It gets even more complicated than that, but I'll just stop here to avoid getting that ZS headache
The ZS doesn't give me a headache, but its many interpretions positively do.
It gets even more complicated than that, but I'll just stop here to avoid getting that ZS headache
The ZS doesn't give me a headache, but its many interpretions positively do.
aparat - All kinds of common developers work just fine with both speeds of TMax film if you do your homework first. There's no need for a special developer; and besides, the special one Kodak recommended for their sheet films is not longer made, and was always unreasonably expensive. Of course, different people have their own favorite developers. And since I use TMax films for widely different applications, I keep several developers on hand, respective to each type of application.
Don't take that old Woods quote carelessly. The original version of TMax 100 did shoulder off quickly, but that was improved long ago. And tabular grain per se has nothing to do with this; the same thing potentially happens with traditional grain films, which themselves are capable of being engineered for a wide variety of characteristic curves.
But when that Wood's infers that "variable zone placement" can be risky in cases of plus development, that's what I've been preaching all along. Since the characteristic straight line of TMax goes way down to the threshold of Z2, and if you meter carefully, that is where your threshold of perceptible shadow gradation (not pure black) should be placed. Those who default to shadow placement all the way up on the belly button of Zone 3, through either paranoia about their own metering competence, or due to stubborn custom with past films, unquestionably and unnecessarily risk blowing out the highlights. It's their own fault, and not that of the film. But this does reinforce the fact as well as stereotype of TMax films needing more careful metering than many other films. Like I stated earlier, it's a film for responsible adults, and not for shoot-from-the-hip Billy the Kid types.
The combination of TMax and D76 was indeed a just a convenient marketing marriage, and not necessarily an ideal one at all. They PR contracted John Sexton to go out and shoot and develop with this specific combination, even though people soon learned the benefits of other developers instead. For critical technical applications, D76 almost never gets chosen; but as a middle of the road routinely-available Ford/Chevy kind of developer, it's certainly usable. It puts too much sag in the middle of the curve for me, and hence an extended toe sweep too, which I find counterproductive to choosing this film in the first place. If I want that effect, there are cheaper films like FP4 which deliver it.
I never used it [Tech Pan] in 35mm. ... I used tech pan mostly for forensic applications ...
Well, despite the fact that I’ve never clicked with TMax 100, it is going to be my new favorite film. A bulk loader I got in a deal about a year ago had way more than I realized. Just finished rolling out a dozen 35-exposure rolls, and that’s in addition to the 2-3 I had already used for testing. Here’s hoping I figure it out in 420 frames!
These are beautiful photographs. I am not going to comment on graininess because there are too many variables involved to be sure.Even in 4x5, Tmax 400 seems to be grainier when scanning than Tmax 100. Check the skies in each.
I really like TMAX 400. It is one of the few tabular grain films I actually warmed too. The other was Acros 100. I used TMAX 100 exclusively (for the B&W film selection) in my college days. I never really warmed to it as much as the others. Even though TMAX 100 was basically to be a clone or replacement for Panatomic X (another favorite film of mine), I felt TMX lacked a bit of the magic or glow I was getting out of Pan X. It seemed flat to me. Lack of grain was part of that. Pan X had slightly larger (and random) grain to give it texture, while TMX just looks too much like digital. I did a test of Pan X, Acros 100, and TMX and made a video out of it. I prefer traditional grain most of the time when I shoot B&W. Being larger and random is the reason why.
Another quote from the same article: "Ilford engineers state that Delta is less taxing on both film developer and fixer than Kodak's T-MAX."
I am sure we can find lots of other information in old journals and forum posts. 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.
For semi-compensation with TMax100, try Perceptol 1:3.
But don't try that with TMY400, or you might find the result too grainy. (For TMY, Perceptol 1:1 is fine.)
With either, by far the most flexible developer per degree of dilution is HC-110; but I wouldn't term it compensating.
These are beautiful photographs. I am not going to comment on graininess because there are too many variables involved to be sure.
It's the super clean look with lack of grain and lower contrast. That's what I meant when I said it looks like digital.Braxus - to this day I can't figure out your comparison of the "look" of TMax to "digital". Can anyone else? But I'll admit, I can't even detect the remarkable similarity of a rhinoceros to a flamingo yet. Just follow my developer advice right above, and that should cure your
too-smooth grain complaint. It worked for meme.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: ![]() |