TMY2 or Tri-X for old lenses?

trendland · Apr 6, 2017

R.Gould said:
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

As R.Gould stated this here it is indeed -
in simple words - the absolute true.

One of my first enlarged big fotos was
with Ilford xp1 C41 processed (400 ASA at this time).

The lens i have used, was from a rental-service.

I am not worrying at that time about bokeh, highlights or about coation of that lens.
The only thing interessting for my :
400mm 2,8 if I remember correct.

But 400mm was not enough for the use I needed.

So I used different tele converters.

XP1 was not realy effizient in regard of
smal grain or for speed.

But at that time it was good enough for
the sportscars I shoot.

Tmax 400 at ISO 800 has much smaler grain today - and Delta films were also not avaible at that time.

with regards

Gerald C Koch · Apr 6, 2017

Petraio Prime said:
It sure does! It's about contrast and flare..

True for the lens. But how does this relate to the film. For film contrast is controlled by development. I have seen some beautiful images from older single coated or even uncoated lenses that were taken with traditional films. I have a pre WWII Leica screw mount 35mm lens that I use with my Bessa R and have never seen any need for a particular film. If your lens is subject to flare then you take precautions during exposure. Perhaps I'm missing something. Do you have any technical articles that answer the OP questions.

Are we talking about a technical reason or just getting that "old time look" which is as illusive as the Scarlet Pimpernel.

Ian Grant · Apr 6, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
True for the lens. But how does this relate to the film. For film contrast is controlled by development. I have seen some beautiful images from older single coated or even uncoated lenses that were taken with traditional films. I have a pre WWII Leica screw mount 35mm lens that I use with my Bessa R and have never seen any need for a particular film. If your lens is subject to flare then you take precautions during exposure. Perhaps I'm missing something. Do you have any articles that answer the OP questions.

To illustrate Gerald's point, I shoot HP5 and Delta 400 with coated (non Multi coated) lenses and both give superb results and are no different to when I shoot the same films with Multi coated lenses.

Ian

flavio81 · Apr 6, 2017

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

This assumes single-coated lenses are lower contrast than multi-coated lenses, which is not a correct generalization. There are other variables that influence contrast. Unless we're talking about zooms, where the generalization would work.

Even a 1967 single coated Nikkor-S 50/1.4 can have more contrast wide open than a 1980s multicoated Nikkor 50/1.4, because of a different design (giving priority to more resolution on the later lens, but with less contrast.)

Petraio Prime · Apr 6, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
True for the lens. But how does this relate to the film. For film contrast is controlled by development. I have seen some beautiful images from older single coated or even uncoated lenses that were taken with traditional films. I have a pre WWII Leica screw mount 35mm lens that I use with my Bessa R and have never seen any need for a particular film. If your lens is subject to flare then you take precautions during exposure. Perhaps I'm missing something. Do you have any technical articles that answer the OP questions.

Are we talking about a technical reason or just getting that "old time look" which is as illusive as the Scarlet Pimpernel.

There is no single 'contrast'. The contrast varies from bottom to top, if you look at the curves you can see this. Tri-X has more contrast in the shadows and less in the highlights than does T-Max 400, and this suits older lenses that yield more flare. See here:

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

The 'S'-shaped curves are better suited for high-flare conditions.

Petraio Prime · Apr 6, 2017

flavio81 said:
This assumes single-coated lenses are lower contrast than multi-coated lenses, which is not a correct generalization. There are other variables that influence contrast. Unless we're talking about zooms, where the generalization would work.

Even a 1967 single coated Nikkor-S 50/1.4 can have more contrast wide open than a 1980s multicoated Nikkor 50/1.4, because of a different design (giving priority to more resolution on the later lens, but with less contrast.)

There may be isolated cases, but generally speaking lenses from the 1950s have more flare than contemporary ones. This is especially true of the fastest lenses.

Gerald C Koch · Apr 6, 2017

Petraio Prime said:
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.

The Tri-X you speak of no longer exists. It was replaced more than a decade ago by 400TX a totally reworked film. Tri-X Professional was also replaced at the same time as 400TXP.

Vaughn · Apr 6, 2017

Petraio Prime said:
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...

This where my thoughts went when I first read the OP. The question is, what percentage of photographers would notice any difference? Not many -- only those who worry about micro-control of all aspects of their film and development characteristics. I don't. I prefer to zone in on how everything comes together for the print...less on the details and more on what the final print looks like.

flavio81 · Apr 6, 2017

Petraio Prime said:
There may be isolated cases, but generally speaking lenses from the 1950s have more flare than contemporary ones. This is especially true of the fastest lenses.

Ok, but it depends on what we understand for "old lenses", for some, even early 80s lenses can be "old".

And, i reassure my claim -- image contrast is not a function of the coatings, if the lens has up to 5 or 6 groups. For those cases contrast will be determined (enhanced/diminished) by the lens designer at the design stage, multi-coatings won't change it.

trendland · Apr 6, 2017

Petraio Prime said:
There may be isolated cases, but generally speaking lenses from the 1950s have more flare than contemporary ones. This is especially true of the fastest lenses.

So let them have more flare .Nobody doubts about it.
The only question here is : At what rate ?

Otherwise it becomes at the moment a
new paradigma - so it seams to me !

At the 50th - the 60th even in the 70th
no mathematics witch were told to design new lenses cares about the abilitys of film stuff from that time.

The filmmanufators did this also in regard of lens design.

They both do their best to create modern
products and in the best case they coated lenses as they were able to do this
in regard to moderate prices.

It is a fiction of us from now when we thing
that they care about the design of filmmanufators.

with regards

Petraio Prime · Apr 6, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
The Tri-X you speak of no longer exists. It was replaced more than a decade ago by 400TX a totally reworked film. Tri-X Professional was also replaced at the same time as 400TXP.

Not so. The film has been 'improved' here and there over the years, but most of that has consisted of improvements in consistency and manufacturing efficiencies. Most particularly, the characteristic curve has not changed to any extent.

Petraio Prime · Apr 6, 2017

flavio81 said:
Ok, but it depends on what we understand for "old lenses", for some, even early 80s lenses can be "old".

And, i reassure my claim -- image contrast is not a function of the coatings, if the lens has up to 5 or 6 groups. For those cases contrast will be determined (enhanced/diminished) by the lens designer at the design stage, multi-coatings won't change it.

By 'older lenses' I mean before about 1972, when Pentax first introduced mult-coating.

See: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/technology/SMC.html

http://www.aohc.it/testi.php?id_testi=59

The improvements in coatings have allowed more complex lenses to be manufactured with less loss of contrast due to internal reflections (flare), and allowed existing designs to have less flare. Yes, a simple design from 1964 such as the 6-element Summicron-R (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/50mm_f/2_Summicron-R_I) is still a very fine lens. So is the 7-element 50mm Summilux-R from 1969., but the 8-element version from 1997 is even better, with noticeably higher contrast and sharpness, despite having more elements! How is this possible? Improved coatings has some contribution.

In other words, the newer coatings provide the greatest improvements to zooms, complex wide-angles, and high-speed lenses.

flavio81 · Apr 6, 2017

Petraio Prime said:
By 'older lenses' I mean before about 1972, when Pentax first introduced mult-coating.

See: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/technology/SMC.html

http://www.aohc.it/testi.php?id_testi=59

The improvements in coatings have allowed more complex lenses to be manufactured with less loss of contrast due to internal reflections (flare), and allowed existing designs to have less flare. Yes, a simple design from 1964 such as the 6-element Summicron-R (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/50mm_f/2_Summicron-R_I) is still a very fine lens. So is the 7-element 50mm Summilux-R from 1969., but the 8-element version from 1997 is even better, with noticeably higher contrast and sharpness, despite having more elements! How is this possible? Improved coatings has some contribution.

Yes, but loss of contrast due to internal reflections is just one source of contrast. Loss of contrast due to the lens design itself (i.e. the spot diagram showing that each point is surrounded by a halo due to spherical aberration) can be much stronger.

And as for flare, for high speed lenses, comatic flare (flare created by coma) will rob contrast even more than just internal reflections.

Want another of my practical examples? Canon FL 55/1.2 (single coated, 1968), versus Canon FD 55/1.2 (multicoated, 1973, same optical design). Practically same contrast results. I owned both.

Another example: Nikkor-H 50/2 (1964, single coated) vs Nikkor-H-C 50/2 (multicoated, same optical design). Same contrasty results. I own both.

There is a difference, though, on color response, which can be better on the multicoated versions.

Zoom lenses are another matter. But zoom lenses routinely have over 10 elements and over 9 lens groups.

Petraio Prime · Apr 6, 2017

flavio81 said:
Yes, but loss of contrast due to internal reflections is just one source of contrast. Loss of contrast due to the lens design itself (i.e. the spot diagram showing that each point is surrounded by a halo due to spherical aberration) can be much stronger.

And as for flare, for high speed lenses, comatic flare (flare created by coma) will rob contrast even more than just internal reflections.

Want another of my practical examples? Canon FL 55/1.2 (single coated, 1968), versus Canon FD 55/1.2 (multicoated, 1973, same optical design). Practically same contrast results. I owned both.

Another example: Nikkor-H 50/2 (1964, single coated) vs Nikkor-H-C 50/2 (multicoated, same optical design). Same contrasty results. I own both.

There is a difference, though, on color response, which can be better on the multicoated versions.

Zoom lenses are another matter. But zoom lenses routinely have over 10 elements and over 9 lens groups.

I doubt very much whether the Canon lenses you mention will produce identical contrast. The effect may not be 'night and day' but I'm sure that in a controlled test it will show itself.

See: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page88.html

JohnArs · Apr 6, 2017

I think better would be Ilford FP 4 ISO 125 because early film where not so fast, so with a slower film you get more realistic feeling, even better would be an orthochromatic film!

Petraio Prime · Apr 6, 2017

JohnArs said:
I think better would be Ilford FP 4 ISO 125 because early film where not so fast, so with a slower film you get more realistic feeling, even better would be an orthochromatic film!

But that is neither Tri-X nor T-Max 400.

Gerald C Koch · Apr 6, 2017

Petraio Prime said:
Not so. The film has been 'improved' here and there over the years, but most of that has consisted of improvements in consistency and manufacturing efficiencies. Most particularly, the characteristic curve has not changed to any extent.

Kodak considered the new emulsion to be major change. To put this point across to the public they changed the name. There was also a flurry of advertising over the advantages of the new version. A lot that Kodak learned while developing tabular grain emulsions was incorporated. This is not to say that 400TX IS a t-grain film.

The OP is a bit of a red herring. The average user is not going to see any difference between the two films as it applies to lens coating. Perhaps the testanistas will get some pleasure from the notion.

Petraio Prime · Apr 6, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
Kodak considered the new emulsion to be major change. To put this point across to the public they changed the name. There was also a flurry of advertising over the advantages of the new version. A lot that Kodak learned while developing tabular grain emulsions was incorporated. This is not to say that 400TX IS a t-grain film.

The OP is a bit of a red herring. The average user is not going to see any difference between the two films as it applies to lens coating. Perhaps the testanistas will get some pleasure from the notion.

Nope, the film coating operation was moved to a new facility. Developing times were affected by the change (possibly due to absorption differences in gelatin), but none of the 'image' characteristics were.

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threa...kodak-black-and-white-coating-facility.44422/

The curve of T-Max 400 is similar to that of TXP:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/product_pdfs/kodak/Kodak_Tri-X.pdf

flavio81 · Apr 6, 2017

Petraio Prime said:
I doubt very much whether the Canon lenses you mention will produce identical contrast. The effect may not be 'night and day' but I'm sure that in a controlled test it will show itself.

See: http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page88.html

I respect Erwin Puts but you have mentioned a really lenghty article covering many topics.Would you please quote the relevant snippet?

As for Leitz/Leica, it is interesting that you quote an article covering that company, for in 1971/2 when Pentax announced their SMC coatings, their answer was that contrast and flare were better controled by reducing the number of elements, not by multi-coating...

If you consider that the lower contrast of the 1950s LEITZ lenses compared to the (present) leica designs has most to do with coatings, then this is not correct.

And by the way in the early 50s the best LTM lenses weren't Leitz lenses, but Nikon and Canon lenses, which among other things may have more "pop". Any user of LTM cameras would agree, i think. Leitz was a bit behind those two in the early and mid 50s.

I'll wait for @Nodda Duma (lens designer) to appear here.

Petraio Prime · Apr 6, 2017

flavio81 said:
I
I respect Erwin Puts but you have mentioned a really lenghty article covering many topics.Would you please quote the relevant snippet?

As for Leitz/Leica, it is interesting that you quote an article covering that company, for in 1971/2 when Pentax announced their SMC coatings, their answer was that contrast and flare were better controled by reducing the number of elements, not by multi-coating...

If you consider that the lower contrast of the 1950s LEITZ lenses compared to the (present) leica designs has most to do with coatings, then this is not correct.

And by the way in the early 50s the best LTM lenses weren't Leitz lenses, but Nikon and Canon lenses, which among other things may have more "pop". Any user of LTM cameras would agree, i think. Leitz was a bit behind those two in the early and mid 50s.

I'll wait for @Nodda Duma (lens designer) to appear here.
.

Scroll to:
Test report of Summilux-R 1:1,4/50 (#3797918).

I also said that better coatings affected lenses with many elements and high speed more than others. Did you read that? Three- and four-element Elmars and Elmarits hardly could be improved by coating improvements.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 6, 2017

Is this helping the OP much?

Ian Grant · Apr 7, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
The OP is a bit of a red herring. The average user is not going to see any difference between the two films as it applies to lens coating. Perhaps the testanistas will get some pleasure from the notion.

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Is this helping the OP much?

The important factor missing is the choice of film isn't particularly relevant if a lens lacks contrast due to no coating or simple coatings, the negative contrast is important and this is where a skilled "cratsman" will increase negative contrast to compensate. This is similar to compensating with development and exposure for very low contrast scenes or very high contrast, the old adage of expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

Ian

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 7, 2017

Ian Grant said:
The important factor missing is the choice of film isn't particularly relevant if a lens lacks contrast due to no coating or simple coatings, the negative contrast is important and this is where a skilled "cratsman" will increase negative contrast to compensate. This is similar to compensating with development and exposure for very low contrast scenes or very high contrast, the old adage of expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.
Ian

Agreed.

Petraio Prime · Apr 7, 2017

Ian Grant said:
The important factor missing is the choice of film isn't particularly relevant if a lens lacks contrast due to no coating or simple coatings, the negative contrast is important and this is where a skilled "cratsman" will increase negative contrast to compensate. This is similar to compensating with development and exposure for very low contrast scenes or very high contrast, the old adage of expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

Ian

Nope. The 'skilled craftsman' cannot change the characteristics of either the lens or film. Flare will be present in the shadows, and represents a higher proportion in the shadows. Flare reduction therefore improves the contrast in the shadow areas more than elsewhere. That's why you cannot manipulate things to offset the greater flare in older lenses. There is no substitute for lower flare provided by advanced coatings.

Vaughn · Apr 7, 2017

Another way of looking at it is that a skill craftsperson takes all the factors involved, including flare characteristics, and produces an image that expresses what s/he wants to express.

TMY2 or Tri-X for old lenses?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency