Tri-X 400 vs T-MAX 400

Cholentpot said:

You can't shoot Tmax100 past 100.

Click to expand...

Haa you can say that again. TMAX-100 is 100 that's it.

Alan Edward Klein said:

Why then do you prefer Tmax 100?

Click to expand...

Because it's the closest replacement for Panatomic-X that Kodak offers.

And hey, it's about half stop faster. (Panatomic-X oddly rates at 50 for me).

Bill Burk said:

Haa you can say that again. TMAX-100 is 100 that's it.

Because it's the closest replacement for Panatomic-X that Kodak offers.

And hey, it's about half stop faster. (Panatomic-X oddly rates at 50 for me).

Click to expand...

When I get asked to show my film work in the context of 'why are you shooting film?' I generally show a shot taken on Tmax-100. It's what a 100 ISO film should be in my opinion. I never shot Panatomic-x, it was discontinued while I was still in preschool.

When my wife took a photo class for fun during her second round of college, the instructor lambasted TMX as the worst film in existence. The students were then sent their way to come back with their own prints. My wife borrowed my P67 and I handed her a roll of 120 TMX. Then when she went into the darkroom, I showed her a paper safe full of 11X14 Brilliant Bromide. I drymounted the result for her. She took it to class and the instructor showed it all around as one of the best student prints ever. Then he asked her what kind of film she used, expecting in reply the HP5 he recommended. "TMax". That kinda quieted things down for a moment.

DREW WILEY said:

When my wife took a photo class for fun during her second round of college, the instructor lambasted TMX as the worst film in existence. The students were then sent their way to come back with their own prints. My wife borrowed my P67 and I handed her a roll of 120 TMX. Then when she went into the darkroom, I showed her a paper safe full of 11X14 Brilliant Bromide. I drymounted the result for her. She took it to class and the instructor showed it all around as one of the best student prints ever. Then he asked her what kind of film she used, expecting in reply the HP5 he recommended. "TMax". That kinda quieted things down for a moment.

Click to expand...

How do you know that the teacher was expecting her to say HP5?
I was one of the first kids on the block to try TMax when it came out so many years ago (mid 1980's). With TMax you either love it or you never touch the stuff. To my eye it's as if Kodak's design brief for TMax was to design a film that screamed Black & White in the same way that newbie wet printers usually print with too much contrast and digital users do when converting colour images in Black & White. It aids some photographers idea of what a B&W print should look like but IMHO it has no subtlety. I can usually pick a print made from a TMax neg because it screams "look at me, I'm a REAL B&W photo"

DREW WILEY said:

When my wife took a photo class for fun during her second round of college, the instructor lambasted TMX as the worst film in existence. The students were then sent their way to come back with their own prints. My wife borrowed my P67 and I handed her a roll of 120 TMX. Then when she went into the darkroom, I showed her a paper safe full of 11X14 Brilliant Bromide. I drymounted the result for her. She took it to class and the instructor showed it all around as one of the best student prints ever. Then he asked her what kind of film she used, expecting in reply the HP5 he recommended. "TMax". That kinda quieted things down for a moment.

Click to expand...

I tried TMax in 120 on an overcast day and did not like it, however since there was not Tri-X 400 in 4"x5" I used TMax 100 and TMax 400 which I still use along with HP5+. The TMax films have a long straight curve and very good reciprocity. You should have let her use your 8"x10" and make a TMax contact print.

The teacher had been singing the praises of HP5, and cursing TMax, in class all along. He was speaking from the standpoint of a snapshooter. Little did he know that her husband - me - shot both films in 8x10, and could run rings around anything he could teach. TMax was very very thoughtfully engineered in the first place, then later improved even more. It was designed to potentially replace several important previous Kodak films all at once, depending on how it was developed. It's a multi-trick rather than one trick pony; but that means you have to be a lot more specific with how you meter and develop it. So it was designed primarily for pro and technical applications, even though they tried to force the issue on general users subsequently, as they discontinued certain ole favorites. It's capable of incredible subtlety, even a wider range of gammas than any other film on the market today I can think of, if you understand it. Of course, I'm speaking of TMax as a class, including both the 100 and 400 speed products. If you have problems with the contrast, then there's a problem with either how you expose or develop it, or both. Don't blame the film. I will admit, however, that it can have a steeper learning curve, learning how to do this right, than most other pan films. But the rewards are high too.

Delta and TMax are good products, I just prefer traditional grain unless I have a reason to use tabular grain. I have finally found the development time for Delta 3200 at 3200 in replenished XTOL and Jobo processor, so now I have to find the development times for Tri-X and Delta 3200 at 3200 in Pyrocat HC in Glycol in a Jobo processor.

I was printing in a lab when it came out. I well remember how everyone fell over themselves buying it when it first came out, I knew a guy at Lindahls in Denver and he told me it was outselling all other B&W films by a huge margin, then sales began to drop, a lot. I don't buy the "it has a steep learning curve" line. It has a look that some people love and some people loathe, simple as that. It has incredible mid-tone separation but oh those shadows and highlights, clearly seen in its characteristic curve. To my eye it always seemed like a replacement for TXP which was great in controlled lighting low contrast situations but a horror show in typical outdoor scenes.

markbau said:

How do you know that the teacher was expecting her to say HP5?
I was one of the first kids on the block to try TMax when it came out so many years ago (mid 1980's). With TMax you either love it or you never touch the stuff. To my eye it's as if Kodak's design brief for TMax was to design a film that screamed Black & White in the same way that newbie wet printers usually print with too much contrast and digital users do when converting colour images in Black & White. It aids some photographers idea of what a B&W print should look like but IMHO it has no subtlety. I can usually pick a print made from a TMax neg because it screams "look at me, I'm a REAL B&W photo"

Click to expand...

So a film stock looks too much like film?

Weird.

Nowhere as near as simple as that. It has relatively little in common with Tri-X Pan. You'd understand the difference if you researched the other applications it was designed for. Some of those technical applications have since gone over to industrial digital alternatives; but the lions share of TMY sheet film still seems to go to dedicated industrial rather than ordinary use. It has special spectral qualities not apparent to general photographers. It was intended to replace Tech Pan for certain forensic applications, replace Super XX for color separation use, and had certain critical astronomical uses as well, which is why it was once offered in glass plates. The shadow separation is the best of any film currently on the market. The only exception would be Fortepan 200, if that film had decent recip characteristics, which it doesn't, could handle a range of gammas like Super XX and Bergger 200, but it cant; and to boot, the quality control is dicey. TMax films are exceptionally predictable batch to batch. This is vital to technical applications, which still factor, even if this kind of forum is not typically the kind of place to discuss such things. Highlights are easy to control if you know how, although the current version of TMX is superior in that respect to the original. The problem is that people tend to overexpose it rather than trust the straight line going further down into the shadows than most other films. I can give strong arguments as well as the experience of hundreds of prints of high contrast desert and high altitude situations which prove TMax films handle high contrast much better than any other films currently in production. I have large bodies of work based on that very premise; I've been printing such things this very week. But if you are implying it was intended to replace TXP because it has a wider range (without needing to resort to minus of compensating dev, which would compress the midtones), that was evidently the case. But the old school TXP had enough stubborn following to keep it alive, while the "all-toe" Plus X sheet film (different from the roll film version) ironically got knocked off its log, like an old turtle. But all kinds of things factor into marketing decisions. I'm glad TMax is still alive in both speeds, in multiple formats. I would be very hard to replace in my case. There are numerous other films I know how to use well for general photography, but TMX 100 is invaluable for lab roles like color film masking and color separation negatives that would be clumsy at best with other films. And what film can you think of other than TMY400 that gives very fine grain at true box speed like that, a great asset to shooting in windy conditions or handheld with small formats?

I would hazard to say Panatomic-X is to TMAX-100 as Tri-X is to TMY2.

If you can tell the difference between Tri-X and TMY2, and you prefer Tri-X, you might prefer Panatomic-X over TMAX-100 for the same reason. The old film you can get is still good.

Cholentpot said:

When I get asked to show my film work in the context of 'why are you shooting film?' I generally show a shot taken on Tmax-100. It's what a 100 ISO film should be in my opinion. I never shot Panatomic-x, it was discontinued while I was still in preschool.

Click to expand...

That sounds great

DREW WILEY said:

I'm glad TMax is still alive in both speeds, in multiple formats. I would be very hard to replace in my case.

Click to expand...

I'd hate to lose TMY-2 in 4x5 but when it comes to 35mm 400, I'm just as happy to shoot Tri-X or TMY-2 since it's haphazard which will be available at the shops I visit.

I just can never get good results with TMAX-100 in situations that call for a 400 speed film. And if I've got the light, or the tripod, I've got Panatomic-X for that.

Love Tri-X. Love TMX too.But heck I love HP5 and FP4 just as much!
If you are careful with you processing, TMX and TMY are unbeatable. Tiny grain, huge dynamic range, no rolloff of the high values. I used Panatomic exclusively until it was discontinued and resisted the tabular films for years. But Kodak reformulated them and their tendency to have a strongly upswept curve was reduced (with careful processing). Nowadays (and this may be blasphemy to some) I don't miss Panatomic-X or Verichrome Pan. I'm 64, shot my first roll in 1965, and I still get a huge charge out of looking at the film as soon as it exits the processing!
But Kodachrome, that one I miss....

Lots of yummy flavors in the ice cream store. I'm headed out with 120 Acros today.

I've always been on the fence about about TMX400-II. I've shot Tri-X for longer than I care to admit, so I'm quite familiar with it and love it dearly. Tri-X is my goto film in 135/120

But then there is TMAX 400-II.

(I develop both Tri-X and TMAX 400-II in Barry Thornton's 2-bath and Diafine. Maybe I should try Tmax400-II in the TMAX developer some time.)

What I like

- It's hard to believe just how fine grained TMAX 400 is given that it is a 400 speed film.
- Pushes really nicely to 1250-1600, even 3200 in Diafine. Probably due to the straighter curve and obviously the finer grain makes a difference.
- Did I mention just how fine grained this film is?
- It scans really well... whatever that means <cough!>

What I don't like and obviously this is my personal opinion. Your taste may vary.

- The spectral response. Technically speaking there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, but to my eye it looks really modern. Almost digital. Maybe I'm just used to looking at Tri-X for the past 30 years, but I just can't get used to it.
- There is something about the tonal response in hard sunlight that bothers me. Again, it looks digital to my eye. It feels like the blacks get black real fast in the lowest zones and the whites are fairly linear. Maybe it's just an illusion because the middle is so long? Could be my developer? On the other hand it looks fine to me in overcast or low light situations.
- Tri-X seems to be more forgiving to exposure errors. Especially in the highlights.
- I develop TMAX 400-II in Barry Thornton's 2-bath and Diafine. Maybe I should try the TMAX developer some time..

And there is the rub.

Tmax 400-II is a fantastic film- if you like the look of Tmax.

With a test roll of FP4 in my OM2n on auto, I over exposed one shot by 2 stops. Because there was a lever I could play with.

On the contact print, that neg was obviously too light. I made another contact print at -1 stop and it was just right. +2 stops in camera = -1 stop at the enlarger. If the film had been T-Max, would that need close to -2 stops at the enlarger?

I have no idea of what a "digital look" implies when referring to TMax, or any other film for that matter. I guess if you scan it and make an inkjet then everything might look digital. But in darkroom printing, I don't see why any film would unless someone doesn't know how to control the highlights and shadows. Each significantly different type of film has its own specific learning curve, that's all. It takes awhile to master any one of them.

DREW WILEY said:

I have no idea of what a "digital look" implies when referring to TMax, or any other film for that matter. I guess if you scan it and make an inkjet then everything might look digital. But in darkroom printing, I don't see why any film would unless someone doesn't know how to control the highlights and shadows. Each significantly different type of film has its own specific learning curve, that's all. It takes awhile to master any one of them.

Click to expand...

Drew, I'm just curious, do you love TMax because of its many undoubted technical attributes or do you use it for its "look". I think what I and others are trying to say is that it has its own "look" that obviously is loved by some people and not liked by others. There is no "best" film, only the film you like. It's interesting that after all this time, HP5 and TriX outsell Tmax by a significant margin.

Both. TMax films are highly versatile and of exceptional quality, dependable, but expensive in sheets. I do a lot of photog in the mtns and deserts where contrast can be extreme, so the superior linearity of these films is helpful. But I use other films too for their own characteristics when handling high contrast is not a priority. Then there's the speed advantage of TMY400 with its fine grain, valuable on our numerous windy days here on the coast with the small f-stops characteristic of 8x10 tripod work, or at the other extreme, useful for handheld shooting with a Nikon with my preferred 85mm lens. I don't mind some distinct grain showing in small prints from 35mm, cause it's more a poetic, understated format for me, the alter-ego to my big camera, big print work which I like looking meticulous. As far as what actually sells, you'd need to know the coating and cutting volume at the mfg level, not just what ordinary photo stores are doing, and you'd have to think of it in terms of cumulative square footage. A lot of TMax goes to LF usage in sheet version. And because it's expensive, we tend to stockpile it in our freezers during favorable cycles. So it's a hard statistic to pin down. There are also still industrial users of TMX100 for technical applications. Roll film is a somewhat different category because it's coated on a completely different base. There's also the intimidation factor with casual darkroom types or students, because TMax films are indeed fussier to expose correctly than FP4 or HP5, for example.

The TMAX films have been deliberately formulated to have a bit weaker response to blue light, and you can see this clearly in the Kodak datasheets. Subjectively, this is what gives them a "modern" look to my eye. On the other hand, a yellow filter is less needed when dealing with blue skies, and yellow filters will give an even stronger response. Traditional films also had a "weak spot" in the green-blue and combined with their strong blue response, this gave them that "old school" look.

You seem to be correct in terms of look in a print, but the actual spectral sensitivity of TMax is actually different in some respects from classic ole pan films. It seems that skies are less blue than they were a few decades ago due to the buildup of the atmospheric impact of high flying jets, probably smog too. What a strong yellow filter once did seems to require a strong orange one today. I notice that even in my own shots taken in the mountains over the last 50 yrs. But I suspect that the reason TMax films were balanced this way had less to due with anticipating this kind of problem than with tailoring it for certain technical applications. If I want an even more natural look unfiltered, orthopan ACROS provides that; but it has no real value for technical tricolor usage.

DREW WILEY said:

I have no idea of what a "digital look" implies when referring to TMax, or any other film for that matter. I guess if you scan it and make an inkjet then everything might look digital. But in darkroom printing, I don't see why any film would unless someone doesn't know how to control the highlights and shadows. Each significantly different type of film has its own specific learning curve, that's all. It takes awhile to master any one of them.

Click to expand...

Like I said. In my opinion. Your opinion may vary.

The charge that Tmax looks 'digital' is not uncommon and something that I have heard over and over again from all sorts of people over the years. I really do believe it has to do with the different spectral response compared to something like Tri-X, the lack of grain compared to Tri-X and mid-tone / highlight roll off characteristics compared to Tri-X.

I work in the movie business and this is very similar to a common complaint that is heard when the output from certain digital cinema cameras is compared to film capture. When people quantify the differences you hear the same points being mentioned; differences in spectral response, grain and mid-tone / highlight roll off characteristics. There is a very fine line at play here, that causes this reaction from certain people.

And yes, I do know how to control the highlights and shadows and do make wet prints. No need to imply incompetence, when it is just a matter of a difference in perception, experience, opinion and taste.

Sirius Glass said:

View attachment 231249​

I tried TMax in 120 on an overcast day and did not like it, however since there was not Tri-X 400 in 4"x5" I used TMax 100 and TMax 400 which I still use along with HP5+. The TMax films have a long straight curve and very good reciprocity. You should have let her use your 8"x10" and make a TMax contact print.

Click to expand...

Tmax 100 is wonderful!

Use color filters and let the magic happen.

NB23 said:

Tmax 100 is wonderful!

Use color filters and let the magic happen.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. I had great fun in Nepal with TMax 100 (and 400) in my 1949 Leica IIIC and its Summitar lens:
https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2018/02/footloose-in-kathmandu-nepal-2017-04.html

Over what years, Harry? Digi photography is an adolescent medium that doesn't even know what it is half the time. I was in full throttle with TMax well before that kind of thing was remotely either affordable or practical by the public. Most of the time the "digi look" is just overdone, corny, crude, half-baked, amateur whatever. What does this thread legitimately have in common with that? Highlight roll-off ?????? Not if you have a decent light meter and know how to use it, along with an appropriate development regimen. That kind of problem happens when people overexpose the film because they don't trust its native curve to do what it's engineered to actually do. So, no, I wasn't trying to imply you have that problem personally; and I do recognize that TMax films aren't the best choice for casual snapshooters who rely on the voodoo of careless "latitude" instead of actual metering. And what I have also discovered is that a lot of the current digi generation doesn't even know what a real light meter is. So when they decide to switch to real film - and quite a few do, at least in this area - TMax drives them nuts. But these are a pair of films so versatile in terms of gamma and fully analog curve tweaking that they can be made to resemble quite a variety of other films, but not necessarily visa versa.