TMAX 400 II - Erwin P. review

You can make a pyro developer non-staining by increasing the sulfite, which could also smooth out the grain, depending on the final dilution. If you reduce the sulfite enough, it's possible to make a staining developer out of hydroquinone, but I've never tried it.

You can substitute hydroquinone for catechol in the Pyrocat formulas. The color will be different, more toward the red than either catechol or pyrogallol, but cheaper to practise with. It's just as soluble in glycol. If you don't like the stain, you can add a bunch of sulfite

Instead of speculating, some one could just email him and ask how he came to the readings he did.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't bite and you'll get an answer.

Harry Lime said:

Instead of speculating, some one could just email him and ask how he came to the readings he did.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't bite and you'll get an answer.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? His SNEER toward film permeates his website, why give him the time of day?

At least I know what developer not to use for this film. I'm not sure what he means by a "true 400 speed film", but he is correct saying that to get any shadow detail you better drop the film speed... to about 150 according to those numbers.

Saganich said:

At least I know what developer not to use for this film. I'm not sure what he means by a "true 400 speed film", but he is correct saying that to get any shadow detail you better drop the film speed... to about 150 according to those numbers.

Click to expand...

I haven't tried TMY-2 yet since I still have plenty of the older stuff around, and I can't believe that Kodak would release something that didn't at least meet the standards of the older film. They make a good product and their track record is better than good when it comes to their decriptions of the technical characteristics of their products. Rated at EI 400 and developed in Xtol 1+1, I get plenty of shadow detail provided, of course, that I meter properly.

fschifano said:

I haven't tried TMY-2 yet since I still have plenty of the older stuff around, and I can't believe that Kodak would release something that didn't at least meet the standards of the older film. They make a good product and their track record is better than good when it comes to their decriptions of the technical characteristics of their products. Rated at EI 400 and developed in Xtol 1+1, I get plenty of shadow detail provided, of course, that I meter properly.

Click to expand...

I agree with your comment about film speed, and have done a lot of sensitometry with other developers that give full film speed.

Anyone who claims that the new TMY-2 gives less film speed than the old version most likely has no idea how to test film speed.

Sandy

sanking said:

.........Anyone who claims that the new TMY-2 gives less film speed than the old version most likely has no idea how to test film speed.

Sandy

Click to expand...

Of course it would be very strange if the new film were slower than the old version.

We were just trying to understand how Erwin could find Zone_1 to be 0.01 and then say that the film speed is true ISO 400. Especially when mentioning Ansel Adams, who suggested something very significantly different. According to AA's guidelines, Erwin has a film/developer combination that gives about EI=125.

An explanation might be that Erwin has his own type of film speed test in which a true 400 speed film gives 0.01 at Zone_1. This might account for him not much liking 400 speed films.

john_s said:

An explanation might be that Erwin has his own type of film speed test in which a true 400 speed film gives 0.01 at Zone_1. This might account for him not much liking 400 speed films.

Click to expand...

That would be rather bizarre. An alternate explanation might be that Erwin has no clue how to test for true film speed.

Course, he may have meant 0.10 at Zone 1 rather than 0.01 at Zone 1?

Regardless, by my tests the old and new TMY have almost identical film speed.

Sandy

Kino said:

Are you kidding? His SNEER toward film permeates his website, why give him the time of day?

Click to expand...

No, I'm not. Have you actually looked at his site or read some of his articles? Puts didn't start writing about digital, until just about two or three years ago. He still shoots film (actually a mix of film and digital) and has been rather evenhanded in regards to both. And lets face it, both media have their advantage and are superior to each other in certain areas. That's just being honest.

If you want to read a real put down review of the new Tmax 400 get the latest issue of PDN. Pretty much, It's film, why would anyone bother anymore?

I actually developed my first roll of 645. I'm going to try printing tonight.

sanking said:

Anyone who claims that the new TMY-2 gives less film speed than the old version most likely has no idea how to test film speed.

Sandy

Click to expand...

I found the speeds identical, but TMY-2 has a curve with greater slope. Still straight as a die, just like the old one, but I need to give it about a stop less development than TMY.

Tom Duffy said:

If you want to read a real put down review of the new Tmax 400 get the latest issue of PDN. Pretty much, It's film, why would anyone bother anymore?

I actually developed my first roll of 645. I'm going to try printing tonight.

Click to expand...

Shows how little I know. What is PDN? For me this means Mark Nelson's Precision Digital Negative system.

But I know Mark and don't think he would put down film?

Sandy King

sanking said:

What is PDN?
Sandy King

Click to expand...

Photo District News.

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/index.jsp

sanking said:

......Course, he may have meant 0.10 at Zone 1 rather than 0.01 at Zone 1?

Sandy

Click to expand...

Doesn't look like it: see his Zones II and III

Zone III = 0.13
Zone II = 0.04
Zone I = 0.01

Harry Lime said:

No, I'm not. Have you actually looked at his site or read some of his articles? Puts didn't start writing about digital, until just about two or three years ago. He still shoots film (actually a mix of film and digital) and has been rather evenhanded in regards to both. And lets face it, both media have their advantage and are superior to each other in certain areas. That's just being honest.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did, that is why I made that comment.

I only sampled three of his latest articles, but each one had some condescending remark about if you were unfortunate to still be shooting film, etc...

Whatever, I really don't wish to turn this into a running battle but I do reserve the right to point out this bias in current articles, regardless of whatever might have been written in the past.

I'm done.

KODAK 400 TMAX "new"

With which other film has the new TMAX 400 being compared up to now? I've seen so far no tests with other 400 ISO films!

I didn't take his comments as being dismissive about film. I took them as expressing some regret, some frustration, and some resignation about where film now stands in the "mainstream" of photography.

There certainly is some irony there too.

Matt

Kino said:

Whatever, I really don't wish to turn this into a running battle but I do reserve the right to point out this bias in current articles, regardless of whatever might have been written in the past.

I'm done.

Click to expand...

Well, good for you.

Erwin has revised his comments about his densitometer measurements. From the first version of his web site:
<start of quote>
The tonal values are measured with the densitometer and are as follows:

fog = 0.23

Zone V = 0.43
Zone IV = 0.27
Zone III = 0.13
Zone II = 0.04
Zone I = 0.01
Zone VI = 0.58
Zone VII = 0.77
Zone VIII = 0.98
Zone IX = 1.13
<end of quote>
========================================================
From today's version:
<start of quote>
The tonal values are measured with the densitometer and are as follows: (NOTE: updated values: previous data were not based on Zone system ranges, but on my own preferences. As there has been some discussion about the value of these numbers I have now given the values as required by the Zone System: fim is quite flexible in its behavior! ). Bold numbers are the Zone System ranges

fog = 0.30
Zone V = 0.85 (0.65 to 0.75)
Zone IV = 0.59 (0.46 to 0.54)
Zone III = 0.32 (0.27 to 0.33)
Zone II = 0.16 (0.18 to 0.22)
Zone I = 0.06 (0.09 to 0.11)
Zone VI = 1.07 (0.83 to 0.97)
Zone VII = 1.32 (1.00 to 1.20)
Zone VI = 1.63 (1.18 to 1.42)
Zone IX = 1.85 (1.35 to 1.63)
Zone X = 2.05 (1.45 to 1.85)


These values tell you that the film is a true ISO400, but for best shadow results a half stop over exposure would be helpful. Exposing the film as EI=320 and less development time will produce a tonal scale that is almost identical to the ideal values of the Ansel Adams Zone System.

<end of quote>

I still don't get it. The measurements have changed, but how? He has not said how they differ.

> I still don't get it. The measurements have changed, but how? He has not said > how they differ.

It looks like the film is developed more, raising fog and contrast.
That causes diffrent numbers when measuring densities.

-j

ps: please correct me if i am wrong

Yes I don't get it either, the fog seem to be a similar value to zone III, could this be correct?
I thought that you measured the base fog (normally < 0.10) and put your first zone 0.3 (1 stop) after that.
Why is zone I lower than fog and not just that lower than any d-min I've measured?
Confused :confused:

I learned to measure it as (densitometer reading) minus (film base plus fog), which seems to be what the Internet expert referred to is doing.
From some past film tests I have done I got Fortepan 400 having film base plus fog = 0.35 & Tri-X was 0.29, both for 35mm.

Then I read my zone densities & subtract the film base plus fog to get the number I will use.
e.g. Tri-X zone III = .64 from the densitometer, but this is counting the base & fog, so I deduct the .29 which leaves .35 as the zone III density.

So his new numbers look quite reasonable to me.

Reaction from Erwin Puts

I asked Edwin Puts what he means with his data in that article.

He wrote me back.

Beste Harry,

de metingen zijn netto, dus na aftrek van de sluier.

Ik weet dat het stricte zonesysteem aanbeveelt om als zone 1 een
densiteit van 0,10 aan te houden. Dat is in de praktjjk van de
kleinbeeldfilm een bijna onhaalbare zaak. Dan moet je inderdaad een
gevoeligheidsverlaging van twee stops incalculeren. En de praktijk
geeft aan dat schaduw details in zone 1 (dat is vier stops
onderbelichting) bijna nooit nodig zijn. Ook de officiele ISO metingen
gaan niet uit van een densiteit van 0.10 voor zone 1. Meestal is het
voldoende om in zone 2 een densiteit van 0.06 tot 0.12 te hebben.
Daarop zijn mijn conclusie gebaseerd. Ook is al langer aangetoond dat
de moderne TMAx en Delta films een geringere densiteit in de schaduwen
kunnen hebben en toch nog differentiatie van toonwaarden opleveren.
Deze films gedragen zich anders an d eklassieke films waarop Ansel
Adams zijn systeem baseerde. Zie ook de nieuwe grafieken in de
uitgebreide versie van het artikel.

Hoop dit ligt een tipje van de sluier op?

Groeten en bedankt voor de link

Erwin

In English
Dear Harry
The values are netto, thus after subtracting the fog.

I know that the Zonesystem advised to keep for Zone I a density of 0.10.
In practise with 35mm film this is not realistic.
In that case you need to calculate with a reduced sensitivity of about 2 stops.
Normally shadow details in Zone I are not really neccesary (that’s 4 stops under-exposure).
Even official ISO tests aren’t based on 0.10 for Zone I.
Mostly it’s enough to have a density of 0.06 to 0.12 for Zone II.
I based my conclusions on that.
It is also known that modern emulsions like T-Max and Delta films can have less density in the shadows with still a good differentiation in tonality.
These kind of films expected to behave different than the classic films where on AA’s Zonesystem is based.
Look at the new graphics in the extended version of my article.
Hope this will give you some more background.
Greating and thanks for the link.
Erwin

========================================

Hoi Harry,
ik heb de gegevens in het artikel nu bijgewerkt met een densiteits
range die beter overeen komt met de Zone systeem waarden van AA. je
ziet dat er heel wat flexibiiteit is in de belichting en ontwikkeling.
IK ben zelf niet zo een voorstamder van het zonesysteem en ga uit van
lagere waarden die meer scherpte opleveren. Maar je kan zonder meer zo
ontwikkelen dat de getallen goed overeenkomen.
Sorry voor de verwarring
Erwin


I translated this for you;
Erwin wrote:
I changed the values mentioned in the article with a density-range that fits more the values of the AA’s Zonesystem.
You can see that there is a lot of flexibility in exposure and development.
I am not a great fan of the zonesystem and I use lower values who delivers more sharpness.
But you can, without any doubt, develop the film at a way that the densities wil match with AA’s Zonesystem.
My apologize for the confusion
Erwin

Maybe this will give you some more insight.

I hope he will pop in and take over the discussion.

I'd say that means that with his original values, he's targeting his negs to print at about grade III (or perhaps for scanning), which is a reasonable practice for 35mm, to minimize grain and maximize sharpness, and if he gives more exposure (rating at EI 250), that should produce better shadow separation, but then I think it would be useful to see the densities at EI 250, and I'd likely call it EI 250 in that developer. I don't think "true EI 400 film" is really meaningful. A film has a speed in a developer, and in AM-50 with the Heiland processor and Puts' agitation settings, it would seem to be less than 400.

I'd call the second set of values a bit overdeveloped, or maybe targeted to print on grade I with a diffusion enlarger. Zone VIII (there's a typo in the table--says "Zone VI" for Zone VIII) should be around 1.2-1.3.