The New Kodak Tmax 400- A User Review

I have been shooting this film for the last month and based on my testing I feel that it is the finest 400 speed film I've ever used. I never was a fan of the older Tmax 400 for lots of reasons but this new film is a different beast. I have posted a quick review with sample pics on my web site:

www.figitalrevolution.com

Here is a direct link to the article:
The New Kodak Tmax 400 - Get Excited Kodak is Back!
Read the article, buy a roll and lets compare notes.

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

I think this "new Improved" tmax 400 is all a bunch of mythology and hooey. I don't believe any of the many people who claim they see great improvement have actually done side by side tests. I am sorry to pick your post to give my impression as you are one of many and I mean nothing personal and by the way welcome to APUG.

But I have done lots of side by side tests with new an old 120 TMY and processed them in XTOL and there is no way I will believe anyone who says they can see a difference. Except perhaps the new film has just a tiny bit more contrast.. which isn't a good thing necessarily. I have looked as closely at the grain as possible with maximum enlargement and 10 power loupe and if there is a difference in grain it is so slight as to make no practical difference.

As to the UV coating.. I don't see it and have printed the new and the old in platinum and they work the same.

I have just returned from shooting 29 rolls in Mexico and I mixed the new and old together and paid no attention to which I was using. I processed them together in XTOL straight. I have been printing them and have printed from 2 rolls each so far and for whatever reason the old film so far has made better prints than the new. But that is not a test as they are different situations. It does seem though that the old film prints have a glow the new film prints don't have.

I would without hesitation buy the old before the new if offered at a shop. When news first came out I was reading all the reports of the great improvement and how it was much finer grained (which is the improvement I am most interested in). I was very anxious to get the new film and made a fuss about getting it from B&H. I now feel that this was all a marketing ploy by Kodak and I fell for it.

I apologize for the negativity in your posting but I think this proclaiming the greatness is all a bunch of myth making and is mostly from people who didn't use the old and have just found out they like TMY.

Additional thoughts...

I appreciate your point of view but I have to disagree. I have looked at both films and I can see a difference- subtle but a difference. I am scanning at very high res and the numbers don't lie and I can magnify the grain at magnifications well beyond 10X (ps I do have a nice 10X loupe and a difference in my opinion can be seen at this mag but it is again its subtle. I don't believe that this film is the greatest film every made (never said so) and I too worry about myth making (anyone who has read any of my articles/ books about the Photo Industrial Complex would know that) but as of now it is my favorite 400 currently being made and for once I feel Kodak deserves a thumbs up for at least impoving a film (even if just a bit) instead of just stopping making it all together.

Stephen Schaub

Figital, I certainly appreciate you taking the time to put forth your findings, impressions, and opinions. As for contrary opinions, well, that is simply part of the dialogue that is APUG, and having a variety of opinions is healthy for discussion.

For myself, I am interested in trying out the new Tmax 400 in 4x5 as I have not been overly impressed with some of the HP5 results I have obtained. To be fair to HP5, I have not shot it extensively and some photo buddies have been getting excellent results with HP5 in Pyrocat (a combo I have yet to try).

In any event, thanks again for your posting. I agree that it is positive that some new film development is taking place (versus the discontinuation of long standing film types), and as a community, we at least have some obligation to give these new films a whirl and engage in some experimentation with an open mind.

Discussion is Key

MP_Wayne- I agree that discussion/ dialog is KEY and it is something I have always advocated since founding LIFE=ART (an online forum for artists to talk which my wife now runs) and now the Figital Revolution. I personally feel that companies (The Photo Industrial Complex) that make our products need a swift kick now and then and that sometimes they are really out of touch with what photographers want/ need but it seems to me that when they get it right or at least close they also deserve a bit (lets keep it small as we don't want it going to their head) praise. I'd love to hear your results on the 4x5 as my tests have been limited to 35mm. (My LF days are now only a memory). HP5 was never my favorite film...I tried to like it but it just wasn't my look. Lets keep talking.

Best-
Stephen

PS- I think the power of APUG is discussion and I for one am all for it.

Not that I have an opinion of the new film, I don't even use Tmax films. But I would like to raise a bravo to Kodak for actually putting a new black & white film on the market. It's pretty gutsy, and I almost want to try the film... (I use Tri-X and love it for what it is and don't intend to fix what's not broken).

Thanks for posting your article here. It was interesting reading.

- Thomas

Figital Revolution said:

MP_Wayne- I'd love to hear your results on the 4x5 as my tests have been limited to 35mm. (My LF days are now only a memory). HP5 was never my favorite film...I tried to like it but it just wasn't my look. Lets keep talking. Best-Stephen
PS- I think the power of APUG is discussion and I for one am all for it.

Click to expand...

Stephen,
I certainly felt you are fully supportive of APUG discussion. Sometimes I am disappointed at the tone and misdirection some threads take. The point of my previous post was to thank you for taking the time to share your results.

I too am looking forward to testing the 4x5 new TMax 400 (although I will probably have to order it from the USA as Canadian stock of the old stuff seems very healthy).

Have a great weekend.

If the new Tmax 400 were available in 220, I would be extremely interested. As it is, I'm merely curious.

Figital,

Thank you for sharing your experience with the new T-Max 400 speed film. As a favour to me and perhaps others, have a couple of questions for you regarding the processing of the film, which are as follows:

1) Did you find a noticeable decrease/increase requirement in fixing time?
2) Did you find developing time the same as the previous emulsion?
2) Did you find scanning measurably easier?

I understand that any observations you may have my be anecdotal but any insight would be appreciated.

Here are some answers or at least my opinions:

1. According to Kodak they indicate a 120/ 220 roll packaging but I suspect that only 120mm will be made (at least for now)...if anyone has any info on this please post it.
2. I am always a bit conservative on my fixing so I fix for 5 minutes using rapid fix (film strength) without hardner and it seems perfect...Kodak does indicate that this new film will exhaust fixer faster so check before you fix.
3. The processing times are slightly different than the old Tmax 400 but not alot. I have found the posted times by Kodak to be quite good, especially for scanning. I have a link to the PDF on the www.figitalrevolution.com web site under this article.
4. Scanning this film is very easy...on our Imacon I have developed a way to do wet mount scanning (oil). I scan using RGB Standard, 16 Bit- that is to say I scan b&w negatives as if they were transparencies (slides) and then in photoshop invert the file. I did some scanner tests at 3200 and 6300 optical dpi and it amazes me the at 6300 I am still not emphasizing grain...most 400 speed films (even those processed in PMK) can't really handle IMHO much more than 3200 (nor do they need it, 35mm). As a print I can easily enlarge a 35mm negative processed as indicated and scanned as mentioned above to around 16" x 24" with no visible grain. I try to always scan film just to the point of grain then use advanced interpolation technologies to gain my required print size as I'd rather not interpolate grain...never looks good in my opinion, unless of course I want grain. The artwork I posted in the article is 36" x 36" and it looks amazing (and that is my LF opinion).

I'd be interesed in hearing anyone who has tried to print this film in the wet darkroom.

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

dpurdy said:

I don't believe any of the many people who claim they see great improvement have actually done side by side tests.

But I have done lots of side by side tests with new an old 120 TMY and processed them in XTOL and there is no way I will believe anyone who says they can see a difference. Except perhaps the new film has just a tiny bit more contrast..

Click to expand...

I've done quite a bit of side by side testing. I do this by loading a Grafmatic with alternating sheets of the new and old. Then I take two exposures of each of three images and develop all six sheet together in the same tray of developer.

In my developer, Harvey's 777, which I admit is pretty esoteric, there is a dramatic difference in contrast. At least one stop, maybe 1.5. Speed, no. The shadows look the same to me. But the slope of the response curve is much higher with TMY-2. This could be something that is very sensitive to what kind of developer you're using.

I agree with you about sharpness and grain. There isn't a particle of difference that I can see under an 8X loupe. And if I need more magnification than that to see any difference, the difference is so miniscule as to be of no practical interest whatsoever.

Snapshot said:

1) Did you find a noticeable decrease/increase requirement in fixing time?
2) Did you find developing time the same as the previous emulsion?
2) Did you find scanning measurably easier?

Click to expand...

My experience:

1) No.
2) No. If I use the same time with the new emulsion my highlights will be blown.
3) I've never scanned either one.

I tried 3 different developers for my initial tests: PMK, D76 and Xtol (straight). The last was the one I settled on as it had slightly better highlights and more open shadows plus finer grain, the last due mostly to the straight Xtol developer. Scanning which is my only concern for these negatives benefits the most from Xtol and I do feel that the grain is somewhat tighter than the old TMY but hey that just my thoughts...I will agree that the contrast is a bit higher and I like it (once again for my workflow/ scanning requirement.) Also it should be noted that in most developers and all the developers I tested the processing times are different for the two emulsions (old/ new)...not alot but enough to be critical for a good comparision.

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

Stephen

I have been shooting the 35mm version of this film as well and have been processing it in a JOBO ATL1500 , D76, 75degrees at 5.5 minutes. The prints I have made so far are 11x11 cropping the full frame of neg to that. There is no grain present in these pictures, I agree Kodak has truly made this film better. I am sure I can push these negatives much further optically enlarged. I also shoot 120 and 4x5 so eventually I will be able to compare to 35mm. Just got 30 rolls of the 120, plan on testing some Monday. The 11x11 that I have hung on my walls is next to another 11x11 of the same subject but shot on EFKE 25. Just for fun when my Photography buddies come over I ask them to tell me which print was shot on the new TMAX 400. So far to date none of them have picked the right print yet, when I tell them which one they are blown away. I am very impressed with this film!

Jamie

Anyone care to post an enlarged segment of each film so that we can compare side-by-side to see if there is any difference in grain?

I would love to do that ic-racer since I am the nay saying nellie but I don't have the scanner for it. I only scan prints on my epson 3200 and I have to sharpen the heck out of stuff to get it to look almost as sharp as the original.

I have however taped a piece of each type film together and took them to the top of my Beseler 45 mxt with a 50mm Nikkor lens and examined them with a grain focuser. I actually purposely didn't keep track of which piece of film was the new or the old and did a "blind" test to see if I thought the new was finer. I picked the old film instead. But they are so similar that any difference could be put down as imagination.

The point I want to make is that if in using the film I don't experience anything about it that is an improvement then the improvement is either completely insignificant or a myth. And as to a company proclaiming mprovement, anyone remember the "New and Improved" Portriga Rapid when it replaced the old stuff in the mid 80s. I almost started crying in the darkroom when I tested it.

Loads nice. Winds on nice. Shoots nice. Fun to use. Unloads great. Keeps well. Develops nice. That's the really good part. I like the negatives. Great detail and seperation in tones. I think it is a great film. I'll leave the H&D's to you guys.

Christopher Walrath said:

Loads nice. Winds on nice. Shoots nice. Fun to use. Unloads great. Keeps well. Develops nice. That's the really good part. I like the negatives. Great detail and seperation in tones. I think it is a great film. I'll leave the H&D's to you guys.

Click to expand...

That is a really good point that shouldn't be lost. It is a good film and was a good film. It is my 400 speed film of choice and that isn't changed. And if getting a lot of people to try tmax 400 and they find they like it, that is a good thing as well. Keep Kodak making it.

I have compared the new TMY-2 to the old TMY in several developers and IMO there is no question but that the new film is an improvement over the old film. It has more resolution, which may or may not translate into sharpness depending on developer, dilution and type of agitation, and the grain is significantly finer. The differences are subtle, but quite real.

Choice of developer and type of agitation are sure to play a role in both grain and sharpness. And, how you evaluate the result will play a role. Three common ways are visually through a microscope, by printing at high magnification, and by evaluation of high resolution scans. There are many variables. My own evaluations have been made via the scanning route.

A friend from Atlanta sent me a scan of a TmY-2 negative made with a late Leica and modern Letiz optics, and developed in Tmax developer as I recall. The negative was scanned with a Howtek drum scanner, I assume at 4000 spi. The sharpness and fine grain was just stunning for an ASA 400 film.

Sandy King

I prefer the scanner method for eval of tonality and grain as it is easy to see and plot the results. I have written a non linear tone curve to use for my scanner which enables a greater degree of seperation in the shadows than most RGB spaces which are 2.2...I use this method with all my film scans but with this film/ developer combo it is just perfect for my needs.

I also agree with the comment that Kodak should be congradulated (in words and sales) on producing a fine film in a day when almost no one is even developing new analog materials. It is a good film and that is something which is getting harder and harder to find especially with any kind of quality control from roll to roll.

Just as a note the images I posted on www.figitalrevolution.com were not sharpened at all. In the scanning process I turn the sharpening off (-120 on an Imacon) and find that because they are wet mounted using Kami Solution no real sharpening is necessary in PS either.

Good stuff.

Best-
Stephen Schaub

dpurdy said:

The point I want to make is that if in using the film I don't experience anything about it that is an improvement then the improvement is either completely insignificant or a myth.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way.

I would try some now, but, after using T-max emulsions exclusively since the early 80s, my last big film purchase was all Ilford. I guess I predicted the next big T-max news was to be "discontinuation."

I will have to get a few rolls to check.

Figital Revolution said:

Just as a note the images I posted on www.figitalrevolution.com were not sharpened at all. In the scanning process I turn the sharpening off (-120 on an Imacon) and find that because they are wet mounted using Kami Solution no real sharpening is necessary in PS either.

Good stuff.

Best-
Stephen Schaub

Click to expand...

I only see the new T-max, where is the comparison?

sanking said:

My own evaluations have been made via the scanning route.

Click to expand...

There ARE many variables, but you did keep then constant from film-to-film when doing the evaluations, right? Can we see the scans?

Figital Revolution said:

I prefer the scanner method for eval of tonality and grain as it is easy to see and plot the results. I have written a non linear tone curve to use for my scanner which enables a greater degree of seperation in the shadows than most RGB spaces which are 2.2...I use this method with all my film scans but with this film/ developer combo it is just perfect for my needs.

I also agree with the comment that Kodak should be congradulated (in words and sales) on producing a fine film in a day when almost no one is even developing new analog materials. It is a good film and that is something which is getting harder and harder to find especially with any kind of quality control from roll to roll.

Just as a note the images I posted on www.figitalrevolution.com were not sharpened at all. In the scanning process I turn the sharpening off (-120 on an Imacon) and find that because they are wet mounted using Kami Solution no real sharpening is necessary in PS either.

Good stuff.

Best-
Stephen Schaub

Click to expand...

Hi Stephen,

Your methodology appears to be very sound, and I agree with your findings.

I also wet mount in my comparison scans, and use no sharpening. I am fairly certain that Don Hutton would have wet mount his negatives for the Howtek 4500 scan.

BTW, I have an article in the current issue of View Camera magazine which compares TMY and TMY-2. I used D76 1:1 for the large format tests, but did other tests with TMY-2 in 120 format in a pyro staining developer.

Sandy King

sanking said:

Hi Stephen,

Your methodology appears to be very sound, and I agree with your findings.

I also wet mount in my comparison scans, and use no sharpening. I am fairly certain that Don Hutton would have wet mount his negatives for the Howtek 4500 scan.

BTW, I have an article in the current issue of View Camera magazine which compares TMY and TMY-2. I used D76 1:1 for the large format tests, but did other tests with TMY-2 in 120 format in a pyro staining developer.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

Sandy- I use to spend my time testing for different analog companies and writting for PhotoVision Magazine with my wife Eve Ogden Schaub(seems like a million years ago).

The past few years I've been working almost exclusively with digital technologie companies developing RIPS, new papers and advanced printing solutions. It is very nice now in 2008 to completely blend the last 20 years into a complete package.

I will pickup a copy of View Camera Magazine next time I'm out and look forward to reading your article.

Best-
Stephen Schaub