The New Kodak Tmax 400- A User Review

I just tried it in Rodinal and wow, 1-25 it has really fine grain and 1-50 its still is quite fine but also super sharp. I'm going to buy some more.

I find myself bemused when I see 120 roll film described as: 120mm

Claire Senft said:

I find myself bemused when I see 120 roll film described as: 120mm

Click to expand...

One hell of a punch from the 120mm. This one is definitely high yield that can ruin any ones day on impact. 120mm ammunition smooth bore cannon system for the Germany Leopard II tank.

Have a good day.

Just finished densitometry of the new TMY-2 and don't find a difference with respect to curve shape. Contrast increases towards the highlights. Times are shorter and, therefore, consistency is even more difficult to keep when not using an automated processor. For me this sums up to: If you disliked the old one, you probably won't like the new one as well. BTW. I like the old one in Xtol, D76 as well as Pyrocat HD.

best

Stefan

Chazzy said:

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

Click to expand...

Same goes for ANY film........

Figital Revolution said:

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.

Best-
Stephen Schaub

Click to expand...

I received 2 rolls from EK in Rochester, and put them through my Mamiya M645 Pro, and processed in T-Max developer 1:4. During all previous tests during the preceding 20 years this film has been available, I've beed extremely disappointed by it in all respects.

The new emulsion while showing better contrast upon inspection of the negative, still gave only slightly improved performance when scanned. Prints made in the darkroom on grade 3 paper while better than previous incarnations, still paled compared to both Efke 25 and Fomapan 100 and 400 (all done in Rodinal 1:50).

Of course results from one of my Rolleis might have fared better, same as your testing made with Leica lenses. Due to the state-of-the-art lenses on these respective cameras. But I'm not thrilled enough to have a 2nd go.

If it works for you....great. But as the saying goes: YMMV.

Rolleijoe

TMY-2 works for me, extremely well. Expose at box speed, develop in pyrocat-hd. Got the best reciprocity characteristic of any film available. It can build density better than anything I've used. I'm using it for everything, except the 7x17; 35mm, 120, 4x5, and 8x10. I dunno how anyone can be disapointed with it, but of course, YMMV.

Some recent examples in (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and (there was a url link here which no longer exists). The barbershop window was high contrast and lit by direct sun.

Claire Senft said:

I find myself bemused when I see 120 roll film described as: 120mm

Click to expand...

Me too. Never have understood it.

Or 135 film described as: 35mm ?

(I know, there are some interconnections between the size of the film stock, and a measurement of 35mm)

Matt

dynachrome said:

I don't agree that the old TMY has finer grain than the current version of Tri-X. In most of the developers I have used the current version of Tri-X has finer grain than that of the old TMY. This may be why Kodak worked on TMY. In a few weeks I will finally have a chance to test the new TMY which I have in 120 size. I don't know exactly what I'll find but I don't expect to see a dramatic difference in an 8X8" or 8X10" print from a 120 negative.

Click to expand...

RMS granularity for Tri-X is 17, the old TMY 11, and the current one, 10.

I sort of trust Kodak in these objective tests. While your mileage may vary, it won't change the relative positioning of the films.