TMY2 or Tri-X for old lenses?

[lawrenceimpey]

I remember reading somewhere that Tri-X is more suitable than Tmax 400 when using old single-coated lenses. Can anyone let me know if this is true and, if so, why?
Thanks
Lawrence

 

[TheToadMen]

Interesting question. Mind if I tag along?

 

[markbarendt]

I can't think of an objective reason why there would be an advantage one way or another.

 

[TheToadMen]

I can't think of an objective reason why there would be an advantage one way or another.

Maybe not really a technical (dis)advantage, but in style? Like Tri-X grain more in style with old lenses than the new T-grain from Tmax?

 

[markbarendt]

Maybe not really a technical (dis)advantage, but in style? Like Tri-X grain more in style with old lenses than the new T-grain from Tmax?

Me think's there are no magic bullets or broad generalizations to find here.

 

[John Bragg]

Try both and see what you prefer.

 

[chip j]

I hear the closest thing to the vintage Tri-X look is Foma 400.

 

[Luis-F-S]

Don't read so much it'll only confuse you.

 

[Arklatexian]

I remember reading somewhere that Tri-X is more suitable than Tmax 400 when using old single-coated lenses. Can anyone let me know if this is true and, if so, why?
Thanks
Lawrence

While I can't give a direct answer to your question, I did read some time ago that for black and white, single coated lenses were the way to go. Multi-Coated are better for color. Some people have even advocated "uncoated" as better for B&W. I keep an A.A. Calendar in my office and from time to time just sit and study/enjoy the images. When I look at the captions, I am frequently pleasantly surprised to see dates on some of the prints that preclude the use of coated lenses. They certainly look fine to me. I think we should all give a try to older uncoated lenses for some of our monochrome work. Back to your question. Why not try a single coated lens on both films and see if YOU can see any difference. I'll bet that I could not.........Regards!

 

[removed account4]

im sorry i will happily tell you about the emperor who is wearing no clothes.
i am guessing the person who stated this to you directly or indirectly suggested this
because tri x is an old film and old cameras should use old film so things look "old"
it really doesn't matter too much what camera uses which film it is all about what teh
person taking the photographs likes or wants/ tabular grained film .. well they seem finer grained
they seem smoother, less "grainy" in the "traditional" sense/ grain is grain.
personally i don't care one way or the other .. i use whatever i have on hand.
shoot some film using tri x in differnt light conditions and over+under exposed ( bracket )
do the same for tmax400 and compare your prints. if you like one or the other, go for it !
too many people on the internet spew nonsense. single coated, non coated wolly coated, super coated
who cares. as wollensak said " let the user judge"

have fun !

john

 

[jwd722]

Well as we all know, if you read it on the internet it must be true!!

My guess would be that since Tri-X has been around about 30 years longer than T-Max it's more likely many more pictures were taken with uncoated lenses using Tri-X giving rise to that belief.

A photographic urban legend perhaps...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Either will produce really great prints. Shoot some of each and see for yourself. Or you'll be relying on subjective observations of others and may end up missing out on something you really like.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I like the look of old lenses an TMY400....then i develop it my way and it looks great!

 

[R.Gould]

As I only ever use old lenses on old cameras, have done so for 15 years, and I have tried most films over these years I can happily state that it really makes no difference, T max works fine, as does Tri x, with these lenses, Ilford HP5+ also works fine, but for me, I like a vintage look in my prints taken with my old lenses, and my personal film of choice is Fomapan, either 400 or 200, and having had a chance to compare prints from Vintage tri X from the late 50's to early 60's made on vintage tri x, compared to the prints made today on Foma film then the nearest look today to vintage tri x is Foma 400, the look is pretty much the same

 

[lawrenceimpey]

I was thinking that it might be something to do with the fact that Tri-X has a relatively long toe compared to TMY2, however that doesn't really make sense to me because the flare from single coated lenses would, I think, tend to call for a short toe. No doubt someone has the answer but in view of the pathetic attempts at humour by some members of this forum they are no doubt avoiding it. To those who tried to be helpful, many thanks.
Lawrence

 

[Lachlan Young]

I was thinking that it might be something to do with the fact that Tri-X has a relatively long toe compared to TMY2, however that doesn't really make sense to me because the flare from single coated lenses would, I think, tend to call for a short toe. No doubt someone has the answer but in view of the pathetic attempts at humour by some members of this forum they are no doubt avoiding it. To those who tried to be helpful, many thanks.
Lawrence

TMY exposed up off the toe on to its very long straight line will give classic 'straight line' behaviour, but at a higher speed with finer grain, however it does have a different colour response compared to older style emulsions. Slight underexposure & a bit of a contrast bump in processing & you'll be heading in a TXP-ish direction. Fomapan 200 comes closest to a 'classic' look in terms of its colour response & curve behaviour, but pretty grainy & realistically ISO125-160 in a non-PQ developer. TX's shouldering is something to bear in mind too, especially if you bump up processing to boost contrast/ combat flare.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Anyone is free to write something these days...

Old uncoated lenses are not related to ISO400 films. If you want to match the lens like this and film you have to use ISO 25, 50 film. And something like Rodinal for developer.
TMAX400 is suitable if you want to push @1600 or you want digital look at 400, 200. TRI-X is great with older SLR coated lenses, IMO.
I would choose Ilford Pan F+ or FP4+ for uncoated and yellow filter for contrast.

Leica IIf RD, Leitz Summar uncoated lens and NOOKY-HESUM close-up attachment.
Polypan F 50, Rodinal one hour.


Lollipop. by Kostya Fedot, on Flickr

It is negative scan, but I printed it in the darkroom and gave to the person on photo. Last week it was still on display.
You have to print to see how it really looks. Preferably on singe grade FB paper, IMO.

 

[lawrenceimpey]

TMY exposed up off the toe on to its very long straight line will give classic 'straight line' behaviour, but at a higher speed with finer grain, however it does have a different colour response compared to older style emulsions. Slight underexposure & a bit of a contrast bump in processing & you'll be heading in a TXP-ish direction. Fomapan 200 comes closest to a 'classic' look in terms of its colour response & curve behaviour, but pretty grainy & realistically ISO125-160 in a non-PQ developer. TX's shouldering is something to bear in mind too, especially if you bump up processing to boost contrast/ combat flare.

Lachlan, thank you for your reply, this is the kind of information I was after. What particularly interests me is the way in which the additional flare from a single coated lens should be dealt with and which emulsion, at rated speed, would be most appropriate. I have read -- not on the Internet, I may add -- that Tri-X would be best suited but not sure why.
Lawrence

 

[darkosaric]

If you want old look on photos - then IMO you should take care more about the style and elements in photos than film or lens itself. For example avoid mobile phones, new modern cars in frame, try to catch people with classic clothes and so on.
Having said that - it helps if you use Summar and Fomapan 400 developed in Rodinal .

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachlan, thank you for your reply, this is the kind of information I was after. What particularly interests me is the way in which the additional flare from a single coated lens should be dealt with and which emulsion, at rated speed, would be most appropriate. I have read -- not on the Internet, I may add -- that Tri-X would be best suited but not sure why.
Lawrence

Historically it was dealt with by developing to a higher contrast index as far as I recall - the TX suggestion was probably just because of the (wrong) perception that it hasn't changed much since it was first coated in 135. Obviously developing to a higher CI will alter curve shape too, but really down to experimentation. 5222 Double-X cine stock may be worth a look too. Adox Silvermax might be worth a shot if you want less red sensitivity.

 

[markbarendt]

Lachlan, thank you for your reply, this is the kind of information I was after. What particularly interests me is the way in which the additional flare from a single coated lens should be dealt with and which emulsion, at rated speed, would be most appropriate. I have read -- not on the Internet, I may add -- that Tri-X would be best suited but not sure why.
Lawrence

They are not sure either.

 

[Rick A]

Well, lets see, if you follow the logic of old film emulsions for old lenses, then one would have to figure out what was available to shoot at the time the lens was made. That being said, old school would dictate wet plate or even some dry plate for most of my lenses, single coated emulsion on nitrate film for some others, definitely ortho emulsions, maybe some VPS for my 35mm gear, Efke for my medium format. How about this instead, try some different types of film, T grain vs traditional, and see which suits your taste. There's a reason I don't care for most T grain films, too smooth, T-Max (to me) looks digital, I shoot mostly LF, and prefer to see a bit of grain, it's what I've lived with my entire life, and I love it. I do shoot Delta 100 on occasion, and Acros 100 (my preference for T grain), they look good to me in smaller formats. I miss Forte, still have some Efke 25 stashed away, shoot mostly Fomapan 100. It suits the look I'm after.

 

[MattKing]

One possibility that does occur to me is that the comparison was between T-Max and Tri-X 320. Tri-X 320 is significantly different than T-Max, and may indeed be preferable in studio situations.

 

[trendland]

There are 3 types of coated lenses you can use with bw film :

1) uncoated lenses

2) single coated lenses

3) multi coated lenses

very modern lenses where multi-coated
with the help of nano particles.

theese types of lenses are usable too
with bw film.


I can not agree with that somebody told
you : "use better Trx

 

[trendland]

.... sorry, smartphone collapses.....


that somebody told you : " use better
Tri-x with single coated lenses - never
Tmax films "

that is a little bit as an advise : " never
use Ilford FP4 with your new Zeiss Milvus
2/135 mm use better a Delta 100"

And when you may thing the Tri-x as a
film is designed expecially for lenses at that time and that were most single coated lenses. I won't agree too.

The comparision between two films -
here Tri-x vs Tmax in use with single
coated lenses is a bit like voodoo.

Somebody may see advantages - the
others are waiting for the moment to
see the great difference themselfes.

But it may be only a little misunderstanding.

If you have bw clasic films you shoot better with old lenses of the uncoated
type perhaps this was the advice somebody would give you.

In terms of vignetting aso.

with regards