Today's film IS better.

df cardwell · Feb 8, 2010

However much fun it is to mourn the old films we have lost,
the the films which replaced them are better. Here are a selection of Kodak MTF and Grain/Granularity charts for your entertainment.

If you aren't comfortable reading an MTF chart, you might look at where the curve crosses the 50% Response line (vertical axis) to see the practical limit of that film's Spatial Frequency. This is a handy snapshot of what the film can give you.

For instance, Tri-X gives you 60 cycles at 50% contrast. It has a Granularity of 17 (fine). TMZ gives you 80 cycles at 50% contrast. The Granularity is 18.

There are two questions one might ask. The common one is, " Kodak doesn't know what it is talking about"; the second is, "Hmm, I wonder what I can do to improve my pictures ?".

Take squint at TMY2 & Verichrome Pan; and if you feel strong, compare TMX to Tech Pan and Panatomic. For that matter, take a long, hard look at TMY2 and Panatomic X.

Have Fun ! :munch:

.

Bruce Watson · Feb 8, 2010

Yup. I've been saying that for years. Kodak looks to be the only company out there improving B&W film, but they are doing an amazingly excellent job at it. TMY-2 is just scary good in LF.

Kodak has set the bar so high it's no wonder that Harmon/Ilford, and to a lesser extent Fuji, aren't willing to compete. And Kodak has shown no indication it will stop improving B&W any time soon.

It is an excellent time to be a photographer!

benjiboy · Feb 8, 2010

I agree Don, in my opinion the most significant leaps forward in analogue photography in the last twenty or thirty years have been in films and chemistry, more so than the innovations in cameras and lenses.

PHOTOTONE · Feb 8, 2010

But reading charts is not the same a shooting images. Many people liked the tonal rendering of older films, and with larger formats, granularity and ultimately the micro-sharpness improvements with modern emulsions just don't matter.

Chazzy · Feb 8, 2010

I'm not sure that improvements are always for the better. The improved films seem more sterile and characterless to me. But then, if one wants old-fashioned film, there are always Efke and Foma.

df cardwell · Feb 8, 2010

PHOTOTONE said:
But reading charts is not the same a shooting images. Many people liked the tonal rendering of older films, and with larger formats,....

Darkroom Legend #12 !

Tonal rendering depends ONLY on exposure and development. You can get the same tonality from any appropriate combination of film and developer.

The chart is no more than a mathematical description of what the film is doing. Here is Kodak's glorious Portrait Pan, Paul Strand's favorite film, long and gone these many years. You can reproduce it exactly with TXP. When we run out of TXP, you can do it with TMY2.

TMY2 in Edwal 10 or 12, or HC-110 or DK-50 ? Exact match.

Really, we can !

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 8, 2010

Spectral sensitivity, however, has nothing to do with exposure or development, and that's the main thing I don't like about T-Max films--they look too much like B&W video. It might be possible to tweak that by filtering it differently on the camera than other B&W films, but I used TMX and TMY for around 10 years as my main films when I mainly shot 35mm and ultimately realized that by shooting larger formats, I could think less about grain and more about tone, and since then, I haven't shot much T-Max.

TMY-II does seem more attractive than TMY in the clumpy grain area.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 8, 2010

I don't do much posting here anymore. I am trying to make more pictures.

Side by side, my Tri-X negs and TMY-2 negs in 120 print so similarly that I can't tell them apart. Old school this, and t-grain that - just go use it, print it, and work it until you like it.

Thanks for posting, Don.

df cardwell said:
Darkroom Legend #12 !

Tonal rendering depends ONLY on exposure and development. You can get the same tonality from any appropriate combination of film and developer.

The chart is no more than a mathematical description of what the film is doing. Here is Kodak's glorious Portrait Pan, Paul Strand's favorite film, long and gone these many years. You can reproduce it exactly with TXP. When we run out of TXP, you can do it with TMY2.

TMY2 in Edwal 10 or 12, or HC-110 or DK-50 ? Exact match.

Really, we can !

df cardwell · Feb 8, 2010

Spectral sensitivity, however, has nothing to do with exposure or development

Yes, David. Good point. But that IS a film-by-film thing.

But it is ALWAY necessary to see for yourself.

Ian Grant · Feb 8, 2010

The reality is that the films from all three major manufacturers of B&W film are excellent and if you exercise the right degree of control & craft it makes little difference who's film's you use in practice. That's been my experience as I switched from Agfa, when they stopped sheet film to Tmax 100/400 and more recently to Delta 100/400 and HP5.

Ian

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 8, 2010

df cardwell said:
But it is ALWAY necessary to see for yourself.

That is certainly true. For all the debate about these things on internet forums, there's no test like a test with film in the camera, printed however one likes to print.

MattKing · Feb 8, 2010

I have avoided doing specific objective tests (new vs old) but on a subjective basis, I'm very happy with both new films (TMX and TMY) and the current version of my older favourite, Plus-X.

I am a little confused, however, why this thread is in the "Color: Film, Paper and Chemistry" forum .

Matt

Steve Smith · Feb 8, 2010

Bruce Watson said:
Yup. I've been saying that for years. Kodak looks to be the only company out there improving B&W film

I'm sure Fuji and Ilford still carry out research and development.

Steve

Lee L · Feb 8, 2010

MattKing said:
I am a little confused, however, why this thread is in the "Color: Film, Paper and Chemistry" forum .

Matt

Maybe it was the mention of spectral sensitivity.

Lee

Bruce Watson · Feb 8, 2010

Steve Smith said:
I'm sure Fuji and Ilford still carry out research and development.

Really? What makes you say that? Kodak's TMY-2 is only a couple of years old. The latest version of Tri-X is only a couple of years older than that. When did Harmon last introduce a new B&W film? Fuji? Kodak built a new coating facility for B&W films less than a decade ago. When did Harmon last update their manufacturing? Fuji?

The only company I see doing R&D is Kodak. But I don't work for any of them and have no access to their side of the corporate wall. But that's why I said "looks to be" instead of "is"

And I'm an LFer. Films not available in 5x4 or larger aren't the center of my attention. So if I missed something I'm sure someone will correct me. They always do. :rolleyes:

David_A · Feb 8, 2010

MattKing said:
I am a little confused, however, why this thread is in the "Color: Film, Paper and Chemistry" forum .

Kodak = Yellow Fuji = Green and it's turning into quite a colourful discussion :munch:

David

Ian Grant · Feb 8, 2010

Bruce Watson said:
Really? What makes you say that? Kodak's TMY-2 is only a couple of years old. :rolleyes:

Yes but Kodak can put all their B&W research into the few films they manufacture, they gave up on papers.

On the other hand Ilford still offers the FULL B&W package - Films, papers, Chemistry etc, and they have been introducing re-formulating Kentmere products as well as introducing two new budget B&W films aimed at the student market, and working on new materials with commercial partners including Bergger, Fotoimpex, the Impossible Project.

There are new papers in the pipeline, so perhaps they've been busier in other directions. Compared to Kodak they are a very much smaller company, but have always produced first rate products.

Remember that some of Kodak's new coating line's have now been demolished before they ever began coating, and that the new lines left may well become uneconomic far faster than they lines the replaced.

Ian

df cardwell · Feb 8, 2010

I am a little confused, however, why this thread is in the "Color: Film, Paper and Chemistry" forum .

Me too.

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 8, 2010

Thread moved on the tiny screen of my iPod Touch.

Sal Santamaura · Feb 8, 2010

Ian Grant said:
...On the other hand Ilford still offers...

Congratulations on transcending your British English learning and recognizing that a corporate entity is a singular!

David_A · Feb 8, 2010

Hang on??? whats happening???
Its gone all monochrome in here all of a sudden, where has all the colour gone

David

df cardwell · Feb 8, 2010

where has all the colour gone ?

Color was discontinued when David moved the thread.

Sorry.

SuzanneR · Feb 8, 2010

Of course charts and graphs don't give you any clue to a film's juju, and I just love the juju of Tri-x. I don't know... something about the grain, I just like better than the Tmax films. Of course, I've used TMY infrequently, so there may well be some juju that I would like about it, but ignorance prevents me from knowing.

Only way to learn about it, would be to use it more frequently. Honestly, there isn't a film on the planet I don't like!!

df cardwell · Feb 8, 2010

juju of Tri-x

Oh. Yes. There is a LOT of 'this works, I'm not changing', too.

I happened to have run out of VP and TX at the same time back in the early '80s, and got hold of a bunch of beta TMax. So the transition was quick and easy... and necessary !

Bruce Watson · Feb 8, 2010

Ian Grant said:
Yes but Kodak can put all their B&W research into the few films they manufacture, they gave up on papers.

True enough. But the topic *is* film, not papers.

Today's film IS better.

df cardwell

Attachments

Bruce Watson

benjiboy

PHOTOTONE

Chazzy

df cardwell

Attachments

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Thomas Bertilsson

df cardwell

Ian Grant

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

Steve Smith

Lee L

Bruce Watson

David_A

Ian Grant

df cardwell

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Sal Santamaura

David_A

df cardwell

SuzanneR

Moderator

df cardwell

Bruce Watson

Today's film IS better.

Attachments

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency