Temptation aka TMAX 400-2

[Harry Lime]

I've been a diehard Tri-X shooter for about 10 years now. 95% of my shooting is done with Tri-X and I use about 250 rolls of it a year.

But, lately I have started to drift from the flock. It started so innocently.

I read an article here and a post there about the updated TMAX.
The promise of fine grain at 400 speed sounded intriguing.

Then our paths crossed at a local store and I innocently bought two rolls.

I went back a few days later and then again and again...

Individual rolls started to turn in to bricks.

The next thing you know I was reaching past the stack of Tri-X in the fridge to instead take my new friend out for an afternoon.

Can this really be happening after all of these years?

 

[Nikanon]

Grain depends on enlargement size, exposure, developer and development time and temperature , as well as dilution, in terms of film differences, different iso's would be the only real difference, there isn't ever too much of a difference in grain between different types of film with the same rating. It's really the films characteristic that makes it different which also can change due to different processing. Before deciding one film is better than another I'd run a good series of tests on it's
capabilities with different variables in exposure and processing.

 

[darkosaric]

Well, I like TriX in rodinal, but also I like Tmax but in Tmax developer. I think you will be back, TriX is best iso 400 film in the world (imho, of course)
I love TriX best, but from time to time I take ilford pan 400, HP5+, foma 400... just to change the look from time to time ... and then I go back to TriX

 

[Harry Lime]

Grain depends on enlargement size, exposure, developer and development time and temperature , as well as dilution, in terms of film differences, different iso's would be the only real difference, there isn't ever too much of a difference in grain between different types of film with the same rating. It's really the films characteristic that makes it different which also can change due to different processing. Before deciding one film is better than another I'd run a good series of tests on it's
capabilities with different variables in exposure and processing.

I've shot thousands of rolls of Tri-X in many different formats, so I am intimately familiar with it's characteristics.

But the fact is that tubular grained films like TMAX are finer grained than the old style emulsions with their random grain structure.

Obviously what format you are shooting and how you expose and process the film will either amplify or subdue the grain. But that doesn't change the fact that the size and pattern of the grain crystals varies from film to film and thus does their appearance. So, I'm going to have to disagree and say that there is quite a difference in the size of the grain between the two filmstocks.

After shooting 40 rolls I would have to say that TMAX 400-2 is without a doubt finer grained than Tri-X, no matter how you treat it. Because of it's more linear response TMAX is a little more temperamental in dealing with the toe and shoulder than Tri-X, but if you pay attention it's totally manageable.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Harry,

I've been very impressed with the limited quantity of TMY-2 I have used so far, developed in Pyrocat-HD.

Tom

 

[jim appleyard]

Harry, fine grain is great, but what about tonality? Photograph the same scene with both films, then decide.

 

[david b]

I've shot a lot of different films but I consistently get excellent results with TMY2 and xtol.

So for me, I rate the film at 400, use a 2 stop orange filter and process in xtol 1+1 for 9 minutes.
I hardly ever deviate from the N times.

My medium format negs makes really nice 10"x10" and 14"x14" silver prints

 

[BetterSense]

I love TriX most of all 35mm films, but I recently came into a stash of ultra-cheap TMY(1). I decided I'm not too cool to shoot any given B&W film so I'm on TMY for about 30 more rolls.

It's definitely finer grained than trix, period. But, at an 8x10 35mm enlargement, the difference is something that the photographer notices because he looks at pictures a lot...but there really isn't much difference if you stand back and just look. There's nothing exceptionally grainy about Tri-X print of the same enlargement as a Tmax print. Yes, the Tmax is finer, but it's not this overwhelming difference IMO.

The tonality is very different and Tmax looks more "digital" to me which is why I'll be going back to TriX when it's used up. If I want finer grain, I'll shoot medium- or large-format Tri-X.

 

[Harry Lime]

Harry, fine grain is great, but what about tonality? Photograph the same scene with both films, then decide.

I think the tonality of TMAX is noticeably different than Tri-X.

I've shot both in the same locations around town (I haunt certain locations for my street photography...) and under the same lighting conditions, with the same lenses and used the same developer (Barry Thornton's 2-bath)

It's a little difficult to describe, but one of the first impressions I had from Tmax was that although I was shooting it in 135, on the monitor the scans had a feeling to them in terms of tonality that reminded me of medium format. I'm not entirely sure if that is simply due to the smaller grain or that the smaller and more even grain structure actually gives the appearance of smoother tonality.

The tonality is definatively more linear. It goes on and on and then rather quick rolls off in to the highlights. Same for the shadows. I may have overdeveloped the first few rolls, which would have compressed the shoulder. I'm still working things out, but developing for less contrast makes a positive difference.

I can't explain why, but for some reason Tmax-2 has a vintage look to me.

I know that doesn't make any sense for several reasons, but that's what I'm seeing (or think I am seeing). Again, it may have to do with the much tighter grain structure that makes it look like you are shooting with a larger format or slower film. This may in part be psychosomatic, because my eye is seeing something that looks like a grainy 100asa film, but my brain keeps telling me that it's 400asa 135 format film... After 10 years of Tri-X that is bound to mess with your head a little.... I haven't shot 100asa film in a looong time. I shoot shoot a few rolls and see if I react the same way.

 

[Harry Lime]

The tonality is very different and Tmax looks more "digital" to me which is why I'll be going back to TriX when it's used up. If I want finer grain, I'll shoot medium- or large-format Tri-X.

I agree. I believe that is because TMax has a more linear response, where as Tri-X is more of an S-shape.

Digital has a very linear response curve, so they would look similar.

 

[Herzeleid]

The tonality is very different and Tmax looks more "digital" to me which is why I'll be going back to TriX when it's used up.

Same here, it really looks like a gray scaled image to me. In both prints and scans.
I agree it has the finest grain in 400 speed range good sharpness...Technically, almost perfect, but that 'look' is not appealing to me as well.

I have mixed feelings about that film

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Harry, we're in the same boat. I had shot Tri-X for about five years when I let it go in favor of Tmax 400. I use both 35mm and 120. I used to photograph with sheets as well, but gave up on it after realizing I saw no real benefit of continuing.
If you shoot multiple formats, the Tmax is ideal. Same film in all sizes, which isn't the case for Tri-X (and something I could never understand).

I can make Tmax 400 look almost identical to Tri-X in a print, by altering how I process the film. I use Xtol (replenished) and the only real difference is grain, to my eyes. Prints from both Tri-X and Tmax 400 live side by side without looking different.
So why switch? To me, when the enlargements start getting big, the Tmax just looks better. A 35mm negative looks to my eyes to print like my Tri-X medium format negatives used to print. There is some very real impact from those negatives that just look phenomenal in an 8x10 or even a bit larger. It literally looks like medium format is 'supposed to' look. And the 120 Tmax 400 negs print so nicely up to about 14x14 size, almost like a 4x5 negative.

I can't begin to describe how impressed I have been with Tmax 400. I don't even feel like I need an ISO 100 film anymore. I can use one single film and do everything I want to do with it.

Kodak, to me, has really hit a home run with this new formulation of Tmax 400. It's glorious stuff.

- Thomas

 

[clayne]

After shooting 40 rolls I would have to say that TMAX 400-2 is without a doubt finer grained than Tri-X, no matter how you treat it. Because of it's more linear response TMAX is a little more temperamental in dealing with the toe and shoulder than Tri-X, but if you pay attention it's totally manageable.

Yes, but it's that linear curve that kind of sucks about TMAX (vs Tri-X). The films are so fine grained for 400 speed emulsions that one has to ask if it's really that important. T-grain is T-grain.

I think it might just be you needed a change of some sort. I bet if I instead handed you a brick of APX100 at the time you so innocently strayed with Miss Tmax, you would be out partying with the Germans right now.

Grain is only so important - and then it isn't.

 

[jim appleyard]

Harry, more reading:
Dead Link Removed

 

[Harry Lime]

I think it might just be you needed a change of some sort. I bet if I instead handed you a brick of APX100 at the time you so innocently strayed with Miss Tmax, you would be out partying with the Germans right now.

You know, that is kind of funny, because I'm shooting in Berlin right as we speak. Doing a little research for a big project I want to do...

But you could be right.

A few years I ago I had another affair- eh, encounter with APX100.

I used to shoot it with my Summicron-Dual Range 2/50mm and develop in Rodinal. Prints were made on Agfa VC glossy fiber. Those still are some of the nicest prints I ever made. That combination just glowed like crazy. Even laymen would comment on luminous the prints looked. And then of course AGFA went to the big darkroom in the sky (sniff!) and that was the end of the affair.

I'm going to finish this 5th brick of Tmax. That will bring me to 50 rolls and then I'll go back to Tri-X for a brick and see what I think.

Grain is only so important - and then it isn't.

"That is called grain. It is supposed to be there." -Flotsam
;-)

 

[Mahler_one]

Harry, we're in the same boat. I had shot Tri-X for about five years when I let it go in favor of Tmax 400. I use both 35mm and 120. I used to photograph with sheets as well, but gave up on it after realizing I saw no real benefit of continuing.
If you shoot multiple formats, the Tmax is ideal. Same film in all sizes, which isn't the case for Tri-X (and something I could never understand).

I can make Tmax 400 look almost identical to Tri-X in a print, by altering how I process the film. I use Xtol (replenished) and the only real difference is grain, to my eyes. Prints from both Tri-X and Tmax 400 live side by side without looking different.
So why switch? To me, when the enlargements start getting big, the Tmax just looks better. A 35mm negative looks to my eyes to print like my Tri-X medium format negatives used to print. There is some very real impact from those negatives that just look phenomenal in an 8x10 or even a bit larger. It literally looks like medium format is 'supposed to' look. And the 120 Tmax 400 negs print so nicely up to about 14x14 size, almost like a 4x5 negative.

I can't begin to describe how impressed I have been with Tmax 400. I don't even feel like I need an ISO 100 film anymore. I can use one single film and do everything I want to do with it.

Kodak, to me, has really hit a home run with this new formulation of Tmax 400. It's glorious stuff.

- Thomas

I agree the film is great Tom, but the cost is outrageous when compared to HP5 and others.

 

[Harry Lime]

I can't begin to describe how impressed I have been with Tmax 400. I don't even feel like I need an ISO 100 film anymore. I can use one single film and do everything I want to do with it.

Kodak, to me, has really hit a home run with this new formulation of Tmax 400. It's glorious stuff.

- Thomas

Agreed. It's an eye opener. I was very surprised when the first 4000dpi scan came off my Nikon 9000ED...

The only problem I have with it is that due to the very linear curve, you have to meter more accurately and develop a little more careful than with Tri-X. That could become a problem for my kind of shooting (street, documentary), where exposure errors are a given, considering that you are mostly shooting on the run. Tri-X is sooo forgiving, especially in a 2-bath developer. You have to do something seriously stupid to screw it up.

But there is a place for it in my arsenal.

Have you pushed it at all? I've only shot it at 400.

 

[Harry Lime]

I agree the film is great Tom, but the cost is outrageous when compared to HP5 and others.

You know what's really weird? In London all of the Ilford films were more expensive than their Kodak equivalent. How can that be? The stuff is made in England?!

Delta3200 was about 6 GBP (!) per roll! I used to have to buy it by the brick to get a 30% discount and bring it back down to earth.

On the other hand Calumet in London was practically giving away TMAX 400-2 at around 2.50 GBP. Tri-X was about the same.

Back in the US the situation was almost the reverse. Ilford was cheaper than Kodak and Fuji was lower than either. Or at least. it was a few years ago...

 

[Carter john]

Harry, or whatever your name is, like you I was on TriX forever, and I had tried Tmax400 (old) and didn't really like it, but that may have been inexperience. I listened to a Kodak engineer or whatever they call them, maybe chemist (in the USA), interviewing John Sexton. I got only one thing out of the interview: TMY-2 is finer grained and no change in 'tonality' whatever that is. I was initially very excited, before the interview, to try it. But I went ahead, I decided on Barry Thornton's two bath not the one you use but his two teaspoon two bath: Rodinal 1+50 and the Borax. It worked great. I still like TriX slightly better but finally I can use TMY-2 albeit at 200 EI.

 

[mhanc]

for me, it seems like we just went our separate ways. i didn't know where things went wrong. Tri-X was just not the film i fell in love with as a very young man.

maybe it was my fault. there were years of neglect while raising a young family. certainly, that fling with digital didn't help matters. after realizing what i had lost and returning home, we just couldn't make it work again. that old spark was just not there.

so, i too have been seeing a lot of TMY-2 and we are really getting along for all the reasons stated here. that tonality is soooo seductive.

BTW: anybody been spending time with TMX? we haven't met. seems like the ugly step-sister, but i don't want to be shallow. just curious

 

[Bruce Watson]

I've been a diehard Tri-X shooter for about 10 years now. 95% of my shooting is done with Tri-X and I use about 250 rolls of it a year.

But, lately I have started to drift from the flock. It started so innocently.

For me it was friends and people whose opinions I respect urging me to try TMY-2. So finally after decades of Tri-X I decided to give a new film a try. I'm an LFer, so I did the whole Zone System thing of finding my personal EI and "N" development times. It looked fairly nice during this tuning process but not that special. Then I started using it for real.

Holy cats! Now I was impressed. Much finer grain than Tri-X in XTOL 1:3, very sharp, and I really like the tonality. Finally the tones are where I want them. I have to do a lot less fighting at print time which is a much welcome improvement.

What's not to like? Sorry Tri-X. It was nice, but time to move on. My only real question is what took me so long? It's a great time to be a photographer.

 

[Carter john]

for me, it seems like we just went our separate ways. i didn't know where things went wrong. Tri-X was just not the film i fell in love with as a very young man.

maybe it was my fault. there were years of neglect while raising a young family. certainly, that fling with digital didn't help matters. after realizing what i had lost and returning home, we just couldn't make it work again. that old spark was just not there.

so, i too have been seeing a lot of TMY-2 and we are really getting along for all the reasons stated here. that tonality is soooo seductive.

BTW: anybody been spending time with TMX? we haven't met. seems like the ugly step-sister, but i don't want to be shallow. just curious

Have you tried counseling? Actually, sometimes those ugly sisters are the ones that really produce. I spend a lot of time with TMX, and it is great.

 

[fschifano]

I've been a diehard Tri-X shooter for about 10 years now. 95% of my shooting is done with Tri-X and I use about 250 rolls of it a year.

But, lately I have started to drift from the flock. It started so innocently.

I read an article here and a post there about the updated TMAX.
The promise of fine grain at 400 speed sounded intriguing.

Then our paths crossed at a local store and I innocently bought two rolls.

I went back a few days later and then again and again...

Individual rolls started to turn in to bricks.

The next thing you know I was reaching past the stack of Tri-X in the fridge to instead take my new friend out for an afternoon.

Can this really be happening after all of these years?

Yes, it can. TMY-2 is really fantastic stuff, and a big improvement over the original I think. Don't get me wrong, I love Tri-X 400 and think it's one of the best films ever made for general purpose B&W photography. But TMY-2 is just as good. All these arguments about tonality, etc. are just plain old bullshit if you ask me. The negative is the negative, and TMY-2 will capture more detail over a wider brightness range than Tri-X can ever hope to do. Yes, you do need to be a little more careful with exposure and development. Too much light and the highlights will blow out. Too much development and the contrast will become harder to manage. The other side of that coin allows you a little less exposure while still delivering useful shadow detail at up to 1 stop underexposure with normal development. What you do with that is a measure of your darkroom skills and your printing materials.

 

[2F/2F]

As always, it depends. I like T-Max for certain applications, but it just would not do as a general film for me. I do not generally prefer to capture a scene on a straight line...not at all. I do like it better in flat light (including very low light that is flat), where the quality of light does its part to combat the film's characteristics that I find less than pleasing, while allowing me to enjoy the qualities of it that I do like (sharpness, and "bite" in the shadows, for instance). If I lived in the midwest, or another generally overcast area, I would use it a whole lot more.

 

[BetterSense]

If I lived in the midwest, or another generally overcast area, I would use it a whole lot more.

This is probably true of me as well since I live in texas, and like TriX because I can expose it like crazy but still not blow highlights out in a soft-working developer.