TMY1?

[BetterSense]

I hear about this TMY2 a lot. I just bought a bunch of 2004-expired Tmax 400 and 100, and I guess that means it's too old to be TMY2. What does this mean in terms of developing data? In terms of "look"? In what notable ways is trickier or different than Tri-X? Anyone ever develop it in D23?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Treat it the same. But due to possible base fog, you may want to overexpose a little and underdevelop.

They look the same, the main difference is in grain, which is finer in TMY-2. After having used both, I'll be darned if I don't prefer the old one.

- Thomas

 

[dpurdy]

I did a lot of side by side testing when -2 came out and from a practical point it is hard to see any difference in the films. Hopefully your 04 TMY was cold stored. I wouldn't think there would be any problem with the TMX... unless it got baked.
dennis

 

[BetterSense]

It's supposedly the guy bought it from the old Wolf on Harry Hines in Dallas already out-of-date....it was reportedly frozen while it was in stock there, and then, it's been in the freezer since 2006. So assuming all that is true, it should be pretty much good as new. Maybe a bit of fog but nothing bad; I don't know yet, I shot a roll of it today. I'll be annoyed if it's foggy enough to have to overexpose significantly because one of the things I liked about TMY last time I shot some was that it was actually 400 speed.

 

[jp80874]

I sure prefer the old packaging piece count if we are talking 8x10.
Just what I wanted, additions to my empty box collection.
Off to Ilford.


John Powers

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Hopefully your 04 TMY was cold stored.

Well, it's not TMY but TMX100, of which I came across 75 sheets of in 4x5, not cold stored (quite warm stored), and expired in '97.

Compared it with a sheet of fresh film - near identical negatives: same speed, same (lack of) fog. The sheets were developed together so the identical results are interesting as Kodak lowered the developing times for the newer 100TMX.

 

[removed account4]

i have never shot the new stuff, i don't think ...
the olde stuff is fine by me, even if it is fogged ...
( 135 - 4x5 )

 

[DLM]

I bought a bunch of film a few months back off a wedding photog who had went digital. There was about 80 rolls in there, with about 20 being TMX 100, 20 TMY, an dthe rest a mix of T400CN and Tmax P3200, with a few rolls of 120/220. None of it had been cold stored, and most was expired in '02-'03

I've been shooting the TMX 100 and the TMY recently. After looking at the old stuff with some fresh Tmax, the older stuff had really low contrast. I've been developing for a little bit longer, maybe3 a minute or so. I'm alson making sure to fix for 10 or 11 minutes to get as much of that purple base out as possible since 8 minutes wasn't enough on the expired stuff.

 

[BetterSense]

I just developed my first roll, shot at 400 (foolish) and developed in D23 for 7 minutes at 20C (as per internets). The negs are very thin. I'm not sure whether it's underexposed, underdeveloped, or both. I was shooting through colored filters for I think every frame on the roll, so it could be that the colored filters are taking a way a stop or two of speed. The frame I applied +2 exposure compensation to looks almost normal.

Base does not "look" foggy whatsoever and after 10 minutes in Hypam the red tint is gone.

 

[removed account4]

are you metering through your filters?
bracketing can be a very good friend, especially
when using film that might be a little strange ...

have fun!
john

 

[BetterSense]

I was just using the camera's TTL meter. The colored filters I was using aren't photographic filters either and they appear to have a very narrow pass-band. I just shot a roll of it up as a proper film test using a gray card. I think I will develop for 8 minutes to be safe.