• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

TMY-2 in 120 vs. TMY-2 sheet film

michaelbsc

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,103
Location
South Caroli
Format
Multi Format
Hey gang, I've just recently gotten my pieces/parts "FrankenCam" 8x10 capable of making an image, so now I'm curious about film.

The ultimate goal is for my wife to have sheets that she can use for alternate process prints.

I also know that the scuttlebutt in the advertisements is that TMY-2 has a "new and improved" emulsion.

So my question is about dialing in my processing parameters. (At five bucks a sheet, I don't want to waste too many sheets!)

If I grab some of the new TMY-2 in 120, and make sure I've got the processes down for that, will it give me reasonable starting points for the 8X10 sheet film?

Or are the sheet film and roll film bases so different in a way that will affect processing that I can't count on the results translating well.

How about if I do my dialing in with TMY-2 in 4x5? Is that identical?

Thanks,
Michael
 
Assuming you process your roll film in tanks and sheet film in trays, I would get dialed in using 4x5 sheets of TMAX. Otherwise, differences in agitation, etc. from using one method or the other could significantly change your results. 4x5 and 8x10 TMAX are coated on the same base and are identical.
 

I process everything in a rotary processor. The agitation of the 8x10 isn't significantly different from the 120 or the 4x5.

I'm not really a big TMY-2 user, but my wife has heard good things so that's what she wants to try for starters. And I have no objection to Big Yellow. Over the years they've been good to me when I used them. (And Freestyle's Arista Premium is an awesome Bang-4-the-Buck.)
 
Kodak's big selling point has always been consistency. When Kodak gives a recommended development time it's always for a given contrast index. If you look at the data sheet for TMY-2, you'll see that the recommended development time for sheets and rolls in a large tank is the same. So, if you're going to be processing the sheets on hangers in a deep tank, you could do the same with 120 roll film and have a very good idea of what your sheet film will look like and save yourself a whole bunch of money in the process. If you're going to process the sheets in trays, then you're probably better off using the 4x5 sheets for tests. If nothing else, it will keep the number of variables down to a minimum. Not quite as economical as testing with roll film, but it's not $5/sheet either.
 
michaelbsc said:
...The ultimate goal is for my wife to have sheets that she can use for alternate process prints....If I grab some of the new TMY-2 in 120...will it give me reasonable starting points for the 8X10 sheet film?...
Click to expand...
If your wife's alternate process involves UV, no. TMY-2 roll film has a UV-absorbing layer; the sheet film version does not.
 
Acutally TMY doesn't have the UV layer, only the sheets of TMX do.
 
Sal Santamaura said:
...TMY-2 roll film has a UV-absorbing layer; the sheet film version does not.
Click to expand...

dpurdy said:
Acutally TMY doesn't have the UV layer, only the sheets of TMX do.
Click to expand...

If one reads near the top of page 3 of this publication

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/professional/products/films/bw/bwFilmQAs.pdf

there's a bit of ambiguity about 120. It definitely indicates that the 35mm version of TMY-2 includes a UV absorber and sheet film doesn't, but is silent about medium format.

Internet "information" posted when TMY-2 was first introduced claimed that early test runs of the 120 didn't include a UV-absorbing layer, but that final production would. Not being an alternative process printer, I can't be absolutely sure about current 120 TMY-2, but feel it's important that Michael not rely on roll film results for any important sheet film work without at least making a duplicate final test on 8x10.
 
Thanks Sal....very important to know if one is developing TMax 400 by inspection.
 
michaelbsc said:
I process everything in a rotary processor. The agitation of the 8x10 isn't significantly different from the 120 or the 4x5.
Click to expand...
Make sure the volume of developer per square inch of film is the same between the two also.

TMY is my favorite film, but at $6 a sheet I have been using alternatives frequently and, like you, use smaller formats of TMY for any testing.
 

I actually tested the TMY2 120 on platinum and it worked fine so there was no coating on that batch. It wasn't a test batch.
Dennis
 

Would still recommend doing your testing usng the final format (8x10) of your film.
I suspect you meant your own use of film but I am assuming you know that arrest premium is Tri-X.
 
haziz said:
Would still recommend doing your testing usng the final format (8x10) of your film.
I suspect you meant your own use of film but I am assuming you know that arrest premium is Tri-X.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware that Arista Premium is not TMax, but it is Tri-X as you point out.

Off topic, when the Arista Premium was first released there was word from Freestyle that it would be available in 120 and sheets if demand warranted. And I did buy 50 rolls of it in 135 that I've been very happy with. But no word of 120 or sheets yet, and I've emailed and asked a couple of times. I know it's a different film base between 135, 120, and sheets, so they cannot simply "cut some in different sizes" from the same master roll. And I know it's Tri-X 400 instead of Tri-X 320. But it would sure be nice if they ever could convince the manufacturer to go for it.

In theory, we have the power. All we have to do is buy enough of it, and they'll make it.

MB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register