TMY2 or Tri-X for old lenses?

[Petraio Prime]

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.

Huh? What are you talking about? The question was, "Which film would be better for older lenses?" The answer is Tri-X.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Huh? What are you talking about? The question was, "Which film would be better for older lenses?" The answer is Tri-X.

I use older lenses from the 1950s quite often, and I really like TMax with them. The results are more pleasing to my eye.

The reason I point that out is to illustrate that the technical explanation you just put a lot of effort into conveying, (and your knowledge is impressive), might be made redundant by someone's subjective opinion.
I think that the OP should try both films and go make photographs.

 

[removed account4]

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:

thank you for your post, and link!

 

[Ian Grant]

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.

Huh? What are you talking about? The question was, "Which film would be better for older lenses?" The answer is Tri-X.

You're entirely missing the mark.

The question isn't comparing uncoated, coated, and Multi coated lenses, we all know there's a significant difference between un-coated and coated lenses, and little difference between coated and multicoated (with the exception of a few lenses with a significant number of elements and air/glass surfaces such as zooms).

The answer isn't Tri-X because Tmax 400 will work just as well as many of us know from long experience. The answer is use the one that suits your style of work best, both will work extremely well.

With regards to increasing negative contrast with un-coated lenses no-one has suggested it will help give results similar to a Multi-coated lens, rather that it will help a little.

The key is craft not pontificating on hypotheses, it's about getting out making images and learning from experience constantly honing the craft !

Ian

 

[Petraio Prime]

thank you for your post, and link!

Ah, but it helps to know that certain materials are designed for certain applications. For general outdoor work, HP5 + and Tri-X will generally give best results. It is assumed that there will be some light from the sky, or that the sky will be included in the image. In the past (1940s to 1960s) there were many special-purpose films tailored for various applications, such as 'press' and 'portrait'. A glance at the names of these films indicates their intended uses.

Most pros used sheet film, almost always a single variety (or at most two) and likewise a single type of paper (with perhaps a variety of surfaces). This was because in a studio you have control of the light. You have to remember that most of Kodak's sales (not to mention Ansco and DuPont) to pros were in the form of sheet film.

http://www.mattosbornephotography.com/film_chart.jpg

Here is a data sheet for DuPont films:

http://backglass.org/duncan/apug/dupont_defender_films_sheet_194709.pdf

All of these films were tailored to specific uses, and varied in speed, grain, and characteristic curves.

Dead Link Removed

The same was true for papers. There was a wide variety of types of papers, with specific properties tailored to various applications.

 

[Petraio Prime]

You're entirely missing the mark.

The question isn't comparing uncoated, coated, and Multi coated lenses, we all know there's a significant difference between un-coated and coated lenses, and little difference between coated and multicoated (with the exception of a few lenses with a significant number of elements and air/glass surfaces such as zooms).

The answer isn't Tri-X because Tmax 400 will work just as well as many of us know from long experience. The answer is use the one that suits your style of work best, both will work extremely well.

With regards to increasing negative contrast with un-coated lenses no-one has suggested it will help give results similar to a Multi-coated lens, rather that it will help a little.

The key is craft not pontificating on hypotheses, it's about getting out making images and learning from experience constantly honing the craft !

Ian

No, you're missing the mark. I have used these films in outdoor work, and T-Max 400 (the original version) did not produce negatives that printed as well as traditional films. The problem was that shadows were weak and flat, whereas highlights were contrasty and dense, no matter what sort of manipulation in development I tried (including very dilute developers). I have not tried the new material, but I doubt that it is significantly different in tonal rendition. I assure the original poster that Tri-X (or HP5) will work best with his older equipment.

 

[Ian Grant]

No, you're missing the mark. I have used these films in outdoor work, and T-Max 400 (the original version) did not produce negatives that printed as well as traditional films. The problem was that shadows were weak and flat, whereas highlights were contrasty and dense, no matter what sort of manipulation in development I tried (including very dilute developers). I have not tried the new material, but I doubt that it is significantly different in tonal rendition. I assure the original poster that Tri-X (or HP5) will work very well with his older equipment.

If the films don't print well that's down to craft, determining effective EI and appropriate developments time, it doesn't mean there's a problem with the film.

For exhibition work I'm regularly shooting traditional film in my case HP5 alongside a modern T grain and similar film Delta 400, the Delta 400 is only used with coated lenses in a TLR or 6x17 camera, the HP5 in coated and Multi-coated lenses. OK I'm comparing two Ilford films but it's similar with Tmax 400 & Tri-X.

The final prints from say my Yashicamat 124 coated Yashinon match well with my Super Graphic (5x4) and 135mm f5.6 Caltar II-S (a MC Symmar S bought from a poster in the thread ) or ZJ T (coated 150mm f4.5 Tessar. Same goes for my two Rolleif

The proof is in the pudding, recently I had a visit from a member of another Forum interested in using an old pre WWI Dagor. I asked her to point to the images from an exhibition set and pick out the Dagor. She picked out the only image where I'd used differential focus, which happened to be made with my Yashicamat 124, She was astounded that the images made with my Dagor looked no different to others in the set. OK my 12" Goerz AM Opt Dagor was coated post WWII, but my 1913 120mm Goerz,Berlin, Dagor isn't and is high contrast.

Craft is about knowing your cameras, lenses, meters and films and developers and using them to obtain the best results.

Ian

 

[Petraio Prime]

If the films don't print well that's down to craft, determining effective EI and appropriate developments time, it doesn't mean there's a problem with the film.

Ian

Yes, it does. It means the film isn't suited to the type of photography you're doing. 'Craft' has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

1. Kodak has trimmed down the range of films available in sheets.

A. Ektapan (earlier, Portrait Pan) was intended for portrait work.

B. Royal Pan (ASA 400) was intended for general outdoor work, including press. It had a curve similar similar to Tri-X Pan 35mm.

C. Super-Panchro Press Type B, an older emulsion discontinued in the 70's, was also a press film.

D. Super XX was again a film designed for outdoor work.

E. Plus-X Pro and Tri-X Pro were intended for studio work.

duPont and Ansco had similar ranges of films.


2. Many of these films were not so specialized that they could not be used in applications other than that for which they were originally intended and designed. Rather, these films produced ideal results when they were so used.

 

[Vaughn]

Well, you missed my point, Petraio, but that's cool. We all have our own way of approaching photography, and I think I understand your approach...it is just not my approach, which is photography an art medium. I do not print onto silver gelatin paper (alt processes with vastly different 'curves'). I weave the characteristics of the light, scene, camera, lens, film type, exposure, processing, receipe for the alt process, final support paper, and all the presetation stuff together to produce a print. Some of my successful prints were outdoor images taken with Kodak Copy Film (and Tech Pan). I really do not care that it is not its intended application.

There is no "best" film for landscape. When I was printing silver gelatin, I found that 4x5 TMax100 (1980s) in HC-110 made wonderful 16x20 prints. So did Royal Pan X, Plus-X, and Super XX as I remember. As a 'pro', I use any sheet film I can get my hands on now...especially since many of the types I use to use are no longer made. I have worked with most of the common films enough over the last 40 years to get what I want from them without worrying about curves. I do 'waste' a bit of film in experimenting and lose an nice image possibility, but that is what learning is all about.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Well, you missed my point, Petraio, but that's cool. We all have our own way of approaching photography, and I think I understand your approach...it is just not my approach, which is photography an art medium. I do not print onto silver gelatin paper (alt processes with vastly different 'curves'). I weave the characteristics of the light, scene, camera, lens, film type, exposure, processing, receipe for the alt process, final support paper, and all the presetation stuff together to produce a print. Some of my successful prints were outdoor images taken with Kodak Copy Film (and Tech Pan). I really do not care that it is not its intended application.

There is no "best" film for landscape. When I was printing silver gelatin, I found that 4x5 TMax100 (1980s) in HC-110 made wonderful 16x20 prints. So did Royal Pan X, Plus-X, and Super XX as I remember. As a 'pro', I use any sheet film I can get my hands on now...especially since many of the types I use to use are no longer made. I have worked with most of the common films enough over the last 40 years to get what I want from them without worrying about curves. I do 'waste' a bit of film in experimenting and lose an nice image possibility, but that is what learning is all about.

Well, as I said above, it's not gigantic differences that we're talking about. Most 'ordinary' films will produce acceptable images in most circumstances. What I'm talking about is, rather, what is ideal or close to ideal. I learned the hard way that TMY was not the same as Tri-X as far as tonal representation was concerned. I tried and tried and tried, but the film simply could not do what I wanted it to do. I've been doing B&W photography for 50+ years, so this was not a matter of me not knowing what to do. I was simply trying to explain why Tri-X will most likely produce better images (grain aside) than T-Max 400 when shooting with older equipment. In other words, I was confirming that the advice he was given was correct. The range of films available in the past (in sheet film) was enormous. It's sad that we don't have them any more. I used Royal Pan in high school, and it was very good stuff!

 

[MattKing]

I was simply trying to explain why Tri-X will most likely produce better images (grain aside) than T-Max 400 when shooting with older equipment.

I think you need to add three words to your statement: "for my purposes"
With respect, I don't think that the differences in the films are particularly related to the differences in the lenses. I think they are definitely related to the differences in subject matter.
If someone is working in studio conditions, and wants results that are fairly classic in style, the characteristics of sheet film Tri-X may very well be much more suitable than T-Max 400. And it may as well be true that the way that older lenses perform in those classic lighting situations may also aid in accomplishing those results.
Match the lens to the subject, lighting and style one seeks.
Match the film to the subject, lighting and style one seeks.
But matching the lens to the film - not nearly as important.

 

[flavio81]

Tmax 400 (tmy) is a great film which you can use successfully in portraits, landscape, street photograpy, you name it. You will find some APUGgers that consider TMY their favorite film. You will find examples of landscape, portrait, etc pictures done in TMY with excellent results.

If a photographer is obtaining good results from TMY, it is not the fault of the film. TMY requires different treatment than TX on the lab, obviously. But Delta 100/400 and Tmax 100/400 are wonderful general purpose films adaptable to a lot of different situations.

 

[Vaughn]

Why try to make, or want TMY to have, the same tonal representation as Tri-X? I understand that TMY will produce slightly different images than Tri-X -- but why is one type of image superior over the other? I understand that for you one works better than another, but this is not universal. For me, the reduced relative sensitivity to blue light made TMax100 a very nice landscape film for silver printing.

Your concept of "ideal" as not vaild for the way I work. Film, cameras and lenses do not produce images, as that is what the photographer does. It is the very characteristics of the lens/film/developer used -- whether "ideal" or not -- that contribute, as Ian put it, to the "crafting" the image.

But like you said, we are talking minor effects, and just different approaches to using the material. I think you have a particular way you want your negatives to look to get your prints to look the way you want them, as most of us here do. So that is all cool.

 

[flavio81]

Match the lens to the subject, lighting and style one seeks.
Match the film to the subject, lighting and style one seeks.
But matching the lens to the film - not nearly as important.

+1

Why try to make, or want TMY to have, the same tonal representation as Tri-X? I understand that TMY will produce slightly different images than Tri-X -- but why is one type of image superior over the other? I understand that for you one works better than another, but this is not universal. For me, the reduced relative sensitivity to blue light made TMax100 a very nice landscape film for silver printing.

Your concept of "ideal" as not vaild for the way I work. Film, cameras and lenses do not produce images, as that is what the photographer does. It is the very characteristics of the lens/film/developer used -- whether "ideal" or not -- that contribute, as Ian put it, to the "crafting" the image.

Exactly. And for the tonal balance, there are filters. For example Fomapan 100 is very very red-sensitive. Filterless, it gives a strong look peculiar to those who shoot with an Orange or red filter. But one can also use filters to compensate and have Fomapan 100 shift in tonal balance to what one desires.

It is the photographer the one that is in control, not the film.

 

[Petraio Prime]

+1



Exactly. And for the tonal balance, there are filters. For example Fomapan 100 is very very red-sensitive. Filterless, it gives a strong look peculiar to those who shoot with an Orange or red filter. But one can also use filters to compensate and have Fomapan 100 shift in tonal balance to what one desires.

It is the photographer the one that is in control, not the film.

Uh, nope. Filters do not affect the shadows alone. And, nope, the film's characteristics are fixed within limits.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Why try to make, or want TMY to have, the same tonal representation as Tri-X? I understand that TMY will produce slightly different images than Tri-X -- but why is one type of image superior over the other? I understand that for you one works better than another, but this is not universal. For me, the reduced relative sensitivity to blue light made TMax100 a very nice landscape film for silver printing.

Your concept of "ideal" as not vaild for the way I work. Film, cameras and lenses do not produce images, as that is what the photographer does. It is the very characteristics of the lens/film/developer used -- whether "ideal" or not -- that contribute, as Ian put it, to the "crafting" the image.

But like you said, we are talking minor effects, and just different approaches to using the material. I think you have a particular way you want your negatives to look to get your prints to look the way you want them, as most of us here do. So that is all cool.

Why? because the tonal representation of Tri-X is good, that's why. Consider a scene, let's say of a brick building, half in bright sun, half in shadow. The light on the sunny side is harsh and contrasy; the light on the shady side is soft (skylight). A film that reduces the contrast of the bright areas and boosts the contrast in the shadow areas will give a better-balanced print. Tri-X does that. TMY does just the opposite, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. See the image below. On Tri-X, the dark side would be slightly brighter and have more snap, whereas the bright side would be slightly darker and have a little less contrast. This would make a better print.

https://previews.123rf.com/images/s...ight-against-a-clear-blue-sky-Stock-Photo.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/locked4low/8023773197/

In the studio, of course, things are different.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yes, it does. It means the film isn't suited to the type of photography you're doing. 'Craft' has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

1. Kodak has trimmed down the range of films available in sheets.

A. Ektapan (earlier, Portrait Pan) was intended for portrait work.

B. Royal Pan (ASA 400) was intended for general outdoor work, including press. It had a curve similar similar to Tri-X Pan 35mm.

C. Super-Panchro Press Type B, an older emulsion discontinued in the 70's, was also a press film.

D. Super XX was again a film designed for outdoor work.

E. Plus-X Pro and Tri-X Pro were intended for studio work.

duPont and Ansco had similar ranges of films.


2. Many of these films were not so specialized that they could not be used in applications other than that for which they were originally intended and designed. Rather, these films produced ideal results when they were so used.

And TMY-II can do almost all of the above, depending on how you expose & process. Use the toe & a slightly extended process to go in a TXP/ Portrait Pan direction in soft light, or expose up on to the massively long straight line & pull back on process to go in a traditional straight line sort of look. The rest is craft/ skill/ knowledge/ ability.

 

[Petraio Prime]

And TMY-II can do almost all of the above, depending on how you expose & process. Use the toe & a slightly extended process to go in a TXP/ Portrait Pan direction in soft light, or expose up on to the massively long straight line & pull back on process to go in a traditional straight line sort of look. The rest is craft/ skill/ knowledge/ ability.

The trouble is that in roll film individual treatment of negatives is not possible.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The trouble is that in roll film individual treatment of negatives is not possible.

Nor does it need to. A little forethought and investigation of personal style and exposure/ process preferences go a long way to preventing a desire to chop and change in the middle of a roll.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Nor does it need to. A little forethought and investigation of personal style and exposure/ process preferences go a long way to preventing a desire to chop and change in the middle of a roll.

A lot of people prefer to use one or two films at most. A fast film like Tri-X (i.e., with an 'n'-shaped curve) is probably the most useful for any kind of outdoor work.

 

[flavio81]

Uh, nope. Filters do not affect the shadows alone. And, nope, the film's characteristics are fixed within limits.

I wrote "tonal balance". You're speaking about the tonal curves, that is, the exposure vs. density curve.
Totally different things. My post is regarding the wavelength (color) vs sensivity curve, which influences the "look" of the image as much (or more?) than the tonal curve.

And that curve can always be manipulated by choice of exposure, developer, time, temperature, agitation.

And TMY-II can do almost all of the above, depending on how you expose & process. Use the toe & a slightly extended process to go in a TXP/ Portrait Pan direction in soft light, or expose up on to the massively long straight line & pull back on process to go in a traditional straight line sort of look. The rest is craft/ skill/ knowledge/ ability.

+1

 

[Petraio Prime]

I wrote "tonal balance". You're speaking about the curves, that is, the exposure vs. density curve.
Totally different things.

And that curve can always be manipulated by choice of exposure, developer, time, temperature, agitation.

+1

You cannot change the 'tonal balance' (curve shape) of a film very much. Compensating development can help a little.

 

[Lachlan Young]

A lot of people prefer to use one or two films at most. A fast film like Tri-X (i.e., with an 'n'-shaped curve) is probably the most useful for any kind of outdoor work.

I'd suggest Hp5+ or TMY-II depending on your grain preferences. I like Delta 400 and TX (and a Y2 filter) too, especially at 200 & a low-mid 0.5s CI. ID-11 or Xtol at 1+1.

You cannot change the 'tonal balance' (curve shape) of a film very much. Compensating development can help a little.

In that case, you'll be able to explain why masking techniques may be preferable to extreme N- developments with regards to the midtones.

 

[baachitraka]

I may go with Fomapan 200/400 when shooting with my Triotar.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I'd suggest Hp5+ or TMY-II depending on your grain preferences. I like Delta 400 and TX (and a Y2 filter) too, especially at 200 & a low-mid 0.5s CI. ID-11 or Xtol at 1+1.



In that case, you'll be able to explain why masking techniques may be preferable to extreme N- developments with regards to the midtones.

He's using 35mm, remember?