Today's film IS better.

[Andrew O'Neill]

However much fun it is to mourn the old films we have lost,
the the films which replaced them are better.

Which film has replaced HIE and is better? Nothing.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Crawley called the old times,60's, the "acutance era".
With films like Adox kb17 (now Adox/Efke 50) ,Panatomic-X and Plus-X,using an acutance developer like the Beutler, FX-1, FX-2, Rodinal,and only agitating every two or three minutes,edge effects are produced which give an appearance of sharpness.
I have tried it quite a few times and T-max 100 just does not produce these edge effects. It has a higher resolution though and that is why TMX, Delta and Acros IMO are better but it would be more accurate to say modern and acutance era films convey the impression of sharpness in a different way.

 

[2F/2F]

The third question is, "Do raw technical specifications really mean 'better', period, to me?"

It is good to have this information for technical knowledge. However, without criteria listed, no film can be called "better" than any other. Better for this, or better for that, or better in this or that way, but not simply "better".

SO, if higher MTF performance is the criterion for the comparison, then today's films are better in that way.

...but we all knew that already (at least I hope we knew, just by using them and seeing the results on our prints)!

 

[BetterSense]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like TMY2 has the same MTF as Panatomic X. So, I take that as evidence that Panatomic X was some really good stuff and we just now caught up to it. How fast was panatomic X?

 

[2F/2F]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like TMY2 has the same MTF as Panatomic X. So, I take that as evidence that Panatomic X was some really good stuff and we just now caught up to it. How fast was panatomic X?

What this really means is that TMY2 is some really good stuff, on a purely technical level. That it has the same MTF performance at Panatomic X is simply amazing, since it is over two full speeds faster.

 

[SilverGlow]

I'm too new to B&W to say one way or the other about old vs. new...frankly, I'm just glad we have film to buy, regardless of make or line.

Now don't shoot me, but some "old timer" once told me to switch from Tri-X to a Russian B&W film, or Croation film too, because "they still put a lot of silver halide in their emulsions" and "...this makes better B&W pictures..", and he further goes to tell me "...eastern bloc makers of B&W film make it like the western companies use to back in the day....".

Is there any truth to this? So for B&W film, do the ex-commies do it "better"? I've been tempted to find out myself with the purchase of a few rolls from FreeStylePhoto.com....

 

[2F/2F]

Silver Glow, yes Efke/Adox (identical) films are made using fairly old formulas for sure. As for others, I do not know.

This does not mean they make "better" black and white photos, because "better" is entirely subjective unless you name criteria for its meaning.

 

[2F/2F]

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

Indeed...but they are better than a single human being, if our system of law has anything to say about it. They effectively have all of the rights and protections of a single human being (more even, in some ways), but none of the moral responsibility that a single human has.

 

[SilverGlow]

Indeed...but they are better than a single human being, if our system of law has anything to say about it. They effectively have all of the rights and protections of a single human being (more even, in some ways), but none of the moral responsibility that a single human has.

Yea, 2F, now corps can give to campaigns and candidates with impunity.....proponents say corps have "freedom of speech", as if the constitution was for individuals and corporations equally....not good, not good...but now I digress....

 

[SilverGlow]

Silver Glow, yes Efke/Adox (identical) films are made using fairly old formulas for sure. As for others, I do not know.

This does not mean they make "better" black and white photos, because "better" is entirely subjective unless you name criteria for its meaning.

2F thanks for the response...and what qualities do these old formula films provide that current ones don't?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Let's save the politics for the Soapbox.

 

[2F/2F]

Yea, 2F, now corps can give to campaigns and candidates with impunity.....proponents say corps have "freedom of speech", as if the constitution was for individuals and corporations equally....not good, not good...but now I digress....

Make no mistake: Corporations are the real citizens of the world. The rest of us are just told that we are so that we stay happy.

Yes....enough digression.....

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

2F thanks for the response...and what qualities do these old formula films provide that current ones don't?

The original Adox films were actually among the first "thin emulsion" films, and not really what people are pointing to when they talk about the "old silver rich emulsions." The best way to see what these films are like is to invest in a few rolls of film and see for yourself. I like Efke 100, but don't particularly care for 25 or 50, which are more like orthochromatic emulsions. It's all a matter of taste. The attraction of a thin emulsion film is better resolution.

The last of the "thick emulsion" films was Super-XX. It wasn't as sharp as the thin emulsion films, but the spectral sensitivity was unique, so it was a very good film for color separations, and landscape photographers thought it made the sky light up, because of the way it responded to blue, and because of the crisp clear way that it responded to filters, but that isn't related to the "thick emulsion" aspect. The thick emulsion gave the film a very long straight line curve for good tonal separation in all ranges, and plenty of headroom for expansion development, so in very flat light you could extend development as far as +3 or +4 and get more contrast on film, or it could be easily developed to a higher density range for alternative processes. Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee are devotees of Super-XX, having bought out the last of Kodak's stock and kept it in cold storage. I have some in the freezer in 4x5" and 8x10" that I use occasionally for landscapes, and it is indeed a special film.

 

[Harry Lime]

Speaking of new vs old films, I've been having something along the lines of a serious identity crisis for the past few months.

I've been a die hard Tri-X shooter for the past 12 years, burning through a few hundred rolls a year. For the longest time I wouldn't feed my cameras anything else.

Then one day last fall I picked up a few rolls of the new TMY-2 400 on a whim and that was where all the trouble started. I went back to Tri-X after a few bricks, but I simply couldn't get TMAX out of my head.

The lack of grain in TMY-2 is pretty astonishing. It really does look more like a 100asa film, instead of the 400 it really is. I also feel that the finer grain greatly improves the tonality. Transitions are very smooth.

After a few misfires I've managed to dial my developer (Barry Thornton's 2-Bath) and now get good results. Dynamic range is excellent. I'm believe that I'm managing around 10 solid stops. Shadow detail is maybe the best I have seen in a 400asa film.

It even pushes to 800-1600 without a hitch.

So, what's not to like?

I love the salt and pepper grain of Tri-X, but I was starting to get annoyed with the lack of detail under certain circumstances, due to the size of the grain. That is not a problem with TMY-2. TMY-2 grain doesn't have as much character, as that of Tri-X, but it's not exactly unpleasant either.

I still believe that Tri-X is more forgiving to exposure and development errors, but I really don't screw up that often. I really have no idea which film has the greater exposure range. From what I have seen over the course of almost 100 rolls is that TMAX delivers an extremely high exposure range- if handled properly. I really would like to hear the opinion of someone with more technical knowledge than me on this subject.

The tonality of TMY-2 is really where I'm on the fence. It's a very modern looking film. Tri-X is such a classic looking film. It's rich, it's lush, it has boatloads of character. I reeks of history.

I assume that TMAX has a greater spectral response than Tri-X and yes, it does sometimes tend to look 'digital'. But I wonder if some of that has to do with the lack of grain and the effect this has on the tonality....

There's not a black or white answer to this question. Just this xmas I was doing some street photography in the freezing cold of winter and when I developed the rolls I had something that looked more like Tri-X in 6x4.5 than TMAX in terms of tonality and grain. Just beautiful stuff.

The main questions of course is, "is it as good?" or is it merely a matter of getting used to something new?

 

[Harry Lime]

The thick emulsion gave the film a very long straight line curve for good tonal separation in all ranges, and plenty of headroom for expansion development, so in very flat light you could extend development as far as +3 or +4 and get more contrast on film, or it could be easily developed to a higher density range for alternative processes.

So, in that sense TMY-2 is more like the old films in terms of tonality than something like Tri-X with it's S-curve?

I have to admit that was my first reaction, when I started to play around with TMY-2. It somehow looked very vintage to me, when developed for low contrast. Sort of like the vintage photos you see on sites like Shorpy.com

thanks

 

[CBG]

One might think that today's films are too good - for some purposes.

 

[i40west]

So, what's not to like?

The thing I don't like about T-Max is the tonality, the way the highlights look. It lacks the smooth shoulder that you get with Tri-X.

Having said that, I haven't tried the latest iteration of T-Max 400, and I don't know how much it's changed over the years. I developed my dislike for its highlight rendering quite a long time ago, early '90s at the latest.

 

[df cardwell]

"So, in that sense TMY-2 is more like the old films in terms of tonality than something like Tri-X with it's S-curve?"

"The thing I don't like about T-Max is the tonality, the way the highlights look. It lacks the smooth shoulder that you get with Tri-X"

Here's the deal. TMY CAN give a straightline of 14+ stops. Totally linear.

TMY CAN give a nice gentle shoulder beginning at Zone VI, or starting up at Zone VIII.

TMY CAN give an upswept curve like old Portrait Pan or TXP.

And, TMY CAN give an S curve. (and Tri-X is not limited to an S-curve, either !)

It depends on what WE do. Different developers give different results. Different agitation patterns will fine tune the results.

The reason beginners often HATE it is because you need to be more exact with temperature and time. Not brain-surgery close, but within 20% either way ! Beginners HATE it because if you are changing developers every weekend, you'll never get it under control.

BUT, you can do almost anything you want with it. NO, you can't get golf ball sized grain, but TMZ will.

XTOL and D-76 won't give you acutance effects. Rodinal will. FX-2 and Pyrocat REALLY will. Same film, different developer.

Edwal 12 will give you a TXP curve AND fine, fine, grain. This means 16x20s from 35 mm film, with regular grain that is delicate and unobtrusive. You need some skill, but not much.

The point is what folks tend to dislike about TMY lies in their technique, and it can be remedied.

NOT ALL OLD films were alike. There was intentional diversity in design in the Kodak catalog, because different pictures need different film curves. But the flexibility built into the 3 T-grain films allows the competent photographer to custom make any film they need.

Ansel Adams used to say that it took a serious student, with good direction, 15 years to master photography.

Much like a piano or violin.

Just because we use 'old technology' instead of Photoshop, don't believe there isn't a lot to learn. But in photography, a little effort is hugely rewarded. We are each the limiting factor of our images, not the film. And with today's extraordinary film -which are nearly limitless -what we can do with just a few films in our bag. (never mentioned Acros or the Deltas !)

.

 

[removed account4]

i haven't used tmy2 yet but i love the grain of tmy1 brewed in coffee and ansco 130
it is absolutely beautiful.

as sensei don suggests,
practice makes perfect
john

 

[clayne]

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.

Okay, I'll bite: duplicate the tonality of APX in Rodinal for me. Let's hear it.

 

[BetterSense]

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

For that matter you can mimic any film whatsoever with digital imaging. You might be able to mimic TXP very well with some other film, but that doesn't make it TXP.

 

[Athiril]

I'll stick with Shanghai GP3 mainly.

Though I do enjoy FP4, Delta 3200 and Pan F 50, if only Neopan 1600 was available in 120.. I'm also onto the Tri-X 400 though.

 

[i40west]

Edwal 12 will give you a TXP curve AND fine, fine, grain. This means 16x20s from 35 mm film, with regular grain that is delicate and unobtrusive. You need some skill, but not much.

Okay, I've never heard of Edwal 12, but Photographer's Formulary claims to have an equivalent. For $15 a liter, but still.

Does it really change the curve of TMY that much? I'm having a heck of a time finding example images -- Flickr produces 10 results, which isn't enough of a sample to know if the photographer knows what he's doing...

EDIT: and those results all seem to be Edwal fg7, not Edwal 12. So, no luck there at all.

 

[Ian Grant]

The original Adox films were actually among the first "thin emulsion" films, and not really what people are pointing to when they talk about the "old silver rich emulsions." The best way to see what these films are like is to invest in a few rolls of film and see for yourself. I like Efke 100, but don't particularly care for 25 or 50, which are more like orthochromatic emulsions. It's all a matter of taste. The attraction of a thin emulsion film is better resolution.

The last of the "thick emulsion" films was Super-XX. It wasn't as sharp as the thin emulsion films, but the spectral sensitivity was unique, so it was a very good film for color separations, and landscape photographers thought it made the sky light up, because of the way it responded to blue, and because of the crisp clear way that it responded to filters, but that isn't related to the "thick emulsion" aspect. The thick emulsion gave the film a very long straight line curve for good tonal separation in all ranges, and plenty of headroom for expansion development, so in very flat light you could extend development as far as +3 or +4 and get more contrast on film, or it could be easily developed to a higher density range for alternative processes. Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee are devotees of Super-XX, having bought out the last of Kodak's stock and kept it in cold storage. I have some in the freezer in 4x5" and 8x10" that I use occasionally for landscapes, and it is indeed a special film.

Very true, Adox.EFKE films were the cutting edge technology of the 50's and way ahead of competitors in many ways.

The last of the common old technology films were actiually Forte, based on old Kodak technology, so more similar to Super-XX

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ian,

Assuming good quality control, do you think the "thick" emulsion films such as Kodak Super-XX would still have a place in the market today?

Tom