TMX and TMY...I really want to like them

[kodachrome64]

I just developed TMX negs and everything is great except they have this magenta dye on them...how do I get this off?

Just kidding.

Actually, I have never had this problem with T-Max films. I really like the grain structure and look of these films. Both times I have shot TMX or TMY, I did so along with Tri-X. I thought the T-Max looked good until I looked again at the Tri-X. I just can't seem to get good contrast with T-Max when the Tri-X looks great. I love how smooth T-Max looks and how it is fine grained and sharp. I have used D-76 and T-Max developer, and just mixed up some XTOL to try along with HC-110.

Does anyone feel the same way, and is there anything I can do to up the contrast? Does the developer/dilution matter?

Thanks,
Nick

 

[Barry S]

Neither are my favorite film, but I've never had any problem with low contrast using XTOL 1+1. I think more people have trouble taming contrast because of the linear response curve. I recently shot some TMX 8x10 and developed in Pyrocat-HD and it looks great. Maybe you need to figure out your film speed and optimal developing time.

 

[Paul Howell]

I really like the grain structure and look of these films. Both times I have shot TMX or TMY, I did so along with Tri-X. I thought the T-Max looked good until I looked again at the Tri-X. I just can't seem to get good contrast with T-Max when the Tri-X looks great. I love how smooth T-Max looks and how it is fine grained and sharp. I have used D-76 and T-Max developer, and just mixed up some XTOL to try along with HC-110.

Does anyone feel the same way, and is there anything I can do to up the contrast? Does the developer/dilution matter?

I do not care much for T gain films as my experiance has been very similiar, but you may want to try a staining developer or even a divided developer like Dinafine or Divided D 23 or D 76.

 

[jim appleyard]

There's no law that says you have to like T-Max, I don't! I spent several years, different types of devs and several hundred feet trying to get T-Max to look good and never could. The best I got was with Rodinal. I went back to trad film and I'm glad I did!

 

[kodachrome64]

True, but I do like the film, just not this one aspect of it. I would like to shoot both T grain and traditional, and hope I can find a way to get T-Max to look a little better how I want it.

 

[Barry S]

TMX seems to respond really well to the staining properties of Pyrocat-HD. I agree that you should try a staining developer. You can get it premixed from Photographer's Formulary and it's inexpensive.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I have used D-76 and T-Max developer, and just mixed up some XTOL to try along with HC-110.

That is your problem... stick to and really learn the film with ONE developer. I can't believe that you've got the best out of any of those if you're jumping around to 4 different developers like that. Unless I'm missing something and you've spent countless hours and exposed and printed massive amounts of film/paper.... All the best. Shawn

 

[BradS]

I have never been able to get TMX to behave...TMY seems to respond well to a B+W 060 (yellow-green) filter and HC-110.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'll second Shawn's opinion here - stick to one developer and vary exposure, agitation, developer dilution, temperature, etc. Trying yet a different developer isn't going to help. Trying less developers is the ticket.

I've used Tri-X for years now and love it. I just grew a wild hair in places we don't like to talk about, and decided to try Plus-X out. I can tell that there's potential, but I still haven't nailed down the perfect developer for it yet. Pyrocat gives me all kinds of problems with it, while Xtol looks great. Those are the two developers I've tried so far, and I'm thinking I'm going to stick with Xtol to tweak it.
I think it takes three or four shooting / developing / printing sessions to figure a new film out, to learn its quirks and strengths. I always thought that TMX looked wonderful in Rodinal 1+75, and if I ever shoot it again, that's what I'll use. But it took me six months to figure out how to use it.

Keep trying. All films are capable of wonderful results. It's just a matter of learning how to use them to get what you want.

Good luck, and keep us posted.

- Thomas

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

BradS might have the most interesting suggestion--experiment with filtration, and think about filtering differently than you might filter other films. TMX and TMY render colors differently from other films, and I think that accounts for what seems to be a "flat" look (what I think of as a B&W video look) that shouldn't really be flat, if you're going by densitometer readings. See the recent thread about spectral sensitivity for more info on this subject.

TMX was my main film for at least 10 years, mostly souped in D-76 1+1. At the time I was shooting 35mm, and I liked it for its sharpness and fine grain. Then when I started shooting larger formats, I worked out + and - development times for it so that I could really use the Zone system, and I realized I had been missing something all along, and not having to worry so much about grain, I started thinking more about tonality and ended up shooting mainly Tri-X and eventually more traditional films with a similar look like Efke 100 and FP4+.

 

[df cardwell]

The only prinicple I can think of that applies is that some subjects don't work with some films,
for some photographer's vision. That aside,
I've used them since they came out, and I still don't understand why anybody has problems with these two films.

I've read 'experts' who claim that TMY has no latitude ,
has no mid tones (whatever that means),
no shadows, and no highlights. It is too hard, too soft,
too fast, too slow, and causes premature hair loss, toothache, and stuttering.

If Kodak stopped it tomorrow,
when I ran out, I'd burn the Deardorff and throw the Leicas in a pond.

An old teacher gave me this advice,
"If you're getting good pictures with a film,
its probably an accident so don't change a thing.
But if you AREN'T getting good results,
it is all YOUR fault, and you need to learn your job."

TMY: almost 2000 rolls of 35mm, 500 rolls of 120,
1000 sheets of 4x5 & 8x10. I like TMX,too.

 

[kodachrome64]

I love Tri-X and Plus-X, and like TMY and TMX a lot. I guess I'll keep messing with dilution, time, temp, exposure and whatever else to get it where I want it. I don't have a traditional printing setup so I am scanning the negs. I don't have any problems with dyes on the T-Max films, either. They wash right out. I don't understand why so many people have trouble with that.

I hope I can figure the T-Max films out. I really like the look of them, and it gives me more variety. I already use Tri-X and Plus-X as my go-to films, depending on the speed I want. I routinely push Tri-X to 1600 with good results (TMY too).

 

[df cardwell]

I don't have a traditional printing setup so I am scanning the negs.

Regardless of what you do to expose and develop, scanning introduces a myriad of problems.
You might take this HybridPhoto and ask there: a hardware /software limitation is a real limitation.

 

[Michael Kadillak]

After experimenting with a myriad of film and developer combinations for a number of years I found that with sufficient attention to controlling the variables within the process. I could extract very good results from most combinations in a reasonable amount of time.

After migrating to 8x10 and larger view cameras I found that the exceptional reciprocity character of T Max 400 (TMY) and effective high film speed was exceptionally useful with these large cameras. TMY also has the ability to expand and contract with exceptional flexibility and it will build density to the moon and back which when you are exposing for Azo grade 2 or doing any of the alt processes that required a large net density (carbon, platinum/palladium, Van Dyke, and POP just to name a few) is the answer to a prayer. The fact that it has been improved relative to its grain structure is great but was not necessary for contact printers.

At the end of the day I got rid of every other film I had in my 23 ft3 chest freezer and now shoot TMY exclusively and absolutely feel that it is the best film that has ever been produced. The quality control is impeccable and I feel fortunate to have access to it to the degree we have.

I am a firm believer that one should procure the best film that one can afford to use.

Long live analog!

 

[Marco Buonocore]

TMY: almost 2000 rolls of 35mm, 500 rolls of 120,
1000 sheets of 4x5 & 8x10. I like TMX,too.

You've made almost 80,000 exposures with this film? That's remarkable. Where on earth can I see your portfolio? When do you find time to print? What ever are you shooting?

I remember hearing Larry Towel remark that he shoots most of his exposures at 1/1000th of a second. He reckoned he had - at best - 100 good images. He figured his life's work consisted of less than a second of actual time.

You shoot that much, you must have some remarkable work. I'd love to see it.

 

[MikeSeb]

Great thread--valuable lessons I've been at pains over the last four years to re-learn--reinventing the g---dam wheel all over again! I am a tinkerer by nature, and easily bored, so naturally I have a freezer full of one or two rolls each of about every film you can imagine; and a shelf full of raw chemicals with which I've mixed just about any developer you can name. It's exhausting, and I'm using everything up, slowly, resolved to simplify, simplify, simplify.

Somewhere along the way I figured out how to get good results from the Tmax films. I do my processing in a Jobo, the consistency of which is a real help with tmax. I like TMX in HC-110 at 1+40 or 1+50, at EI 80 or so. It also looks good in Xtol 1+2 or 1+3. TMY looks spectacular in either D76 1+1 or Xtol 1+1. I have to agree with Mr Kadillak--TMY is maybe the finest film I've ever used, all around. (MF only).

So now it's HC-110, Xtol, and D76H for developers; and TMX, TMY, 125PX, 400TX, and 320TXP for me. I have the speed and tonality spectrum covered; I have figured out what film looks best (to my eye) with what developer; and I have my speeds and times worked out.

 

[MVNelson]

I love tmx and tmy in xtol 1+1, pyrocat-mc or prescysol-ef after careful study of the films characteristics with BTZS technique and a few field test. The reciprocity of these films are great and the latitudes are great. The caveat is they demand a bit more accuracy and consistency in expo/dev to nail down your desired "look" . Once you have that you have some really nice tools to work with IMHO.

Miles

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

TMX and TMY render colors differently from other films, and I think that accounts for what seems to be a "flat" look (what I think of as a B&W video look) that shouldn't really be flat, if you're going by densitometer readings. See the recent thread about spectral sensitivity for more info on this subject.

But when you look at spectral sensitivity, except for the reduced blue sensitivity of TMAX 100 compared to Tri-X, both films seem to me to have a pretty similar spectral signature (cf. attached curves).

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I love TMY! 80% to 90% of my current shooting is with TMY (8x10 sheet, 5x7 sheet, 120 rollfilm and 35mm). The other 10 to 20% of my photography is done with TMX (plus a bit of EFKE 25 and EFKE 100). I currently develop all of it in Pyrocat-MC. XTOL worked ok, but I'm a contact printer and the Pyrocat/TMY combo has become pretty much automatic and bulletproof for me..

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

But when you look at spectral sensitivity, except for the reduced blue sensitivity of TMAX 100 compared to Tri-X, both films seem to me to have a pretty similar spectral signature (cf. attached curves).

Visually, I think the effect is significant, though it might not look like much on a graph.

In any case, I think there are many capable films out there, and which you like is really a matter of taste, and we should be thankful we still have some choices. If you have several films under control and can develop them to the same contrast index, you still might prefer one over the other for various valid aesthetic reasons.

 

[edtbjon]

Noone's mentioned that there is a significant difference in between these two films. As I take it you are shooting 35mm you're shooting normal (as opposed to "Pro") TriX. When TMY was introduced in the mid-80'ies many had great hope, but were disappointed with the characteristics of the film. This is because TriX is a "short-toe" film, meaning that there is more contrast in the shadow areas (which inheritly leads to less contrast in the highlights). TMY is a "long-toe" film which means less "snap" in the shadows but better snap in the highlights.
TMY is not a replacement for TriX, just a new technology ('new' back in the -80'ies that is). I mentioned the TriX Pro (i.e. 320) version, which in spite of sharing the TriX name is very different from normal TriX. It's character is more like TMY. As far as I know there is no 35mm version of TriX Pro. But when shooting medium format, where both versions of TriX are/were quite common, the difference in characteristic have taken many unsuspecting photographers by surprise.
I'm not sure about TMX but I think it's a short-toe film. I can come back when I find my old notes from testing that film. (I mostly use FP4 in the 100 range.)

//Björn

 

[sanking]

TMY is a very short toe film, in fact it has a very long straight line with little toe and shoulder.

The TRI-320 (TXP) that I have used is a very long toe film. This is one of the major reasons people generally rate it about a stop less in speed than the nominal 320. This brings important shadow detail up into the straight line part of the curve, which improves contrast.

There is apparently another TRI-X film that is available in roll film. I believe it is an ISO 400 film but I have never tested or used it. Perhaps this is the one with the short toe to which you refer?

Sandy King

Noone's mentioned that there is a significant difference in between these two films. As I take it you are shooting 35mm you're shooting normal (as opposed to "Pro") TriX. When TMY was introduced in the mid-80'ies many had great hope, but were disappointed with the characteristics of the film. This is because TriX is a "short-toe" film, meaning that there is more contrast in the shadow areas (which inheritly leads to less contrast in the highlights). TMY is a "long-toe" film which means less "snap" in the shadows but better snap in the highlights.
TMY is not a replacement for TriX, just a new technology ('new' back in the -80'ies that is). I mentioned the TriX Pro (i.e. 320) version, which in spite of sharing the TriX name is very different from normal TriX. It's character is more like TMY. As far as I know there is no 35mm version of TriX Pro. But when shooting medium format, where both versions of TriX are/were quite common, the difference in characteristic have taken many unsuspecting photographers by surprise.
I'm not sure about TMX but I think it's a short-toe film. I can come back when I find my old notes from testing that film. (I mostly use FP4 in the 100 range.)

//Björn

 

[ilya1963]

New or old TMY ?

The New one , much different in Pyrocat HD ?

ILYA

 

[smieglitz]

TMY is a very short toe film, in fact it has a very long straight line with little toe and shoulder...

My experience with TMY agrees with Sandy's observations. Personally, I like TMY and have never cared for the response or look of Tri-X.

OTOH, I think TMX is mush and don't care for it either.

YMMV.

Joe

 

[sanking]

In my tests I did not see much difference in response or curve type between the old and new TMY in Pyrocat-HD.

Sandy King

New or old TMY ?

The New one , much different in Pyrocat HD ?

ILYA