TMAX 400 & Neopan 400 FWIW..

FWIW, here are tow different shots each made with TMAX 400 and Neopan 400. Both rolls were developed in XTOL 1:1. Different tanks but in the same session

I used my RB67 and had two backs. A 120 back loaded with Neopan 400 and a 645 back loaded with TMAX 400. I don't have 2, 120 backs... I used the same body, lens, tripod, lighting, f/stop and speed for each. Only change the back for each shot.

I thought the results were interesting and showed the difference between the two films.

Interesting and thanks. Did you stick to the recommended(Kodak) times for each? Are these scans of the negs? I haven't used TMax but I have used Neopan 400 and found it more contrasty than Ilford films such as HP5+, FP4+, D100, D400 and yet it looks as if Tmax gives even more contrasty negs still.

I think on balance I prefer the Fuji negs but were I to see another 10 comparisons I accept that I might prefer some TMax negs and some Fuji negs.

pentaxuser

The big difference between TMY2 and Neopan is that TMY2 has a perfectly linear scale over a huge range,
while Neopan 400 has a strong shoulder. I've included Kodak's Xtol curves as a reference, and while images are always more useful than graphs, using the excellent data from Kodak and Fuji (Kodak, more so) is a good reference.

First, the graphs show that TMY is not so much contrasty as it is neutral. We see in the graph that at lower CI, TMY and Neopan have practically the same response across their range. Given more contrast, the films have similar contrast in their shadows, but Neopan begins to lower the image contrast in the highlights.

The pictures showing the binding of your fiddle, and the figure of the wood, suggest the difference is due more to variations in the development and less to nature of the films. Neopan and TMY2 can reproduce this subject exactly the same. I think if the Neopan had more development, the images would match. Pretty fiddle !

NB The graph is from an earlier version of TMY, but the response of the film is the same as TMY2.

.

Yes I did use the recommended times and used standard aggitation for first 30 sec. and 5 sec. each 30 sec. These are negative scans and have only been resized for the forum. No changes in curves or contrast.

In my results, the TMAX 400 has more contrast using "standard" development times. Not saying that is good or bad jsut different and my results.

The TMY s showing a warmer tone.

Anyone else seeing this or is it my monitor.

It's really evident in the second series with the shell.

Well these are neg scans, right stradibarrius? If so I wouldn't read anything into the warmer tone. Or are they contacts or something?

DF, thanks for your curves, I am kinda scratching my head looking for evidence of the shoulder in the posted shots though. Perhaps auto-leveling in the neg scans supresses that... I should be looking at highlights, right, expecting to see a difference in the highlight differentation...?

Keith

I'm guessing that the Fuji was just developed to a lower CI than the TMY2,
and probably the highlights were just too low on the curve to hit the shoulder.

Be that as it may, df, let me suggest to Stradibarrius that he scan them side by side, taking care to treat them as one neg in the sense that they are auto-leveled together. Then it may be more obvious. When we select a neg to scan, most software will (probably) auto level the selected portion of the neg, in other words the software will automatically assign a black point and a white point. So if you load them side by side and select them together.... then you may get a more useful comparison.

But you're right df, there's no guarantee they were developed to similar CI. But I guess stradibarrius used times that give roughly maximum CI(?)....

I will scan the two negs. together Keith so we can see. I think the Neopan is warmer. The negative looks that way and the scan does as well. My experience with Neopan is that it always has that creamy look to it where the TMAX looks more contrasty???

So you are doing colour scans?

If so I think you need to lose the colour, it doesn't mean anything about how it will print and is just an artifact of the base and how you level the scan.

Various people suggest scanning in colour is best. I think that applies mostly when using a staining developer, but... to each his/her own. But in the end, the paper and the toning is what imparts colour, not the neg.

No, its not, Acros 100 is, but the Neo 400 grain is quite fine and very even in size. My recent few rolls of TMY-2 had ridiculous fine grain, I thought my 25x grain focusser was broke. See my Neo 400 vs TMY-2 comments on the HC-110 thread.

No Keith, these are B&W scans. In fact what I am after with the "pasta" shot is to re-create your pasta shot. I thought he tone and contrast was really nice on that shot. I have been less than excited with my results so far.
The "white on white" challenge is tougher than it looks for me...

But that one you uploaded in the galleries is an RGB image....

Anyway, your tones look good, I was just interested in the shoulder effects, since they aren't apparent in these scans.

What part of the pasta is giving you trouble? That was illuminated with two tungsten lights with softboxes, IIRC. I think I may have removed one softbox for added contrast and used the other for fill. But it was all in the lighting really, the film & dev were nothing special. You may note that I was working with fairly shallow DOF, that was essential to keeping the 'flow' of the lines between the two shells. But that's about it.

Can it be that the reason for the lighter rendering of the violin body, is that TMax 400 is more sensetive to red than Neopan?
(lots of red in a violin's brown/red-brown).

From the whitepaper, the Tmax is sensitive from 450nm to 700nm, while neopan's sensitivity goes from around 380nm to 650nm.

Whitepaper Tmax 400: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf
Whitepaper Neopan 400: http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/fuji_tech/Neopan400.pdf

Can this explain the darker tone (the lighter, silvery tones on photo number 2 certainly looks the same).

Helinophoto, I had wondered about this myself and this sounds like a good explanation.

pentaxuser