View Camera article on TMY versus TMY-2

[jp80874]

If I knew enough I might agree, but i'm not too smart and therefore find great value in tests made by those who know more than me. In this instance it isn't helpful as I'm not a big fan of Tmax.

Funny, I got the impression when you were doing so much of the leg work at the first APUG gathering in Toronto that you were a right smart fellow. In my reading of Sandy's work over the years I have thought he was of a similar class. Can't say this other fellow has made much of a splash.

John Powers

 

[BobNewYork]

The opinions of those I respect are of considerable value to me. Sure I do my own testing but the thoughts of others can tell me what to expect - or whether to bother. Either way they're useful.

 

[JBrunner]

The only tests that matter to me are Kodak's, and my own; the former being conducted under certified lab conditions, and the latter with my own equipment and specific materials. The opinions of another user are of very little interest or use to me.

So little interest or use that you bothered to read and post in the thread... the mind boggles.
:rolleyes:

 

[Alex Hawley]

Good article Sandy. Thanks for bringing attention to it. Have you done testing with pyrocat and extreme minimal agitation yet? I'm hoping to start my EMA testing this weekend, assuming the friggin' weather cooperates.

 

[c6h6o3]

Not really a serious test but i exposed and processed my first 8x10 TMY-2 this last weekend. Did two exposures, one with TMY and one with TMY-2 Both taken with a New Nikon 120SW and within 20 seconds of each. Developed in Pyrocat MC 1-1-100 in a 3005 on a Beseler motor base.
The TMY-2 is clearly underexposed by visual inspection. Printing last night on Azo grade 3 confirm this. TMY is printable but not the TMY-2
It looks like the new TMY-2 is slower than the old, it also lacks a little in contrast developed for the same time as the TMY.
One sheet doesn't do much i know so will continue to expose on of each until i get a better and more accurate understanding of the differences.
It does look like a new personal test is required to get the full benefit from this film.

My experience is that the speed is the same. That is, I can't tell the difference in shadow density from prints made on the same piece of Azo of two different negatives, 1 TMY and 1 TMY-2, exposed at the same time and developed together in the same tray of developer. However, the TMY-2 negative showed much (at least 1 stop) greater highlight density than the TMY negative under my modus operandi.

 

[Mahler_one]

What devloper did you use c6? Thanks.

Ed

 

[JLP]

As i said in my previous post, one sheet of each the new and the old TMY is hardly a test and i am hopefull that i made a mistake rather than having a new 120SW being temperamental. Time will tell as new posts from others experiences will come in.
I also want to thank Sandy for the TMY test in the VC.


jan

 

[sanking]

Good article Sandy. Thanks for bringing attention to it. Have you done testing with pyrocat and extreme minimal agitation yet? I'm hoping to start my EMA testing this weekend, assuming the friggin' weather cooperates.

Hi Alex,

To this point I have not developed the new TMY-2 film in Pyrocat with minimal agitation. If you do any testing, please report your results.

It was over 70F and sunny here in South Carolina yesterday, but today we have big storms and lots of rain.

Sandy

 

[sanking]

I had a run in with Sandy a few months ago when he asked what was the best film/developer combination to use on his trip to China, I challenged him for not thinking of using his own Pyrocat HD, to be fair he hadn't formulated the developer with smaller formats 35mm/120 in mind and hadn't tried them. I don't think he realised just how good his Pyrocat developer is.

He's given us more than enough information to be able to almost seamlessly move from the old to new Tmax 400, so thank you Sandy.

Ian

Hi Ian,

Thanks for your comments. I am going to start a new thread about the subjet of C-41 monochrome versus regular B&W films based on the results of my trip to China and subsequent work.

Sandy

 

[Ian Grant]

Thanks Sandy, I'll look forward to your thread & comments.

As Ted suggests, there is a great deal more in the article than has been discussed here. I said from the beginning that I would not consider it appropriate to discuss the article in detail until it was in print. Hope you all understand.

Yes I realised but felt people were fishing for details of what you'd written, I've just subscribed to VC so I can read it.

Ian

 

[vet173]

Thanks for the heads up Sandy.

 

[c6h6o3]

What devloper did you use c6? Thanks.

Ed

Harvey's 777.

I did six rolls of 120 film and compared them to six rolls of TMY shot of the same subjects and developed in the same batch of developer. I printed them together.

So far I've developed six sheets of TMax 4x5, 3 of TMY and 3 of TMY-2 all exposed and developed together. I haven't printed the sheet film yet, but I can see greater highlight density on the negative.

The results are the same. Consistently. I don't know what good that is to anyone, though, as Harvey's is a pretty arcane developer. I don't think there are very many people using it.

One thing's for sure: I'm sold on this new film. For me it represents a dramatic improvement.

 

[JLP]

Thanks Jim, good to know. I am slowly getting into Harvey's 777 and will try to make my next comparison with Harvey's later this week.


jan

 

[Mahler_one]

C6: Just to add to your information....very early results comparing two negatives ( 4x5 ) similarly exposed and developed together in the Jobo expert tank at 75 degrees using DDX 1:9 show similar results to what you have thus far noted...highlights have more density when examined on the light table, shadows look about the same. Impossible to comments on the sharpness yet. More negatives in the works along with some prints. Will take about a week or so. However, if the highlights consistently appear more dense then the "old" Tmax 400 then I suppose some BTZS testing might be in the works....I sure hope not. I guess I can try to archive some of the old film for a while....

I'm also planning to compare the two films, simlarly exposed, developed together in Rollo Pyro with the same parameters. Will also give details subsequently.

Ed