Today's film IS better.

Just to help a bit, I have dug up the following from memories of product design and the EK web site.......

The goal of most modern film design is to achieve a straight mid portion to the characteristic curve, not a bow. Old films were often bowed upwards or downwards in the mid scale which required careful placement of the exposure or the apparent contrast of the final image would vary with over or under exposures or would vary within a scene from highlight to shadows.

The purpose of having the longest straight line characteristic curve above the toe and below the shoulder (if any) is to give the most latitude with constant contrast so that detail does not suffer.

Here are the curves for 5 films from Kodak. The curves in these files show the optimum development time among many (for B&W) hidden in the many curves on each graph. The straightest curve with a contrast between 6 and 7 is the most optimum.

You can use the color films or the BW 400 CN for reference purposes. Use the bottom (cyan) curve if you are not familiar with the color masking. This bottom curve, with the lowest Dmin is the general aim of B&W films with optimum development time and is the defining curve of all color films.

T-Max 400 characteristic curves

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4043/f4043.pdf

Tri-X 400

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

BW 400 CN

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4036/f4036.pdf

Plus X

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4018/f4018.pdf

Portra color films

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4040/e4040.pdf

T-Grains have made this design goal more achievable with better speed, grain and sharpness.

Today's films are better.

PE

Better at a linear curve, sure. What I think we're all beating heads about is that it's about the same as saying "The goal of modern lens design is to create a lens with the highest resolution of detail and sharpness. Todays lenses are the sharpest available - hence they're better."

Exactly what is negative about liking a non-linear curve? That's entirely what analog feel/character/etc. has been based on: non-linearity!

Clayne, the point here is that you are free to shape your curve with Tmax 400. It can be an s-curve if you want, or straight as a nail. It's up to you! Just work with it.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Clayne, the point here is that you are free to shape your curve with Tmax 400. It can be an s-curve if you want, or straight as a nail. It's up to you! Just work with it.

Click to expand...

Ah - but it's only possible of an S-curve via a developing agent. Without breaking out a full analysis right now (since I'm at work and shouldn't even be posting), one should consider how the resultant light response within a given section of the curve might differ from how the curve is manipulated via the developing agent after the fact. My intuition tells me it's not a simple before vs after situation.

Try it, is all I can say. See how you like it.

Thomas is exactly right. Here's the principle: TXP compresses the shadows and expands the highlights. It continued the long line of Kodak's "Portrait" films. To make Tri X or TMY look like TXP, you need to depress the shadows and lift the highlights, just a little.

This isn't speculation or theorizing. It works. It's pretty old school photography, but it works.

The first thing is to get a copy of Minor White's "The New Zone System Manual". White, Zakia and Lorenz give you all the basic information you need to pretty much figure out out to make a film do what you want to.

Next, think this out. WHAT are the developers we all like for lots of shadow detail, great midtones, and gentle highlights ?
(What we used to call 'soft-working developers').

D-76, XTOL, D-23, Microdol X, Microphen, DDX, T-Max Developer, etc., etc., etc. Metol/HQ, Phenidone/HQ, Ascorbate developers.
You don't want these.

To pick up Thomas' post, Edwal 10 and Edwal 12 were made in the '30s to give normal negatives in Midwestern murk.

Edwal 10 is a variation of D-76, that uses Glycin in place of HQ. It reproduces the classic Kodak Portrait Pan curve on TMY2. Edwal 12 is a super fine grain version of Edwal 10. It isn't everybody's cup of tea, because it uses PPD, which activates the glycin at a very low pH to work as if it were in a Carbonate solution. Either E10 or E12 will give reliable and beautiful results. You have to mix it yourself, and it wants replenishment. If you are a one-shot photographer, look elsewhere. But if you want to use TMY 120, I'd recommend Edwal 10 and 12 without hesitation. Edwal 10 and TMY gives you TXP, but finer granularity and higher definition. Edwal 12 has been my own little way of shooting 35mm TXP for 25 years. Shhh. It's a secret because it will make your 120 prints look like they came from 4x5.

HC-110 and DK-50 are very similar,and will give a mild TXP experience, similar to souping TXP in Xtol. If you have been using HC-110 in TXP, you need something more aggressive.

Isn't this fun ?

If you need strong highlight lift, and DK-50 isn't quite what you want, use DK-60a. You won't find it on the shelves, but it is easy to make up.

Formulary offers MCM-100. Ought to do it, just fine. PYRO TRIETHANOLAMINE will do it.

Pyrocat with a little more B will do it.

Dilute Dektol (1+10 ) or LPD or Bromophen will do it. Don't panic about using a 'grainy' print developer. TMY2 is pretty grain resistant. Polymax liquid developer, Sprint paper developer... probably lots of choices out there.

ABC Pyro, but probably not PMK or Wimberleys ...

Classic developers like Glycin Carbonate or Metol Carbonate will do it.

Beutlers, yes.

And Harvey's 777 will do the trick, but it will take a long development time to build the highlight density.

There are probably lots of other answers. Since most developers we run across are so similar in composition and result,
most of the things you see at digital truth won't help.

Oh, almost forgot my old pal Rodinal.

Some of these developers will want EI 250-320.
Some will want EI 400-800.

It really is no more than Photo 101, but selecting a different developer than D-76.


Good luck.

Oh, yeah. Why not just give a perfect answer like digitaltruth ?

That is just data, it isn't information.
If you want to make YOUR kind of picture,
you need YOUR kind of negative.

There ARE no answers, only method.

You don't need a densitometer,
a contact print will tell you more, faster.

Get the Minor White book. Or David Vestal. Or Henry Horenstein.

Get a grip.

This is what I'm saying:

light == input
developer == output

input curve != output curve

One is manipulating the other - but the native film curve responds to light. The developer affects what the film has "recorded" - but the "recording" part is what we're drumming on about in disagreement. A very simple analogy would be over-exposing Tri-X by 4 stops and compressing into the shoulder - how are you going to produce *that* result with a different developer and a straight line film? The developer is affecting the OUTPUT of what INPUT was previously layed down on the film. It's not magically changing the film from one type to another - it's simulating curve shape after the fact. Additionally some of us aren't shooting sheet film primarily, nor are all of us using the zone system.

What I like is seeing "experts" propound on how a particular curve shape = a particular image quality.

My question to them is "have you ever done side by side comparisons?". I have!

The quality of the image is Art! The quality of the image is also science. You need to understand both. It is clear that many have their own POVs to put forth! Right or wrong, there is a position that can be shown to be optimum. Until all of you investigate that point and make comparisons. ....... Well, you are just voicing opinions.

PE

Interesting thread to say the least. Can't say that I'm at the stage in my photo education where I'm going to mix up 5 different developers, but I am getting excited to do dev tests with Tri-X and XTOL - pushing, dilutions, agitation. I also can't wait to try out the couple of test rolls of TMY-2 I recently ordered.

Hi Ron

Thanks for checking in. I was looking everywhere for my Very pistol.....


Clayne

The stuff I'm babbling about is just describing my results. The interesting thing about results is that they can defy all the theorizing in the world. If it works..... it works. Edwal 12 and TMY have duplicated TXP for me since TMY has been in the marketplace. 25 years ??

THE whole point of starting this thread was to shine some light on the new (25 years old !) film and point out some of the virtue, and to try to honestly debunk the legend that they are plastic, bad and evil.

As folks have riled up over TXP being put to rest, I thought to suggest that other films might be bent to serve the part of the niche TXP has filled for so long. It was based entirely on facts, proven over and over again, shared by other photographers years ago and reviewed by peers today.

It is just a practical matter... although maybe if I tried to create a cult it would be welcomed and I could make some money. But this was all shared freely with me by fine photographers of long ago, who asked only that I share it too. So, it is shared. Try it, or not.

Peace.

Photo Engineer said:

What I like is seeing "experts" propound on how a particular curve shape = a particular image quality.

My question to them is "have you ever done side by side comparisons?". I have!

The quality of the image is Art! The quality of the image is also science. You need to understand both. It is clear that many have their own POVs to put forth! Right or wrong, there is a position that can be shown to be optimum. Until all of you investigate that point and make comparisons. ....... Well, you are just voicing opinions.

PE

Click to expand...

PE, I absolutely don't disagree it's both art and science - but my disagreement here is that one material can magically just do it all by changing the developing agent.

I haven't designed films or analyzed their curve response from emulsion to emulsion - but I have done a decent amount of work/time within the analog audio realm and feel I have an intuitive understanding of how signals typically respond within it. Yes, sound is not light, but within the realm of analog - they're more similar than different.

Here's what my entire issue is: with ample exposure, on the input side, we're taking advantage of non-linearity of a given film to alter and change the tone of what's recorded to said film by way of compression and saturation towards the end of the curve (let's just keep it shoulder here as it's simpler to perceive). Any curve other than a straight line (which of course Tmax isn't 100%) is going to compress or expand the input signal relative to what the signal (light in this case) actually was - highly based on the particular characteristics of the film used. e.g. After exposing something at EI 250 vs EI 400, or even EI 50, what's on the film is just plain different - before I've even put it into a tank of developer.

Now on the development side, just because we can use different developers to alter the resultant output curve (i.e. what exposed silver actually gets developed into visible silver), doesn't mean this is the same thing as non-linearity and compression on the input side - even if the developing agents have their own form of non-linearity. We can play games here and alter the "response" but the tonality has already been majorly altered in our original exposure. This doesn't discount the power of different developers by any means - but it doesn't mean they have the exact same type of compression effects as light->film.

Another example: within the realm of compression as it relates to sound, one has a choice as to where in the signal chain they want to EQ a given signal to alter it's tonality. If you EQ pre-compression, you'll affect the response of the compressor, it's amount of compression, and the resultant output will not be a straightforward change. If you EQ post-compression you'll be EQing what's already been compressed and the response is usually more predictable - but operating on a different signal than what the compressor originally saw. One can do both if they like (and many do) - but they have different qualities altogether. It's not hard to make the light->film->developer connection here.

One of the big reasons I love film is due to this non-linearity and natural distortion that occurs based on how we want to (or not want to) expose something. I feel different characteristics of a given film used impart a different feel to different subjects/scenes and along with choice of developer and style - give a fair amount of latitude to the final product - based on the end-user.

Besides, even if we discount everything I typed above - we still haven't addressed the "grain" portion of things. Over and over when a manufacturer releases something they consider to be more "modern" or the "pinnacle of x technology" what they're really dialing in on a lot of times are the most visible lowest common denominators. Tmax is sharp, it has extremely fine grain. In the grand scheme of things, "Big deal." Maybe I was fine with the level of grain I already had. Maybe I like grain. Maybe I'd like to see a "modern" film with awesome tonality rather than "sharp! sharp! sharp!" Anyways, that wasn't what this discussion was originally about - but it's been constantly ignored in this thread. Even if you could get TMY to mimic the curve of TXP (and that's the best one can do, is mimic) it doesn't mean the affect on resolution and grain/texture are the same. Not everyone here is on a mission to remove grain from their photography.

If you want grainless flat-lines and zero distortion, I've got something here to sell you...

P.S.: DFC, I do value what you're throwing out there. I'm just conveying how I feel about things is all. When it comes to actually creating images and shooting film - I honestly don't even think about things at this level of analysis. I just push/pull, use different films/developers based on the results I've personally learned and experienced and what I've got work with.

Love it!

Df,
I absolutely love this part above. . . "The interesting thing about results is that they can defy all the theorizing in the world. If it works..... it works."

Do I have your permission to quote that in my sig.? I've been looking for a good one, and that takes the cake!

Jed

Closed per request of OP.