven't decided on what developer to use with it.

 

[erikg]

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.

 

[Richard Wasserman]

This is my experience also with FP-4 and TMY-2 being similar in grain and base fog–if anything I find TMY to have a bit finer grain and lower base fog. I use Pyrocat HD developer. They do have a different look and are both great films.

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.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

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.

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.

 

[Bruce Watson]

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.

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.

 

[aldevo]

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 same reason that Kodak still produces Tri-X; some (indeed many) prefer the look of Plus-X to TMY-2.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I only use TMY-2 in 120 and 35mm, but find the grain to be finer than that of FP4+ or Plus-X. I also find it to be sharper.

When you compare the two films, have you photographed and exposed the same scene, processed them side by side, and then printed them to compare?

Also, if you are tray developing your film, keep in mind that the TMY-2 is two full stops faster than FP4+. Any light leak in your dark room that could potentially lead to base fog of the film will be magnified by a factor of 4.

Do a series of tests with your film, with exposing the film at 200, 250, 320, 400, and process normally. Then pick the one with enough shadow density in your prints. Then adjust development (agitation intervals too) to get your highlights where you want them.
Do this with both films if you can, and then compare side by side which you like best.

I use TMY-2 in Xtol, which is very similar to DD-X. I use it replenished, which is about equivalent to somewhere between 1:1 and 1:2 dilution of the developer.

Good luck. With some more hard work and testing, you will find absolutely amazing results from this film. I can make practically grainless 11x14 enlargements from this stuff in 35mm, and definitely grainless from 120. But it takes a lot of dialing in before I can reach that point.

Have fun!

 

[wiggywag]

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.

Hi Bruce!

I think you're perfectly right! Thanks

 

[John Snyder]

I'm using TMY-2 in 4X5, 8X10, and 12X20. I've found the film base to be impressively clear. I just checked the base of some 4X5 I recently developed in D76 1:1 (recent batch that has been refrigerated) on my densitometer: FBF= .07 (with very fine grain).

John

 

[wiggywag]

Which Xtol dilution do you prefer with TMY? And why?

 

[hjt]

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?

From reading the posts on this discussion it could be that your sheet film has been fogged by an airport security X ray machine. Is this possible ? The symptoms you describe are very similar to a problem I had once with HP5+ after a visit abroad and this was a film I had been using for some time without previous problem.

 

[wiggywag]

I have now successfully developed tmy2 (t-max 400) correctly. The negatives are nice. BUT I really like FP4 a lot better, tonality is much more pleasing. Though I would love more speed. Should I try Tri-x?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Question: How is the tonality of the FP4 more pleasing than TMY-2? You may be able to adjust how you expose and process the film to get different results.