Tmax 100 and 400 - what's the difference?

[tkamiya]

I am wondering if someone with experience can tell me the real difference between Tmax 400 and 100 other than the ISO speed difference.

According to Kodak's product selection matrix here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e103bf/e103bf.pdf

Tmax 100 is recommended for fine arts and landscape and just about everything else.

Tmax 400 is NOT suggested for fine arts and landscape.

Interestingly enough, one of the picture showcased on Tmax 400 page here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw/tMax400.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1231/13399

is a landscape work.

I understand 100 has finer grain than 400 but 400 is not bad either. In fact, it is as good or better than ISO 100 "stuff" I used to use back in the old days.

Is there a particular reason why Kodak is making these distinctions between two films in the same family?

Yes, I understand there is NOTHING preventing me from using any film for any purpose - as long as it meets my criteria. But I am sure Kodak had good reasons to make these recommendations.

Rather than e-mailing Kodak tech support, I'd like to hear the opinion of veterans here.

Thank you.

 

[Anon Ymous]

That photograph you mention at your post was shot with large format film. Moderate enlargements of 4x5 film won't look grainy.

 

[removed account4]

tkamiya

the best way to know the differences between them is to use them ...
and i think if you used both films you would not notice much of a difference in the two of them.

have fun
john

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

The big difference for some alt users in the lack of a UV blocker in the new Tmax400.

 

[wildbill]

300

 

[MikeSeb]

I find 100TMX to be quite a bit contrastier by nature. I guess that's true of all slower films, in general, compared to faster films.

They are both excellent films; however, I'm slowly migrating to 400TMY-2 as my sole B&W film.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

TMAX 400 is a great all-around film when you want a clean, sharp look. Tri-X is for when you want that more traditional look. In medium format, it's becoming my favourite landscape/nature film.

TMAX 100 is not just the T-grain equivalent of Plus-X, it's also a film that was designed from the ground up to replace most, if not all of Kodak's technical films (copy, high contrast, astrophotography, B&W slides, internegatives, etc) by the use of various developers.

 

[tkamiya]

I guess only thing I can do is really buy one of each and setup some test sessions... But, I think I'll stick with Tmax series for now... I'd rather know these films really well than to know a bit of every kind.

Thanks for all the replies.

 

[MattKing]

The other thing to realize is that Tmax 400 (TMY-2) has recently been significantly upgraded, and as a result is almost certainly closer in grain to Tmax 100 (TMX) than its predecessor.

I wonder if there is any likelihood that there will be a TMX-2?

Matt

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

The other thing to realize is that Tmax 400 (TMY-2) has recently been significantly upgraded, and as a result is almost certainly closer in grain to Tmax 100 (TMX) than its predecessor.

I wonder if there is any likelihood that there will be a TMX-2?

Matt

A Kodak representative, interviewed with John Sexton (podcast is available somewhere on Kodak's website) mentioned that Kodak intended to revamp tmx along with tmy but found that the improvements were minimal and not worth altering production.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

One of each will tell you very little about how they look and what the differences are. This is because it takes a lot more than one roll to exploit the full potential of the film.

With that said, Mike Seb is correct that Tmax 400 is more linear than Tmax 100. Tmax 100 builds contrast faster than the 400, so you will have to alter your processing to compensate for that. When I use Tmax 100 I always slow down my agitation cycles to longer intervals, unless the lighting is flat, to hold back highlight development. The beautiful thing about both the Tmax films is that they respond very well to processing alterations like that.

Tmax 100 has a UV blocking layer in it that is not present in the 400.

Both are exceptional films, and you can use either film however you like. I think it's rather unproductive of Kodak to recommend a certain film for a certain use, when they in fact know nothing of what look their customers like and desire. Use Tmax 400 for landscape work all you want. If you don't like it, try the 100! Or the other way around. Only you can tell what you like.

My choice is mainly with the 400 film, even in 35mm. Because I find that I get a better yield per roll with it, and I like shooting hand held. Those extra two stops of film speed is a God sent in low light.

I guess only thing I can do is really buy one of each and setup some test sessions... But, I think I'll stick with Tmax series for now... I'd rather know these films really well than to know a bit of every kind.

Thanks for all the replies.

 

[Lee L]

TMAX 100 is not just the T-grain equivalent of Plus-X, it's also a film that was designed from the ground up to replace most, if not all of Kodak's technical films (copy, high contrast, astrophotography, B&W slides, internegatives, etc) by the use of various developers.

I recall that TMX was initially most prominently promoted by Kodak as a replacement for Panatomic-X, not for Plus-X. We no longer have Panatomic-X or Tech Pan, but Plus-X is still in production. So Kodak was pretty straightforward about what their goals were with TMX. If you asked what Kodak recommended as the replacement for Panatomic-X or Tech Pan after they discontinued them, the stock answer was TMX.

Lee

 

[Denis K]

Tmax 100 has a UV blocking layer in it that is not present in the 400.

It is probably better to just say that TMX significantly attenuates UV post-development, whereas post-development TMY does not block UV. I don't think anyone has yet released details about what layers do what during exposure in TMX and TMY, and what happens to these layers during development. Putting it this way does not conflict as much with the fact that TMY is reputed to have a different roll-off in the blue region.

Denis K

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

However you see fit, Denis. But even Kodak themselves say that a UV blocker is incorporated in the Tmax 100, and that they purposely avoided this with the 400 to be cognizant of folks using the film with UV exposure units for alt process. I took it for granted that it would be in a layer, hence my choice of words...

 

[doughowk]

I read somewhere that T-Max 400 preferred dev temp is 75f, which makes it ideal for me in Florida. I've used it in 120mm, 4X5 and 8X10; and am really impressed with its quality. I usually expose for 1-2 stops more to take advantage of its long straight line. I had given up on the yellow box company until they came out with this film.