Temptation aka TMAX 400-2

[david b]

I printed some TMY2 negs last night.

Very easy.

Nice contrast and tones.

Very nice smooth grain.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Harry,

I always expose the film at it's rated ISO of 400. Unless the light is very flat, and I might underexpose a little bit and overdevelop.
To suit different lighting conditions I adjust my processing, which is very easy to do with Xtol. I practice a lot of reduced agitation in up to three or even five minute intervals.
This film is the only film I use these days, except for scraps of old stuff that are left over from the days of experimentation (10 rolls or less left to work through).

I don't do much street shooting, I usually have time to calculate my exposures, so the extra care you have to take with exposure and processing I would have taken with Tri-X as well.

- 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.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

David,

That's just it. Most of the negs I get with TMY and TMY-2 are so easy to print. It's amazing how everything just seems to fall into place without much burning and dodging required.

- Thomas

I printed some TMY2 negs last night.

Very easy.

Nice contrast and tones.

Very nice smooth grain.

 

[Mahler_one]

One cannot develop by inspection with the new Tmax 400. I realize that such technique is not used by many here; I am just learning the ins and outs in order to see if DBI has any advantages in the way that I print using Lodima and Azo. Also, as pointed out on Ed Buffaloe's site in an interesting article by Clay Harmon, TMax 400 might not be the best film to use ( developing with Pyrocat ) in high contrast situations wherein HP5 could yield "better" negatives. Finally, as stated...the price of Tmax 400.

 

[BetterSense]

Why can't you develop TMY by inspection?

 

[david b]

Thomas,
I probably should not say this out loud, but this film is just so easy to use and to print.

As I mentioned in this thread or somewhere else, I expose the film at 400.
I use a two stop Orange filter and I use xtol 1+1 for 9 minutes at 68 degrees.

I have yet to do a plus or minus development as I don't see where it is needed (with my exposures).

I am planning on doing some 14x14 enlargements this weekend. I will let you know how it goes.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

When you develop by inspection, you use a green safelight. Some dyes in the film prevent you from seeing what actually is going on.
You want to inspect the base side of the film when you do this, to judge how the highlights are coming along, and those dyes are probably bullet proof because you can't see much. I've tried it in the past, and while you should be able to see something (I at least thought I did), it's infinitely more difficult than with something like FP4+ or Tri-X.

- Thomas

Why can't you develop TMY by inspection?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Sounds good, David. I'll be delighted to hear how you fared.

I recently did some 10x10 enlargements (about as large as my darkroom will permit), and the TMY / Xtol negs printed like a dream, while I had to fight some Tri-X/Rodinal and Tri-X/HC-110 negs. That could well be because I didn't completely master those combinations; but it still felt like a wrestling match and I wasted many sheets of paper to get it right. To me it makes sense to spend money on film and chemistry, because it saves me a ton of money at the printing stage.

- Thomas

Thomas,
I probably should not say this out loud, but this film is just so easy to use and to print.

As I mentioned in this thread or somewhere else, I expose the film at 400.
I use a two stop Orange filter and I use xtol 1+1 for 9 minutes at 68 degrees.

I have yet to do a plus or minus development as I don't see where it is needed (with my exposures).

I am planning on doing some 14x14 enlargements this weekend. I will let you know how it goes.

 

[Harry Lime]

What is everyone using in terms of developer? XTOL? TMAX Developer? D76? Rodinal? Pixiedust?

thanks

 

[Richard Wasserman]

I flip flop between replenished Xtol and Pyrocat HD. I seem to be settling on the Xtol for 135, and Pyrocat for 120 and 4x5.

Richard Wasserman

 

[Bruce Watson]

What is everyone using in terms of developer? XTOL? TMAX Developer? D76? Rodinal? Pixiedust?

thanks

I'm using XTOL 1:3 for my 5x4 TMY-2. Processing in a Jobo 3010 tank, so continuous agitation. The 1:3 dilution gives a touch more sharpness than stock, but at the expense of a touch more graininess. I suspect that most people use the 1:1 dilution. I'm using 1:3 because I like the longer development time, and I'm using the developer one-shot anyway.

Works for me. Clearly YMMV.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Xtol replenished. I don't play around with developers anymore. It seems to work for all kinds of lighting by tweaking time and agitation.

- Thomas

 

[david b]

I am using xtol 1+1

 

[mhanc]

Xtol stock - wanted to be mindful of the grain as I shoot a decent amount of 35mm with TMY-2 and I generally like 10x enlargments: 9.33" x 14" to preserve the 2:3 aspect ratio. thus far grain has not been a real issue for me so i will be giving 1:1 a try, initially for 120, to get a feel for how it affects the shadows and highlights.

like, i have seen posted in another thread here: grain whispers at you from six inches away while tonality screams at you from across the room -- or something to that effect.

 

[tom_bw]

They are very different, to be sure. I use TMY2 for the most part (ISO200, Rodinal 1:50 10'). I have used TriX a little here and there. Bottom line, based on my observations, there are some scenarios where TMY2 shines, others where TriX seems to be a better match. The trick, in my mind, it to choose the film for what you are trying to shoot. Also, though I am 90% TMY2, I periodically throw in a roll of TriX or something else - it is quite refreshing to see the change from time to time.

 

[Harry Lime]

The end of an affair....

Well, it's over. It was fun while it lasted, but I'm going home to Tri-X.

TMAX2-400 is a brilliant film. The grain is astonishing for a film of this speed and with the proper exposure and processing it delivers beautiful results.

But we just weren't made for each other.

Reason number one?

Tmax-2 simply doesn't look like my pictures. Over the years I have developed a certain look for my work that is the result of a combination of lenses, exposure technique, development and film stock.

Tmax-2 just doesn't look like what I have in my head, even though it delivers better performance in certain areas than Tri-X.

Someone mentioned that Tmax looks more 'digital' and to a certain extend I think that is true. Tri-X is one step further removed from reality and I like that.

Tri-X is also more forgiving for my kind of work. I mainly shoot street photography and documentary work and often there isn't the time to get the exposure as accurate, as it should be. Unless I do something superbly stupid, Tri-X seems to just roll with the punches and still deliver a useable image.

Anyhow, I will keep Tmax-2 in my arsenal. It's a valuable tool and under the right circumstances an excellent choice. I'm going to continue to experiment with it; in particular I'm curious how it holds up to push processing.

 

[clayne]

Harry, how does TMY handle over-exposure? Does it saturate and compress highlights like Tri-X (and most other "friendly" films)? Also, where can I see your stuff?

 

[Harry Lime]

Harry, how does TMY handle over-exposure? Does it saturate and compress highlights like Tri-X (and most other "friendly" films)? Also, where can I see your stuff?

I metered Tmax a little more accurate than Tri-X and started to bias the exposure to favor the highlights. Sort of like what you do for slide film.

My initial mistake was to overdevelop the film, which seems to build contrast very quickly. Therefore I reduced the development time to 3 min.

Barry Thornton's 2-bath for 3 minutes. Minimal agitation in bath A and no agitation in bath B.

I haven't posted any of the Tmax images on my site. That's all Tri-X.

Take a look here:

www.elanphotos.com