TMY2 or Tri-X for old lenses?

Single coated lenses are still of a modern nature and you won't see a lot of difference between them and a multi-coated lens under normal shooting conditions. Now, if the scene has direct light coming at the lens then the Multi-coated lens will be better at flare control and yield a negative of higher contrast. A completely uncoated lens is really the way to go and find a film with a weak AHL layer. The best I have found were the Chinese Shanghai GP3 and Lucky films. I think that you can only get the GP3 in sheet film now and I don't have the latest info on the Lucky brand Chinese stuff. The "old look to me means keeping your shadow and mid-tones pretty much where they should be and flaring the bright or highlight areas. An example is a window light portrait with bright sun falling on a models hair. It would make the hair glow as well as other bright highlights. That's what makes the "old look" for me, but you and others might think different.

I've been using uncoated and single coated lenses for 50 years and I love them! IMHO most of the "rules" for such lenses are poppycock. Use any film you want, including color. The old lenses will simply flare more than modern lenses. Brilliant white areas may show flare around them and brilliantly colored areas may show colored flare, but these can be used artistically. That being said, if you want the 1940 look from a 1940 camera, use slow film and generic developers. My personal favorite is foma 100 in D76. I used to love panatomic-x and efke 25. In 1940 ASA 100 was fast,
and grainy by modern standards.
But, T grain 100 ASA films make beautiful images with old cameras. The most important factor is you-your eye for composition and your processing technique. Have Fun!

As other have said it'll make no difference. I use a lot of coated lenses but remember even before Multi Coating lenses often had more than one coating layer, the term single coated is a misnomer..

The differences between coated lenses and Multi-coated is not very significant, colour rendition tends to be better with MC but with B&W that's irrelevant.I shoot with a 150mm CZJ f4.5 T (coated) Tessar ad also apair or 150mm Xenars (an f4.5 and late version f5.6) and there's no differences compared to my Multi coated Symmar S or Sironar N lenses.

When it comes to un-coated lenses a huge amount depends on the lens design and the number of internal air/glass surfaces, So a Dagor with only 2 internal air glass surfaces is almost as good as a coated lens in terms of contrast and internal flare, a Tessar type lens with 4 internal air/glass surfaces is noticeably lower contrast, while Dialyte type lenses have significantly lower contrast due to their 6 internal air/glass surfaces.

However even a Dialyte once coated performs well in terms of contrast & flare, the best example being the 203mm f7.7 Ektar lenses.

Ian

Ian - if you have doubs with an older lens
of your s - hold it in your hands, look into the frontlinse and try to find a reflection of a light - may be you use a lamp in your household.

If you can find one - look at the color of
the reflected light.

If there is seen a "colored shado" in magenta , or in yellow, some has also a dark green this is the coation of your
lens.
The number of colors you can count
is identical with the number of layers
of the coation.

For example: If there have been count
2 or 3 different colored reflexes your lens
is "multicoated"

Is only one often yellow reflex seen
your lens is single coated.

May be its uncoated and the colored reflex is from your household bulb.

Then you might compare it with other
old lences.

Single layer coation to lenses comes from Zeiss in the late 30th as i have
corect in mind.

May also have a very first use in the mid.
30th.


with regards to you

trendland said:

For example: If there have been count
2 or 3 different colored reflexes your lens
is "multicoated"

Click to expand...

It's not a simple as that, many lenses from the 1960's have 2 or 3 different coatings to give better colour renditions but still not as good as later Multi-coated. Quite sophisticated Multiple coating was in use before Pentax and Zeiss introduced Super Multi Coated Takumars, hence the word "Super". I had a 150mm Sironar that to all intents was multi-coated but pre-dated the term.

The Zeiss Patent for two different coatings is not long after the one for single coating. The oldest coated Zeiss lens I've seen was a 150mm f4.5 Tessar from 1938.

Ian

Also, I have seen early uncoated lenses where the front element looks as if it were coated. I have read where that "look" is from a type of oxidation on the front element glass. It has a colored look similar to what is like dropping a drop of oil into water and observing the film that the oil makes on the surface of the water. Kind of an iridescent colored look. I was told NOT to clean this off as it actually works exactly as an added lens coating. Also, one of my favorite lenses for 4X5 is an uncoated 165mm f4.5 Rodenstock Eurynar (Dialyte) Very flarey in some situations, but very, very nice in others and plenty sharp to boot..

Pentax - I remeber !

During the whole 70th and 80th Pentax stated out their " SMC " in every brochure.



I have had only one old lense in use from Voigländer - absolut uncoated of cause.

Its was not so bad from the quality till the day I shoot Fuji Astia in extrem baclit.

That was it .-(

Never seen before such a bad quality - never at all !

But its designed to bw. In bw I could emagine that the disaster would not as great.


with regards

Regarding the idea that oxidation on the front element reduces flare: I have an old Ikonta with a 70mm uncoated Novar with just that kind of visible oxidation on the front element, and it gives noticeably higher contrast than similar cameras with no such oxidation. Visually, the front element has just the kind of "oil on water" effect that a previous post described. I seem to remember reading that photographic engineers in the 1930s noticed this effect, quantified it, and came up with the idea of deliberately coating lenses to improve the effect. But, I could be wrong...but that camera is a lot of fun to use!

takilmaboxer said:

Regarding the idea that oxidation on the front element reduces flare: I have an old Ikonta with a 70mm uncoated Novar with just that kind of visible oxidation on the front element, and it gives noticeably higher contrast than similar cameras with no such oxidation. Visually, the front element has just the kind of "oil on water" effect that a previous post described. I seem to remember reading that photographic engineers in the 1930s noticed this effect, quantified it, and came up with the idea of deliberately coating lenses to improve the effect. But, I could be wrong...but that camera is a lot of fun to use!

Click to expand...

Sounds logical to me and maybe we read the same article????

takilmaboxer said:

Regarding the idea that oxidation on the front element reduces flare: I have an old Ikonta with a 70mm uncoated Novar with just that kind of visible oxidation on the front element, and it gives noticeably higher contrast than similar cameras with no such oxidation. Visually, the front element has just the kind of "oil on water" effect that a previous post described. I seem to remember reading that photographic engineers in the 1930s noticed this effect, quantified it, and came up with the idea of deliberately coating lenses to improve the effect. But, I could be wrong...but that camera is a lot of fun to use!

Click to expand...

You are not wrong. Every article that I have read on the history of "coating lenses" said the same thing and if you have some uncoated lenses the same process is still happening unless you feel that you must clean your lenses weekly. Some really old lenses from the 19th and early 20th centuries could easily have a "natural" coating equal to some factory coating but I much doubt the old glass would develop "multi-coating".............Regards!

MattKing said:

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.

Click to expand...

It was my understanding some years ago that Tri-X sheet film emulsion was very different from the emulsions on 135 and MF films and the Tri-X 320 was different from the other two. Has this changed? I remember also that the Tri X sheet film emulsion was called Royal Pan and the Tri X 320 film was on the market before Royal Pan.....Friends, that has been a long, long time ago........Regards!

oldtimermetoo said:

It was my understanding some years ago that Tri-X sheet film emulsion was very different from the emulsions on 135 and MF films and the Tri-X 320 was different from the other two.

Click to expand...

The sheet film version of Tri-X is the Tri-X 320 film (320TXP). The roll film version of Tri-X is the Tri-X 400 film (400TX). They are different films.
In contrast, there is only one current version of Kodak Professional T-Max 400 (TMY) and it is coated on both roll films and sheet films.

takilmaboxer said:

Regarding the idea that oxidation on the front element reduces flare: I have an old Ikonta with a 70mm uncoated Novar with just that kind of visible oxidation on the front element, and it gives noticeably higher contrast than similar cameras with no such oxidation. Visually, the front element has just the kind of "oil on water" effect that a previous post described. I seem to remember reading that photographic engineers in the 1930s noticed this effect, quantified it, and came up with the idea of deliberately coating lenses to improve the effect. But, I could be wrong...but that camera is a lot of fun to use!

Click to expand...

It was TTH (Cooke) the lens manufacturers who investigated this in the 1930s and looked into coating lenses.

You need to be aware that many Novar lenses were in fact coated, The pre-WWII Novars and some LF Tessars used a newer optical glass introduced by Schott (part of the Zeiss foundation) in the late 1920's or early 1930s, this glass was softer and very prone to scratching/cleaning marks and also atmospheric pollution. So it's down to luck with some lenses, I have a Novar on an Ikonta that's unusable, it appears very clean optically but the contrast is very low and the resolution poor, the same glass was used for the Leitz Summar. The most extreme case of atmospheric pollution damaging a lens is a Domiplan which you can't even focus

I have a spare Nova lens and shutter for my Ikonta which I bought a few years ago along with some other shutters, all NOS and came from a repair shop that had closed, this Novar is post WWII and definitely coated.

Ian

I would like this theory - the oxidation on uncoated lenses creates an effect of natural coation.
But is it true?
As I have read your last posts I remembered that oxidation might have been on my own voigtländer lens too.
I can not remember it as shure,
But I cleaned the lens - has it be done yust before my desaster shooting with the Astias ?

Is oxidation in old lens glas after decades indeed responcibe for better
colors?

with regards to you

trendland said:

I would like this theory - the oxidation on uncoated lenses creates an effect of natural coation.
But is it true?

Click to expand...

Yes it's true, whether it's oxidation or something else though is another matter, what was noticed was the reduction of reflections from affected glass surfaces. How much effect that would have on a lens is rather more dubious as it's the internal air glass surfaces that really need coating more so than the outer surfaces.

Just over 30 years ago Hoya brought out a range of lenses fixed FL and Zooms, these were very sharp, well corrected, Multi coated, lens but Hoya had made a design flaw which should have been picked up, they didn't coat all the internal air/glass surfaces and under certain conditions many of the lenses flared badly - after a year or so on sale the suddenly scrapped the entire range, they designed an entirely new range of lenses releasing them under their Tokina brand name.

Ian

Yes, from that part it seems indeed logical.
When we are thinking at the technique
of lens coation - the material of caution
comes as a gas under condition of a vacuum on the surface of the lens glas.

If the thickness is coresponding to the
light wafe in nano meter the wafes at its
high meet the coation layer at its low
that you have an absorbtion of wafes.

In physical term you have no absorbtion.
Light wafes changes and passes the glas at once.

So coation makes the glass more transparent - if one would say so.

As a conclousion of this, a layer of oxidation has to have following design :

- the thickness in nanometer has to
corespond to the light wave in nanometer.

- the effect is only temporary in dependence to the rate of aditional oxydation (thickness will change)

- the oxidation should create a layer witch is of an absolute uniformly
(homogeneously) surface.
outherwise it will not work.

Therefore I doubt a little.

But you are right Ian - I forgot some facts.


- the design of oxidation layers
must only be quite accidentally in the near of described preconditiones.

And as you stated out - coation, multicoation is not on every glass within
a lens.

Oxydation could theoraticaly even exist
within the lens.

And there with a very pore thickness
(less oxydation conditions compared to
front glass/backlens)

If you are thinking at the light spectrum -
this could explain your observed efects
with some of your old lenses.

with regards to you

.......hoping we are not creating new
"voodoo" facts
but in else way of theese thoughts it could work.

With regards

The choice of film will have far less impact than anything else you do in your process, like changing exposure, changing film developer, changing film developing time/agitation/temperature, and then the creativity applied at time of printing. Just go shoot some Tri-X and TMY-2 side by side and work with it.

The author Kate DiCamillo reminded me of something last Friday: "You learn about writing by writing". Photography is much the same. Actual results in making interesting photographs come by being out there, attempting to make interesting photographs. I suggest flipping a coin between Tri-X and TMY-2, buy as many rolls as you can afford, and go shoot. With practice comes results, and when interesting photographs result, your choice of film will be completely transcended by your ability; your choice of film will be rendered close to irrelevant.

Here's another good reminder from Ira Glass:

One wonders where these notions come from. The type of film you use with a particular lens has no scientific basis. However now that it has appeared on APUG expect to see it again.

I can actually see a logic in some cases for specifically using a modern HD film and dev like TMY2 in xtol or whatever and an old design lens like the Zeiss 50 Sonnar. In the case of that particular lens extraordinary subject isolation can be obtained, resulting from the Zeiss centre sharpness at apertures such as F2.8 combined with humungous field curvature throwing everything outside the centre of the lens way out of focus. A high definition film and dev combo will likely increase that effect.

lawrenceimpey said:

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

Click to expand...

This is correct. Tri-X was designed in 1954, when lens coatings were much more primitive and there was more image flare, which of course is more harmful to shadow contrast. Films of that era intended for exterior work (Plus-X, Tri-X, Royal Pan, etc.) were designed with higher shadow contrast and lower contrast in the highlights, to keep clouds from blocking up. For modern lenses, TMY-2 is just fine. See:

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/curveshapes.jpg

The Tri-X curve is more like the one on the right.

From another thread here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Gerald C Koch said:

One wonders where these notions come from. The type of film you use with a particular lens has no scientific basis. However now that it has appeared on APUG expect to see it again.

Click to expand...

It sure does! It's about contrast and flare..

In general: E6,C41 as a standard has herefore the most difference in different types of films.

In general: This is not so with bw films.

Bw films does have their more difference
in type of develloping.

We all know this I gues.

As I stated before : It is a little like
"voodoo" to see differences of two bw
films in comparision with old lences in
general.


The comparision with old lenses between
each in regards of coation is an other
aspect - with color film - of cause so.


with regards

trendland said:

In general: E6,C41 as a standard has herefore the most difference in different types of films.

In general: This is not so with bw films.

Bw films does have their more difference
in type of develloping.

We all know this I gues.

As I stated before : It is a little like
"voodoo" to see differences of two bw
films in comparision with old lences in
general.


The comparision with old lenses between
each in regards of coation is an other
aspect - with color film - of cause so.


with regards

Click to expand...

Your reply is unclear. It is true that films were designed to work best with certain situations and equipment. B&W films were made in two broad classes: 'Press' and 'portrait/commercial'. Press films had curves suited to high-flare situations, whereas portrait/commercial films were intended for studio use. In the days when Tri-X was formulated, lens coatings were less effective than those of today.

Yes - of cause you are right Petraio Prime.
But thinking on this : You would like to shoot with Ilford Hp5 - often used by press photographers in the 70th and in the 90th.

Therefore the "press packs" I can remember (20 rolls) - they pushed their
films up to ISO 3200 some where proud to reach ISO 6400 - how terrible !

And the effect to this film - dramatic.
In all terms as there were : grain, contrast,tones etc. - but usable for very special press fotos.

Is there now a difference with Ilford Delta
3200 at ISO 3200,6400 -the advantages are as high as noboy would push HP5
today so much.

Can you see this kind of differences - sure within 2 sekonds.

Is it a big difference - of cause it is!
(never seen HP5 in ISO 6400 but I can imagine of that kind of disaster)

It you are thinking in regards of developing bw - what are the differences
with (let us stay to Ilford with comparisions) PanF in perceptol at ISO25 and PanF pushed up to ISO 200
(nobody would do this - by the time) with
Agfa Rodinal 1/50 ???

Are the effects on the film essentiell -
yes of cause in that way ( thinking they will be bad as bad :-(....... )

And now back to TMY and Tmax 400 what is the difference? There are a lot
of simular properties of each emulsion.
Ever chose the right film !

You may see differences with each film
in comparision with old lenses and multicoated ones.

Naturaly you would see strong differences with the same emulsion in comparision with a summicron 50mm f2
and the same lens at f 22 ?

The difference between this summicron
in comparision with an older Pentax
SMC 50mm f2 with TMY or Tmax400
you can see too.

BUt what you see there is the difference
between both lences at f 2.0 - and shure there is a difference.

You would have a comparision at f 8.0 -
that is also possible but therefore i would
advise you to have an enlargement
in 16x20 inch.

But my dear fellow - a comparison with
Tmax400 to uncoated and coated lenses
with TMY to coated/uncoated lenses ????


with regards