Tabular: terrific or terrible? Your opinions, please.

[Chuck_P]

Acros II is fine as a b&w film but the worst thing is that you can't use the Ilford wash method with it. The pink dye takes much longer and more water changes to completely remove. Even after 15 minutes of soaking, agitating and changing several times, I can sometimes see a pink color cast when compared to other film.

I came across this recently with TMX, but it was due to not being fixed long enough, I refixed the sheets and any pink remaining was completely gone in a few minutes.

 

[Chuck_P]

T-Max films were deliberately engineered for technical as well as pictorial applications in the first place

The pictorial aspect is superbly evident......John Sexton comes to mind, just sayin.........he is on record as I paraphrase, that one's darkroom processes MUST be very repeatable, very consistent. If not, one probably should not be using that film.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Your eyes are the best judge of aesthetics. It's difficult to measure art.

 

[faberryman]

And by the way, if you are put off by people who have an extra-ordinary amount of confidence in their own opinions, I hate to break it to you, but internet forums are not going to be a great place to hang around!

You never really know whether those guys are being serious or just yanking your chain. The best thing to do is shake your head incredulously, laugh out loud, and say "Holy moly, I believe he has topped himself with that one."

 

[aparat]

As mentioned before, different developers are going to produce (slightly) different results. For the most discerning photographers, particularly sheet film users, it may be important to tease apart those differences as they can make a difference between a keeper and a dud. Well, maybe I am exaggerating a little, but the differences are real and sheet film prices continue to climb.

For example, here's the curve family for KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 100. The film was exposed for the same amount of exposure as Acros II (see earlier in the thread) and processed in the same tank, to make the comparison easier. The overall shape of the curves does resemble that of Acros II somewhat, but the film produces more film speed with XTOL-R. A different developer might help bridge the gap. I will retest both films with D-76.

 

[5150Bronco]

is there any advantage or disadvantage using tabular film for landscape photography?

 

[warden]

Therefore, it would be great if you all could share your more recent experiences with these films, and, in particular, tell us your preferences for different types of photography and different types of workflow.

Thanks for starting another great and educational thread. After reading your OP I decided to try a new-to-me film, Delta 100. In medium format I often use and enjoy TMax 400/Ilfosol 3, but in 35mm I've been happily using traditional grain films, primarily FP4/Ilfosol 3 because I like the grain and it prints well.

So I got a few rolls of Delta100 in 35mm size and I just finished the first one. Two pics follow, a car in my filthy city and a tree in the clean country air.

The car image was made in overcast conditions with no filter on the 50mm lens. The film was exposed at iso80 and developed according to Ilford's instructions for iso100, and scanned with a Coolscan IV. The Coolscan can't show grain, but under a loupe the negative looks great.

The tree was also exposed at iso80 but I had an orange filter on the lens to counteract the featureless clear sky. I printed it on the new Multigrade RC Pearl 8x10 paper. It's a straight work print with no dodging or burning, using split grade @ 20 seconds with the 00 filter and 5 seconds with the 05 filter. This pic of the print was made with my iPhone7, which I think was made during the Carter administration so like the Coolscan it can't show much detail. But the detail is very good.

Anyway the film is quite nice and I like it. I would describe it as easy to expose and sharp, and the grain is small enough that I have some difficulty finding it in the grain focuser. All of the negatives from the first roll would have been easy to print in the darkroom.

This film has me considering switching to Delta100 in 35mm format for a change of pace. I might try it in 120 as well.

 

[Craig]

is there any advantage or disadvantage using tabular film for landscape photography?

The grain is usually smaller, that can be and advantage, and I find the tonality is different than traditional films. I particularly like the results from Delta 100, but I would say the results are different from traditional films. If that is good or bad is up to your tastes and what outcome you are looking for.

 

[aparat]

@warden You got awesome results! Thank you for sharing. The tonality is silky smooth.

I forgot to attach Kodak's conventional alternative to the T-MAX 100, the EASTMAN DOUBLE-X 5222, also processed in XTOL-R. The films have similar speed but could not be more different otherwise. I love them both, for different reasons.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The grain is usually smaller, that can be and advantage, and I find the tonality is different than traditional films. I particularly like the results from Delta 100, but I would say the results are different from traditional films. If that is good or bad is up to your tastes and what outcome you are looking for.

In what way do you find the tonality between T grain and traditional films different?

 

[Craig]

I've generally been able to get better separation and more shades of grey if that makes sense. The total range of black to white might be the same, but the microcontrast in the shades in-between is better. Since I know you scan your slides, think of it as increasing the clarity slider in Lightroom.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Another possibility is that you are under-replenishing your working solution. Xtol-R activity level and characteristics must be maintained by varying the replenishment volume. I've been struggling with Xtol-R for a long time. Until one day I gave up and purchased a box of Ilford control strips, measured their densities using ID-11 stock using Ilford instructions as a yardstick, and then adjusted my Xtol-R activity to match them, and the disparities have disappeared.

I am not saying this is what's happening here. I am saying it's a possibility.

Yep. I ran xtol-R for a while (I've since switched to replenished Ilford DD) and if you're going to run any replenished system, control strips are a valuable investment. You know exactly where your activity levels are, and there is no guesswork in trying to figure out processing times.

 

[removedacct1]

Its worth remembering that anyone could provide us with a dozen different B&W photographs here, made on a variety of film stocks, and nobody would be able to identify with any meaningful accuracy which photo was made with which film.

Chose what works for you and don't waste your time arguing over which film is "best".

 

[removedacct1]

is there any advantage or disadvantage using tabular film for landscape photography?

None whatsoever.

 

[GregY]

None whatsoever.

is there any advantage or disadvantage using tabular film for landscape photography?

None.... I photograph a lot in the mountains & both TMY-2 & TMX give me great results in large prints when i'm using medium format, where ideally i'd like to have used LF. If/when I use 35mm....TMX has given me some fine results

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I want to start with Fujifilm Acros II. Here are the characteristic curves published by the manufacturer:


Here is the curve family obtained in my test:


Clearly, Fujifilm data shows more film speed, but the overall curve shapes appear similar. I am not sure why Acros II turned out to be about a stop slower than its indicated box speed of ISO 100. One possibility is that replenished XTOL just doesn't produce full speed with this film. I have seen this being the case with a few other films, where stock XTOL and stock D-76 obtained more shadow detail than XTOL-R. Perhaps Acros II is particularly picky when it comes to developer choice. I will have to test it in stock D-76 to be sure.

How are you making the exposures? Acros II is orthopancromatic which means you're going to get very different results depending on your light source. My results (that I published over in the resources section, somebody else has already linked to it in this thread) show a very different ISO performance, but I used a full spectrum daylight source. If your light source is tungsten based (or in that same range) or just doesn't have a lot of blue in it, you'll get different behavior. In my experience, full panchromatic films respond much the same no matter the light source, at least the difference is small enough it could be chalked up to statistical error, but other films that have responses that aren't full panchromatic tend to exhibit different behavior depending on the spectrum of the light.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Chuck - John S. had nothing to do with the actual R&D phase of TMax, or the reason for it in the first place, but was brought in after the fact to help promote it for general photography. It was designed to replace several key prior films, including Super-XX, Plus X, Triassic X 320, and Tech Pan. It would be the new Jack of All Trades, and pretty darn competent at all those tasks, but only if one knew how to tweak it relative to each application. And old dogs don't like learning new tricks, or losing familiar films that respectively did just one trick very good, every single time, that they expected it to do, without changing exposure and development protocol.

Craig - the grain of Delta 100 is about the same as for TMY400, maybe a tiny bit less, but not as fine as TMX100, depending of course on the specific developer. ACROS, being orthopan rather than pan, is even a bit smaller, with excellent edge acutance. But again, it depends; Acros being a dual-emulsion film, if combined with the wrong development method, and you can get grain significantly larger than TMY400. I've done just-for-the-hell-of-it testing to prove that to myself, even though I had correctly developed Acros for many years.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Glad to hear you're doing fine, Adrian. I hope to get out this afternoon (with TMax of course), but still have to be choosy about which trails, since there's a lot of downfall in some places, and a lot of miserably sticky muddy goop in others.

 

[Craig]

Craig - the grain of Delta 100 is about the same as for TMY400, maybe a tiny bit less, but not as fine as TMX100,

I've never liked TMX. To me it's like slide film, get it right and it works well, but if something is a tiny bit off forget it. I also don't like how hard the T Max films are on the fixer, they take a lot longer to clear and remove the stain than other films.

 

[grain elevator]

I've never liked TMX. To me it's like slide film, get it right and it works well, but if something is a tiny bit off forget it. I also don't like how hard the T Max films are on the fixer, they take a lot longer to clear and remove the stain than other films.

What is it that you and others see as a risk of failure with TMAX films? Just the short toe, so underexposure results in nothing, compared to ever so slightly more than nothing with longer toed films? I don't quite get it. Sure, to completely realise their potential, good technique is required, but that goes for every film. In any case I'm no wizard and I got fine results with TMX and TMY-2,. My underexposed negatives on them are crap, just like they would with any other film, my overexposed ones make prints nearly as good as my few perfectly exposed ones, certainly better than they would, were they on films that shoulder off earlier/more.
Agree on fixing. Dislike that and the overly smooth emulsion surface of TMX (can give newston's rings). And the price killed them for me.

 

[removedacct1]

I've never liked TMX. To me it's like slide film, get it right and it works well, but if something is a tiny bit off forget it. I also don't like how hard the T Max films are on the fixer, they take a lot longer to clear and remove the stain than other films.

I've never had a bad TMX negative. I don't understand what it is about TMX that people find "unforgiving" or "difficult to get right".

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pretty much self-explanatory. Generations of photographers simply had to get slide exposures correct, and in fact learned to do that right, and routinely so, thousands of shots in a row. But this is another time in history, a different kind of generation it seems.

And as far as slow fixing, and taking a long time to clear the anti-halation stain? It's the fastest film of all if you use the ideal fixer, like TF4 or TF5. Five minutes of fixing, and ten minutes of washing, and its all done, except for a brief dip in distilled water with a tad of Photflo; and then hang to dry!

 

[miha]

T-MAX films are simply amazing, state of the art products.

Here is T-MAX 400 printed on Fomatone chamois (structured paper) from 135:

120 T-MAX 100 printed on EFKE EMAKS graded paper:

 

[Craig]

I learned photography on slide film, so I'm used to getting the exposure right. Pretty much 100% of what I shoot on 35mm is E6 and formerly Kodachrome.

TMY I got great results from, but TMX was like trying to print slide film- I could get highlights or shadows, but not both together. Other films are much easier for me to work with and get the results I want, Delta 100 in particular is so effortless to get amazing negs.

 

[GregY]

Craig, Thanks for detailing why you didn't like your TMX results.