Testing TMAX 400 (New)

[shicks5319]

I have recently tested the new TMAX 400 in 4X5 sheets and have come up with an interesting observation.

I have used TriX, the old TMAX and some of the Ilford films. When targeting Zone I at .1 above film base, all of these films want to be shot at something slower than box speed.

However, I am finding that the new TMax is actually a little faster and my tests indicate that I should rate it at box speed.

Before I get worried about my chemicals (I'm using HC-110), I thought I'd ask the group here if anyone has similar experience.

Has anyone else found that this new film is actually a little faster than the old TMAX?

 

[sanking]

I have recently tested the new TMAX 400 in 4X5 sheets and have come up with an interesting observation.

I have used TriX, the old TMAX and some of the Ilford films. When targeting Zone I at .1 above film base, all of these films want to be shot at something slower than box speed.

However, I am finding that the new TMax is actually a little faster and my tests indicate that I should rate it at box speed.

Before I get worried about my chemicals (I'm using HC-110), I thought I'd ask the group here if anyone has similar experience.

Has anyone else found that this new film is actually a little faster than the old TMAX?

I have tested the new TMY in several developers next to the old TMY and film speed was virtually identical.

Sandy King

 

[hal9000]

I tested the KB version for 0.1 above b+f and got exactly box speed as my result. Never tested the old version.

 

[shicks5319]

mystery solved

Sandy and Hal9000,

thanks for responding. I feel stupid admitting this, but it turns out I have been using a meter that I THOUGHT was calibrated with my other meters. Turns out its off by a full stop, which of course made my tests erroneous.

Sorry to have troubled the forum with this.

 

[Mahler_one]

Thanks for the clarification. Needless to say, all of us make similar errors.

So, I guess that thus far the differences shown have been pretty minimal at that...regarding all of the hoopla with the release of the new Tmax 400-similar to the fan fare when Rollei R3 film was released? Lots of promise, but not much substance? When photographers with the well deserved reputation of John Sexton "suggest" a major advantage when using a newly released film many of us sit up and take notice. I suppose more answers are still to come.

Ed

 

[Amund]

Thanks for the clarification. Needless to say, all of us make similar errors.

So, I guess that thus far the differences shown have been pretty minimal at that...regarding all of the hoopla with the release of the new Tmax 400-similar to the fan fare when Rollei R3 film was released? Lots of promise, but not much substance? When photographers with the well deserved reputation of John Sexton "suggest" a major advantage when using a newly released film many of us sit up and take notice. I suppose more answers are still to come.

Ed

Nah, my impression from the photographs I`ve seen from TMY-2 is that it`s a totally different film without that awful grain I`ve always disliked in 35mm.

R3 is something way different, the worst film I`ve ever tried...

 

[Figital Revolution]

Thanks for the clarification. Needless to say, all of us make similar errors.

So, I guess that thus far the differences shown have been pretty minimal at that...regarding all of the hoopla with the release of the new Tmax 400-similar to the fan fare when Rollei R3 film was released? Lots of promise, but not much substance? When photographers with the well deserved reputation of John Sexton "suggest" a major advantage when using a newly released film many of us sit up and take notice. I suppose more answers are still to come.

Ed

I feel that the new TMY-2 is a move forward from the old TMY but it is lots of little advances rather than one big leap. It has (in my opinion) better grain (subtle), better resolving power (subtle), better contrast (subtle)...to me 3 subtles = a better film...and even if it is just a little bit better this is better than discontinued.

I have posted two articles on this film on my web site: www.figitalrevolution.com as well as discussion here on APUG...my testing is on 35mm.

Article: ONE
TWO

Best-
Stephen Schaub
www.figitalrevolution.com
www.ystrap.com
www.indianhillimageworks.com

PS- I agree that this film is box speed...has been in the last 3 developers I tested.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I feel that the new TMY-2...has (in my opinion)...better contrast...

What makes a change in contrast index (CI) "better?" Why would an increase or decrease be an improvement? Wouldn't either simply require changing development time so the target CI for one's printing method is retained?

 

[c6h6o3]

What makes a change in contrast index (CI) "better?" Why would an increase or decrease be an improvement? Wouldn't either simply require changing development time so the target CI for one's printing method is retained?

In my case the change in slope of the linear portion of the curve makes it easier to match my paper of choice, grade 2 Azo. It therefore means that I can make my ever dwindling cache of precious grade 3 Azo last a lot longer. So for me it represents a dramatic and much appreciated improvement.

However, I think your point is well taken. If I weren't exclusively a contact printer, I would find the higher CI more difficult to control and therefore no improvement at all; in fact, quite the contrary.