• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

why no TMAX 25?


Um, not where I live. I find ISO 100 slide film prohibitive. I found myself last summer trying to shoot it with my 2.8 zoom in deep shade and unable to hand hold.

Bright sun, yeah, sure, but how often do we really shoot in bright sun? Not that often in my case. Even on a sunny day I'm most often shooting in the shade. I shoot Pan F+ (but agree about not killing it, lovely film!) at 64 and develop in Diafine and find that workable, but just.
 

If you changed your exposure for the white dress you probably underexposed.
 
Roger Cole said:
Um, not where I live. I find ISO 100 slide film prohibitive. I found myself last summer trying to shoot it with my 2.8 zoom in deep shade and unable to hand hold.
Click to expand...

Really? But it says "Atlanta" on your signature! That's on the 34th parallel, right? I am talking about the 51st parallel (that's where I live). Maybe we have different views on being able to hand-hold? Or maybe your deep shade is still darker than my overcast, flat lighting... wondering...
 
Roger Cole said:
If you changed your exposure for the white dress you probably underexposed.
Click to expand...

Probably, but I was just on spot or centre-weighted metering Av (seeing as the Cyclop has a petzval-ish centre-weighted focus). Going from people in bright sun to shade I dind't want to M and forget to change it, so Av it was.
It was shoot at 1/8000s or fiddle with EVcomp or change metering modes or something and miss the shot. I made my choice and got a good shot, still within a +/-1EV latitude that PanF and my scanner handled easily. I'm going to wetprint it one day, I'll probably have to split-grade it, damn brides in shiny white dresses and grooms in black suits.
 

Yeah, it's about 34 north.

I think it's more the shade. The day in question was partly cloudy with the sun peeking through at times, and the shade was pretty heavy tree cover. But that's where the people I was with were (a picnic table, I would call it "in the woods" except that the parking lot with no trees was about 50 feet away...)

And by having trouble hand holding I mean I was getting metered exposure times of 1/15th and 1/8th with my 2.8-3.8 zoom. It was mostly workable on the short end (28mm) where it's 2.8, with care and careful control of breath, camera grip and shutter release.
 
Roger Cole said:
It was mostly workable on the short end (28mm) where it's 2.8, with care and careful control of breath, camera grip and shutter release.
Click to expand...

Your breath or theirs? No matter how still I hold a camera, my subjects never seem to follow suit.

Meanwhile, I just looked on my light meter, set it to 1/2000 @ f/1.4 (the limits of my bessa R3A with Nokton 40/1.4). That gives a sunny-16 of iso15. In short, I'll never be able to shoot that lens wide-open in an aussie sun without pulling 1 stop from 25, or two stops from 50.
 
Mine. And if you catch the right moment there are pauses, especially seen from a few feet away with a 28mm lens.

Of course you are right for bright sun. I just very seldom find myself shooting in such bright sun. Nor does one need to shoot a 1.4 lens wide open. Shoot it at f/2 and you'll get sharper results and the DOF will be just as shallow as a same-focal-length f/2 lens shot wide open. What are we aiming for here anyway, the eyes sharp and the end of the nose and ears blurry?
 
Roger Cole said:
What are we aiming for here anyway, the eyes sharp and the end of the nose and ears blurry?
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what the kiddies seem to like these days.
Whether it looks good or not is definitely debateable (and how), but there's a whole lot of people who chase the ever-decreasing depth of field.
For people like Ilford, if I were them, I wouldn't judge, I'd just find a way to take their cash off them...
 

the idea behind tabular grain was to have large grain surfaces to collect a max of light and therefore making highly sensitive film with relatively small grain.an ISO of 25 does not fit that strategy.just get an ISO 25 film f that is what you are after or incease your film format and don't fall foy the trap of miracle developers.they don't work grain is a film and not a developer characteristic.
 
My best results, back in the Day, were w/Panatomic X & Neofin Blue {sunny days, hand-held 35mm w/average speed fixed lenses}. Delta 100 is too clinical for me. {Simon?}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Still shooting panatomic x and ektar 25 in 35mm not so much of the ektar left been saving it though. Both are fine to use on days which aren't overcast. I would have liked to try out tmax or delta 25 if they would have ever made them. I just got a box of the freestyle arista ii ortho litho 4x5 film they just remade recently loaded up into my film holders waiting to be shot. Probably very close to kodalith which is also super slow and fine grained.
 
Pan F is too mushy for me also; it lacks something pictorialy.
 
Mushy? Well, no accounting fief taste. I understand those who don't like the significant S curve with toe and shoulder of Pan F+ but I certainly don't find it mushy. But I guess that's why there are so many different films still made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What I mean to say is {and I hate saying it because Ilford is the only main player now, and I'm all for their efforts, and because some people may be mad at me} but I always found Ilford films to be rather bland, w/o the "guts" of Agfa or the "character" of Kodak {FP4 ain't bad, though}. Maybe Ilford should hire some non-English designers? to make their films?
 
If you find PanF+ mushy, try it in Rodinal for a sharper effect and stronger line.
 
Dr Croubie said:
Yep, that's what the kiddies seem to like these days.
Whether it looks good or not is definitely debateable (and how), but there's a whole lot of people who chase the ever-decreasing depth of field.
Click to expand...

I have the same combo, EOS 3 and EF85L, and have the same issues in broad summer daylight and F/1.2. My goto solution is a polarizer filter, which takes two stops away and, if you bother turning it in the right orientation, cuts through dust and haze.
 
I've read all the pages, glad for all the pro PanF+ comments and I agree it's just so lovely.

But I have to say to the OP (and I'm shocked no one has)...

They ALREADY made a TMAX25... It was called Kodak Technical Pan.... Duh!!! .... :munch:
 
Yeah, Tech Pan was in NO WAY a "TMax 25." TMax films are designed from the start as continuous tone. Technical Pan was, well, a technical film intended for very high contrast, things like document copying and such. It existed for this use for a long time until some users concocted very low contrast developers that allowed them to use it for very fine grained results for continuous tone photography. This became popular enough that Kodak eventually came out with their own such developer for it.

It worked, and it certainly was very fine grained and had very high resolution, but it had limitations too.
 
Modern day photographers really have become a bunch of whimps. Can't handhold a camera with 25 ISO Film pffft. I wonder how they did it before WWI and WWII. I've seen plenty of photographs made with handheld cameras ( Goerz Ango, Box Cameras, etc...) and slow glass plates or film and they were plenty sharp and shot under very different lighting conditions from brigh sunshine to rainy and foggy days. Those photographers didn't use super fast lenses either so how did they do it. I guess great technique.

Also grain is a minor reason for choosing slow films the bigger reason is the different tonality a slightly higher inherent contrast, etc...
As weird as it sound slower films are the right films for grey and foggy days with little contrast, the slower films just add a little necessary uumph that makes the scene come alive.
 
StoneNYC said:
...They ALREADY made a TMAX25... It was called Kodak Technical Pan.... Duh!!! .... :munch:
Click to expand...
\


Boy! I am glad you posted it first! I was thinking along the same lines (and even gave Kodak Copy Film a moment of silence along with Tech Pan).
 
Vaughn said:
\


Boy! I am glad you posted it first! I was thinking along the same lines (and even gave Kodak Copy Film a moment of silence along with Tech Pan).
Click to expand...

Well at least we agree on something

I've got 8 rolls of 35mm and 4 cans of 70mm in my freezer I just shot some the other day, it's fun, for the first time I made my own developer too, being my first "from scratch" mixture, it came out "ok" certainly "sharper" than the Technidol I have, but not as even a development, however I wasn't using Kodak's patented "shake it like a soda can you want to explode" method either, so I could try that next time I suppose.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register