why no TMAX 25?

[BetterSense]

Ok, I know fully well that the economics probably dictate that a TMAX 25 would probably not be profitable. However, I have a theoretical question: would a TMAX 25 be possible to make, and would it have much finer grain than TMAX 100?

There are several specialty films on the market in 50 and 25 speed. Are any of these actually finer grained than TMAX/Delta/acros 100?

 

[randyB]

If I remember correctly, Kodak's answer to that very question when Tmax was introduced was basically: There is no need for a 25-32-50 ISO film since Tmax 100 has as fine a grain as any of the slow films. Perhaps someone else with close ties to Kodak in that era may have a better answer. I wonder why Harman doesn't make a Delta 25, Simon could you chime in with an answer?

 

[Alan Klein]

Kodak use to make Ektar 25 color negative, now only Ektar 100. When I had prints made for me of these years ago, the lab said they had trouble finding any grain to focus on.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/ektar/

 

[chip j]

My Leitz 1c can focus a grainless negative!

 

[Dr Croubie]

Same (in a way) to when Fuji dropped Velvia 50 after they introduced 100F, claiming it had smaller grain than 50.
The only thing that saved Velvia 50 was that the colours were different (better is subjective) so they brought it back.

I've heard the same argument about iso25 B+W film, it's always the same "t-grain 100 is smaller than regular 25".
But yeah, t-grain 25 would be even smaller. If it came out, I'd buy it.
Maybe there's a technical problem, in that the grains are too small for the coating machines to handle?

 

[Pioneer]

TMX100 certainly exhibits very little grain but if you really want grainless, go with BW400CN. This film has amazingly clear enlargements.

 

[Simon R Galley]

We did look very hard at a DELTA Professional 25.

The actual sales volume of slower films is very, very small, to the APUG membership it probably has a 'greater' interest. To do a slower DELTA it would probably have killed PAN F + as a viable film, and we LOVE PAN F + it would certainly not have increased our overal volume with the limited advantages of a slower DELTA ( as the 100iso has incredibly controlled and fine grain structure as it is ).

Finally, down the supply chain in smaller re-sellers who hold 'limited' stock of mono film, the volume sold would dictate that it would be unlikely to be stocked and sold.

Simon : ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[AgX]

If I remember correctly, Kodak's answer to that very question when Tmax was introduced was basically: There is no need for a 25-32-50 ISO film since Tmax 100 has as fine a grain as any of the slow films.

The Quality of TMax 100 would not stop one from making finer grained film.

On the other hand: the market for high-resolution films with special processing is limited and has seemingly not evolved the way it was expected.
The same time Maco has a history of offering ISO 25 films.

 

[Ian Grant]

Echoing Simon's point about slower emulsions they do have limited advantages. I used to use Agfa AP25 and later APX25 fantastic films but with limitations due to the slow emulsion speed, two stops slower than my main film at the time in all formats AP/APX100. This requires the use of a tripod with the slower emulsion except on very bright days whereas I could always shoot AP/APX100 handheld (35mm) and get good results.

So in terms of the proportion of Agfa 25 ISO film I shot to 100 ISO (before it was discontinued) it would have been less than 2%, I mainly used AP/APX25 in a 6x9 roll film back with my 5x4 camera only shooting if running low on loaded DDS LF sheet film in my backpack.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In an age when medium and large format equipment can be had for a fraction of their former cost there is even less need for slow films than there was in the past. Move up in format, and you can choose a film on the basis of tonality and the speed required for the subject and lighting conditions, without having to think about grain.

 

[BMbikerider]

Yes it is probably a VERY limited market for very slow films. It would almost be a 'must' to use a tripod every time and I doubt if there are that many 'keen' tripod users who will use one every time. Overall cost and limited production would make it a very niche market.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ok, I know fully well that the economics probably dictate that a TMAX 25 would probably not be profitable. However, I have a theoretical question: would a TMAX 25 be possible to make, and would it have much finer grain than TMAX 100?

There are several specialty films on the market in 50 and 25 speed. Are any of these actually finer grained than TMAX/Delta/acros 100?

I'm sure it would be possible, it's just a matter of resources. Kodak made Panatomic-X, which was an ISO 32 nominal speed.

Would it be finer grained than TMX? One can only speculate, since they haven't made it.

Some of the document films out there are finer grained than TMX. They offer higher resolution too. At the cost of tonality. You could try them and see if you like using them, and decide for yourself. Personally, I don't think I'd ever need anything finer grained than TMX.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I suspect Simon is right that it would be a slow seller, and would eat into the sales of other Ilford films. However I think it would let you get the most out of a 35mm system, since I know there's resolution available from some lenses that's not captured on Acros/Delta 100/TMax100. However when I shoot 35mm film I'm usually doing so for the quick shooting advantages of the format and don't want to use a tripod. So I wouldn't choose a 25 speed film, and in fact usually use a t grain 400 speed film like Delta 400 or TMax 400. On medium or large format I see less advantage to a slower film, so again I probably wouldn't buy much of it. But for a dedicated 35mm shooter who uses a tripod I imagine a Delta 25 could get you much higher quality large prints than the crop of 100 speed films.

 

[MDR]

Doesn't Ilford already coat a 25 ISO Film :devil:

 

[jp498]

I'd use some but not a ton. It'd be a good 8x10 film for soft focus lenses outdoors where my shutter doesn't go that fast and a particular wide aperture must be used. In 8x10, I can max out at 1/50 sec, so I shoot tmax400 after the sun goes down or gets low behind the trees. That application limits it's potential to about 20 photographers on the whole Internet probably and I'd understand why there was not sufficient demand to make a business of it. Other people would be happy just using an ND filter to get their shutter speeds down. In 4x5, I can shoot upto 1/1000 so tmax 400 or FP4+ suffice for all situations for me. In MF film, I only use tmax400 because I can avoid the need for a tripod and the fine grained quality is sufficient. I don't worry about grain size with 4x5 or 8x10.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'd use some but not a ton. It'd be a good 8x10 film for soft focus lenses outdoors where my shutter doesn't go that fast and a particular wide aperture must be used. In 8x10, I can max out at 1/50 sec, so I shoot tmax400 after the sun goes down or gets low behind the trees. That application limits it's potential to about 20 photographers on the whole Internet probably and I'd understand why there was not sufficient demand to make a business of it. Other people would be happy just using an ND filter to get their shutter speeds down. In 4x5, I can shoot upto 1/1000 so tmax 400 or FP4+ suffice for all situations for me. In MF film, I only use tmax400 because I can avoid the need for a tripod and the fine grained quality is sufficient. I don't worry about grain size with 4x5 or 8x10.

The ND filters sure are very handy for slowing things down.

 

[dpurdy]

I am old enough to remember when 4x5 Tmax 100 was introduced and it was very close to the same time that 4x5 Agfa 25 was discontinued. I was very upset that my favorite film was discontinued but happy to discover that the Tmax 100 was just as fine grained and maybe even finer.
Dennis

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are plenty of film options which are not only slower and finer-grained than TMax 100, but actually have better acutance, which is really
the more important feature. Yet the real threat to this film is not from the slow side, but from its faster cousin, TMY400. Both these films have a relatively long straight line and seem to work at full ASA more often than most. The only thing equivalent in this respect with finer grain was Efke 25. But ACROS is probably the best step in that direction, if you want something widely available in various film sizes. Like Efke 25, it is orthopan in sensitivity, while TMax100 is slightly the other direction, with a bit more red sensitivity than most pan films. But I find the effective speed of ACROS to be around 50 in comparable developers, apples to apples. Pan F is effectively ASA 25 for me, but not available in sheets, and with an exaggerated S-curve, so of limited use in high-contrast situations. There are various other 25 speed films
around, which seem to keep changing.

 

[Ian Grant]

I am old enough to remember when 4x5 Tmax 100 was introduced and it was very close to the same time that 4x5 Agfa 25 was discontinued. I was very upset that my favorite film was discontinued but happy to discover that the Tmax 100 was just as fine grained and maybe even finer.
Dennis

I used a lot of Tmax 100, APX100 and APX25 (and AP25 & AP100 before that) and Tmax 100 at 50 EI was a close match to the faster APX100. APX100 was probably the best film of it's speed range and APX25 was by far the best of the slow emulsions, Pan F was a touch behind (but slightly faster). APX25 was a significantly better when it came to grain, resolution/sharpness/definition, tonality etc compared to any faster film Tmax 100 included.

Over the years I also used quite a lot of EFKE (Adox) 25 (14 DIN) and apart from slight spectral differences it was a 50ISO film in daylight (25 was the Tungsten light speed), with careful processing capable of very high quality results.

Ian.

 

[Roger Cole]

In an age when medium and large format equipment can be had for a fraction of their former cost there is even less need for slow films than there was in the past. Move up in format, and you can choose a film on the basis of tonality and the speed required for the subject and lighting conditions, without having to think about grain.

This. Nowadays I very seldom shoot 35mm black and white, and when I do it's usually fast film (pushed Tri-X in Diafine or TMZ or D3200) and when I need fast lenses and fast handling. A lot of what I would have previously shot on medium speed 35mm film I now shoot on 120 Tri-X or HP5+.

 

[Roger Cole]

Doesn't Ilford already coat a 25 ISO Film :devil:

Not that I'm aware of, unless you mean Pan F+ which is definitely _ISO_ 50, though you may need to rate it slower like _E.I._ 25 for your personal developer/needs etc.

 

[MDR]

I said coated not sold by Ilford since the RPX line is coated by Harman I assume that RPX 25 is coated by Harman as well.

 

[Roger Cole]

Ah, ok then.

 

[Dr Croubie]

We did look very hard at a DELTA Professional 25.

The actual sales volume of slower films is very, very small, to the APUG membership it probably has a 'greater' interest. To do a slower DELTA it would probably have killed PAN F + as a viable film, and we LOVE PAN F + it would certainly not have increased our overal volume with the limited advantages of a slower DELTA ( as the 100iso has incredibly controlled and fine grain structure as it is ).

Finally, down the supply chain in smaller re-sellers who hold 'limited' stock of mono film, the volume sold would dictate that it would be unlikely to be stocked and sold.

Simon : ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Simon, I'm wondering how long ago that market research was done?
Coming from a digital world back to film myself, one of the biggest complaints I hear is "my new xD camera only goes down to ISO 100/50! I can't shoot my brand new f/1.2 GAS lens wide open in bright sun (without an ND)!".
eg I was shooting my Cyclop 85/1.5 in summer a year ago on PanF50 and was around 1/2-4000, when I pointed at a white dress I was at 1/8000 and blinking (thankfully my EOS 3 goes up 1/8000, any of my other cameras that top out at 1/2000 would have been useless). And that was only f/1.5. What I wouldn't have done for a 25 or even 12 film that day (it was back when I got a lab to dev, so couldn't just pull it like I would now, plus I've got some Efke & APX25 in the fridge now too).

Certainly there's a lot more (and a lot more good) f/1.2 and f/1.4 glass around now than there was 10 or 20 years ago, and a lot more that are usable wide-open (I've got an FL55/1.2 but rarely use it fully open). Look at the Canon 50/1.2L and 85/1.2LII, plus the new Nikon 50-58-85/1.4 that are excellent wide-open. And don't forget that Zeiss Otus 55/1.4.
I know that the market for film is a lot smaller overall now than then, but there is still a significant number moving back to film, especially to work around the limitations of digital, low-iso is one of them.
Plus, don't forget that digital gear-heads love to pixel-peep, making it a tiny-grained Delta film will very much appeal to the "i need to be able to print billboard size even though all I do is upload to flickr" crowd.

I disagree that it would be a "tripod only" film as a lot have suggested. Certainly it could make a very nice detailed tripod-landscape film too, but there's also a big market in the wide-open fast-lens crowd.
Correctly marketed to the right people, I think a Delta25 could be a very good seller.


But please don't kill PanF50.

 

[kossi008]

I disagree that it would be a "tripod only" film as a lot have suggested. Certainly it could make a very nice detailed tripod-landscape film too, but there's also a big market in the wide-open fast-lens crowd.

Even with f/2 or f/2.8 as a starting aperture, Iso 25 is definitely easy to hand-hold in sunny weather, and still doable in overcast conditions. Sometimes this lets you get the pictures that wouldn't have happened any other way. I am thinking of a lovely shot of my daughter blowing soap bubbles, taken on Spur Orthopan (Iso 20), at f/2 and 1/30 s on a cloudy day. Less wide open and/or with a faster shutter speed, it's simply not the same picture.

But please don't kill PanF50.

+1 (pretty please)