View Camera article on TMY versus TMY-2

[sanking]

I have completed a comparison article of the old and new versions of T-Max 400 which has been placed in the Subscriber Section of the View Camera web site. The article will be published in the March/April issue of View Camera. If you are a subscriber to View Camera you can see it now by going to the View Camera site, clicking on the Subscriber link, then entering your userid (vcsub) and password (located on the front cover of your magazine).

Thanks for comment and feedback.

Sandy King

 

[dpurdy]

Do you mean that you won't give the details of your findings here in APUG. A person must subscribe for 20 something dollars to View Camera? Could you just in brief give your findings? In the spirit of APUG? I subscribe to APUG. This is just an advertisement for View Camera Mag then?

Dennis

 

[Ian Grant]

Dennis, I think John Sexton's comments and views about using the new Tmax 400 are available for free.

It's a shame Sandy can't post his findings here but maybe once the article has been published it may become a free download at VC.

Ian

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

You should look at his contributions to this and other sites before calling him a magazine salesman.

 

[dpurdy]

I have followed Sandy's communications since back when the B&S forum was the only place to talk alt photo.. along with Vaughn and Kerik. Since before APUG was even started. I have great respect and fondness for Sandy. That doesn't mean I don't get to say I am disappointed he can't share his findings. He probably has a contract that says he can't post his article anywhere but that won't stop me from complaining about it.

In any case I have done my own side by side comparisons and posted them and I already know that to me it is much ado about nothing. I have done now something like 13 side by side tests and if I didn't know the film was different I wouldn't think it was different. The differences in my system are so small that they could be my imagination. Still I wanted to read what Sandy found with his high rez scanner.

 

[sanking]

I have followed Sandy's communications since back when the B&S forum was the only place to talk alt photo.. along with Vaughn and Kerik. Since before APUG was even started. I have great respect and fondness for Sandy. That doesn't mean I don't get to say I am disappointed he can't share his findings. He probably has a contract that says he can't post his article anywhere but that won't stop me from complaining about it.

In any case I have done my own side by side comparisons and posted them and I already know that to me it is much ado about nothing. I have done now something like 13 side by side tests and if I didn't know the film was different I wouldn't think it was different. The differences in my system are so small that they could be my imagination. Still I wanted to read what Sandy found with his high rez scanner.

I don't have any sort of contract but it would, IMO, be professionally inappropriate for me to talk about the details of an article that has not yet appeared in print. That would apply to any magazine or professional journal, not just View Camera.

However, subscribers to View Camera are free to download the article and comment on it as they choose.

On the other hand, you might notice that I have already made several posts to APUG in which I discuss my work with the new TMY-2 film. My original tests, which I have already reported here, were made with 120 film and a Mamiya 7 camera with a lens known to be able to resolve over 100 lp/mm. I developed the film in a staining developer and found a significant improvement of the new TMY film over the old in terms of grain and sharpness. Like any film the response of TMY-2 may be expected to change depending on choice of developer, dilution and type of agitation. We have already seen that here on APUG as some people have found that TMY-2 gives higher contrast than TMY, and others the contrary. For the article in View Camera I used D76 1:1 and got somewhat different results than with my first tests with 120 film and a staining developer.

Based on my own tests, and those of several other people, my general opinion, which I have already expressed on APUG, is that the new TMY-2 has finer grain and is sharper than the old TMY, but that the difference is incremental rather than spectacular. I suspect that as more and more people test and use the new film this is the consensus that will emerge.

Sandy King

 

[Peter Schrager]

new TMY

Oh Jesus-some people just got way too much time on their hands...with all the contributions that Sandy AND View Camera have made for US where is the BS coming from?? If you don't have $20 to support something you supposedly care about....well just take the next train will ya!!
Have a nice day, Peter

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Thanks Sandy, I'll be sure to pick up a copy. Best. Shawn

 

[Mahler_one]

Sandy: Much appreciate your doing the relevant tests, and sharing with the View Camera subscribers. From your curves it appears as though we can probably use our existing family of curves if using D-76. However, if using DDx one wonders if the same situation would obtain, i.e., no "urgent need" to retest. Perhaps Fred Newman can do some tests using DDx and post the results...or perhaps I can....

 

[sanking]

Sandy: Much appreciate your doing the relevant tests, and sharing with the View Camera subscribers. From your curves it appears as though we can probably use our existing family of curves if using D-76. However, if using DDx one wonders if the same situation would obtain, i.e., no "urgent need" to retest. Perhaps Fred Newman can do some tests using DDx and post the results...or perhaps I can....

I would agree about development times, if using D76 1:1 and the 4X5 film. My tests with the 120, however, gave quite different results when I developed in a staining developer.

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that one of the reasons Kodak modified the emulsion of TMY was to make it more scan friendly. Kodak previously improved the Portra color films to make the grain less apparent when scanning, and I found this to also be the case with TMY-2.

My personal choice of developer for this film would be one of the staining developers, especially for medium format. The dye stain clearly reduces the appearance of grain.

Sandy King

 

[c6h6o3]

Sandy-

How does TMY-2 print for you?

Jim

 

[Mahler_one]

Sandy....regarding staining developers, would you have the same suggestion for the new TMY in 4x5? For one reason or another some of us have an antipathy towards anything having to do with Pyro....I have started to use Pyro recently, and I am still on the learning curve so to speak.

By the way, I have heard that the late Mr. Davis was not convinced that objective evidence provided data that showed negatives developed in Pyro vs. those in conventional developers were any "better". Note the use of the word "objective"....I'm not sure that there is a completely objective way to evaluate some of the technical details in a given print. What's "deep black with lots of detail" to one is simply black with normal detail to another....

Again, thanks.

Edwin

 

[sanking]

Sandy-

How does TMY-2 print for you?

Jim

Jim,

I have not printed with TMY-2 on any kind of silver paper. I am an alternative printer (carbon, kallitype and palladium) and rarely do any printing with silver papers except for some contact printing with LF and ULF negatives.

My working procedure when working with MF and 4X5 negatives is to scan and then make digital negatives for printing on the alternative processes. For this the new TMY-2 works very much like the old TMY.

Sandy

 

[sanking]

Sandy....regarding staining developers, would you have the same suggestion for the new TMY in 4x5? For one reason or another some of us have an antipathy towards anything having to do with Pyro....I have started to use Pyro recently, and I am still on the learning curve so to speak.

By the way, I have heard that the late Mr. Davis was not convinced that objective evidence provided data that showed negatives developed in Pyro vs. those in conventional developers were any "better". Note the use of the word "objective"....I'm not sure that there is a completely objective way to evaluate some of the technical details in a given print. What's "deep black with lots of detail" to one is simply black with normal detail to another....

Again, thanks.

Edwin

Edwin,

I am aware of Phil Davis' thoughts about staining negatives. And as you say, there is probably not a completely objective way to evaluate a print since aesthetic issues are at least as important as technical considerations. Another consideration, as it relates to Phil Davis, is that stained negatives present some complications for his BTZS methodology with VC silver papers. That is a valid point and one that I would consider if involved in BTZS and printing on VC silver papers.

It is not clear to me why there should be any antipathy toward staining developers. All of the modern formulas are available in stock solutions that can be used with no more risk than other types of developers, and the stock solutions are very long lived. Even if one did not find any clear superiority on the print in their use, compared to a standard like D76, I would still find advantages in the staining developers in that they are more convenient to use, are very economical, and provide great consistency because of their long shelf life.

In any event, my comment here was made in reference to scanning, where I have found that a TMY-2 negative developed in a staining developer has a finer grain structure than one developed in D76 1:1, when the two are developed to the same CI. The difference may not be significant when contact printing, but it very well could be if doing prints of more than 8X-10X negative size. Other traditional developers may produce finer grain than D76 1:1, but bear in mind that there is always a trade off in developers between sharpness and grain.

Sandy King

 

[JLP]

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.

 

[Mahler_one]

Thanks again Sandy. Yes, I am using one of the premixed Pyro products patterned after your Pyro formula; thanks for all of the work you have done in an effort to make Pyro more readily usable. I realize that the toxicity is negligible with premixed liquid.

I'll watch the thread closely for some additional comments such as the one just made by JLP ( thanks for taking the time to give us the benefit of your early experience ) and note that his comments regarding testing obtain with his use of Pyrocat MC, i.e. another staining developer. It will be interesting to see how those who use non staining developers report their experience. I'll see if I can dig anything up about DDX.

Edwin

 

[sanking]

I'll watch the thread closely for some additional comments such as the one just made by JLP ( thanks for taking the time to give us the benefit of your early experience ) and note that his comments regarding testing obtain with his use of Pyrocat MC, i.e. another staining developer. It will be interesting to see how those who use non staining developers report their experience. I'll see if I can dig anything up about DDX.

Edwin

In all of the testing I have done so far with TMY-2 I have not found any loss of film speed compared to the old TMY, and that includes some testing with Pyrocat-HD as well as D76 1:10.

Testing for film speed is quite difficult. In order for this type of testing to be accurate the comparison negatives must receive exactly the same exposure, and then developed to the same contrast, or CI. It is really very hard to do this with field testing so I always use sensitometry to test for EFS, then take my data into the field for verification. If done correctly the sensitometry is rarely wrong.

Sandy King

 

[Ian Grant]

In a round about way Sandy King is telling us exactly what we need to know about the new Tmax400, without any need to read his VC article. (That's not being anti VC).

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

 

[Ted Harris]

In a round about way Sandy King is telling us exactly what we need to know about the new Tmax400, without any need to read his VC article. (That's not being anti VC).
Ian

Ian, there is still a great deal more in the article. If you want all the detail, read the article. I suggest a read if you can (realizing it is difficult where you are located).

Further, for those that are interested, I suggest taking a look at threads on this subject over at the Large Format Forum. Some cross posting but also some additional information.

If you can't get a copy of the magazine, the article will be up on the free articles section of the magazine website in about two months (after the March issue is out on the street).

 

[cahayapemburu]

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.

 

[sanking]

Ian, there is still a great deal more in the article. If you want all the detail, read the article. I suggest a read if you can (realizing it is difficult where you are located).

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.

Sandy King

 

[hal9000]

Hi, I have an online subscription to View Camera (for international users) but don't seem to have access to the subscribers' only area. I will ask about that.
BTW, I did my first test with TMY-2 120 - I determined an IE of 400 and a development time of 7'30'' for XTOL 1:1 rotation development (JOBO CPP-2) with a 5' pre-wash. I will print from the first negs tomorrow.
Hal

 

[hal9000]

I already got the answer to how to access the article - thanks to Andrea and Steve for amazingly speedy responses!

 

[sun of sand]

I have to agree with dpurdy here

I was left with a
Thaaaaaaaanks
I understand the reasoning for putting it here but also a bit of a What? Moment as I don't know whether or not VC donates to Apug or if Apugs owner even minds ...all work done in film photography does in a way help out apug by helping film photography in general


no big deal
fan of your photography and applaud the efforts
not much use for this stuff right now but always interested ..not enough to subscribe to a magazine, though




He gave his thoughts/questions
reasonable ones
gave a second post to assure others -as though he has to- that he's not just being a " bullshitting bastard"
and yet still gets chewed-out? lol
some people do have too much time on their hands

EXTRA EXTRA Character Assassin Targeting Folks On The Internet Pooperhighway!
"mess" with one gotta "mess" with em all, I guess.
The Website ^Mob Family Dynamic

 

[jd callow]

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.

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.