why no TMAX 25?

[Ian Grant]

They ALREADY made a TMAX25... It was called Kodak Technical Pan.... Duh!!! .... :munch:

Tech Pan was completely different to Tmax films and it wasn't a T grain emulsion, it had it's own unique characteristics and was far from ideal for normal use.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

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 a film's giving bland results that's a characteristic of the way you're using it, it does take time and effort to get the best results from any brand of film.

I switched back to Ilford films around 7 years ago because Kodak Tmax films were not readily available in the countries I was in (Turkey, Chile, Peru). I used Agfa AP/APX100 and Tmax 100 from 1986-2007, after Agfa dropped APX100 in sheet film I swithed totally to Tmax. But then in 2007 I switched back to Ilford films Delta 100, 400 and HP5, with Fomapan 100 & 200 as a backup. The quality of my images hasn't changed the results from my Ilford (& Foma) negatives are on a par with my older Kodak & Agfa negatives.

My point is that what you refer to as blandness is to do with your exposure and development techniques rather than the films themselves.

Ian

 

[Xmas]

Denial guys I only shoot 5% of 100ISO to 95% of 400ISO I do have a bulk loader of PanF but it lasts a while.
I need a monopod for PanF and static subjects

I used to use Kchrome 25 all summer but it died early. I carried a motor cycle lead acid accumulator all day.

 

[kossi008]

Denial guys I only shoot 5% of 100ISO to 95% of 400ISO I do have a bulk loader of PanF but it lasts a while.

Really? My statistics say:
20% at Iso 50 or lower
28% at Iso 100
24% at Iso 400
12% above Iso 400

(the rest at Isos in between)

 

[Simon R Galley]

Intercontinental Photo Facts !

USA in Mono film is predominantly a 400 iso film market, everywhere else much more an even split between 100 iso / 400 iso films.

The USA typically prefer warmer image tones with less contrast ( about a grade ) than European
other markets vary.

These are 'true' statements but obviously huge numbers of exceptions and variations....eg A.Adams esq.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[pdeeh]

...eg A.Adams esq.

hmm sounds interesting, have you got a link to his Instagram account?

 

[Xmas]

Really? My statistics say:
20% at Iso 50 or lower
28% at Iso 100
24% at Iso 400
12% above Iso 400

(the rest at Isos in between)

Your climate is different from mine, I never get sunny side f/16, even 1/8 cloud cover, 90% of my shots are at /125 /5.6 400 ISO in Microphen, my Weston's are in good condition, we get moist air off the Atlantic all the time, and I shoot in narrow streets, Last week the cloud cover was so heavy that I spent the day in a coffee shop on WiFi... I need depth of field for zone focus with 28mm or 35mm full frame.

But if you are in London bring a camera our street markets are like zoos (monkey house style), if some one complains answer in German, they will know you are not HMRC... - 'Gestapo'

Noel

 

[Xmas]

Intercontinental Photo Facts !

USA in Mono film is predominantly a 400 iso film market, everywhere else much more an even split between 100 iso / 400 iso films.

The USA typically prefer warmer image tones with less contrast ( about a grade ) than European
other markets vary.

These are 'true' statements but obviously huge numbers of exceptions and variations....eg A.Adams esq.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Hi Simon

Thanks that is useful information, which I do value.

Noel

 

[Colin DeWolfe]

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.

I agree with this totally. I did a trip to Antarctica last year and Tibet in April. Half of the shots were on APX 25. (took a brick on each trip). Even with a deep red filter I was hand holding most of the time. Even got some from the top mast of a moving tall ship. And you should see the texture on the icebergs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One would think that the Op had Better Sense!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

I agree with the first paragraph. Except that for my own purposes I am physically unable to hold a camera still, even with breathing techniques and the like. I have shaky hands, and there is nothing I can do about it.

The second paragraph I disagree with, mainly because the final contrast of the negative is under your control as the person developing it. Tonality is a combination of the film's inherent characteristics, how you expose it, how you process it, and in what developer. All those things combined make up the final contrast of the negaitve. It's one of the very basic controls that a darkroom worker has to affect the outcome. Beyond that, assuming great negatives, to make a scene 'come alive' is all about printing skills.

 

[MDR]

Thomas I mostly agree with your view but imo slow films have a natively different contrast than most faster films. Can I mimic the look with faster film by say developing a bit longer or using more agitation sure but it will also change some other aspects of the film longer development to get more contrast also gives me more grain, more agitation supposedly somewhat reduces edge contrast. What I am saying is that you don't get a free lunch if you change a variable you will have to pay for the change.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas I mostly agree with your view but imo slow films have a natively different contrast than most faster films. Can I mimic the look with faster film by say developing a bit longer or using more agitation sure but it will also change some other aspects of the film longer development to get more contrast also gives me more grain, more agitation supposedly somewhat reduces edge contrast. What I am saying is that you don't get a free lunch if you change a variable you will have to pay for the change.

The slow film will already be finer grained and sharper. We are talking about tonality and contrast.

My personal approach is that if I want a slower film I use ND filters. That way I can keep shooting the same film and not have to worry about things like contrast. Since I only use one film (that is never 100% true, but there is one main film that I shoot 90% of the time), then I can tightly control the outcome by just varying my film processing technique. It simplifies things a lot, and makes life a lot easier in the darkroom come printing time, because I always know what to expect.

So, there are some real benefits to working with as few materials as possible, and just make sure that your technique is getting better all the time, which in my opinion will gain you more in terms of compelling prints than any other way. That's just my opinion, and a system that works well for me. Others may like the idea of having one specific film for every type of scenario, and that's fine too. Perhaps they like the challenge of learning four films instead of one? Maybe that IS in fact what they're interested in and what makes it fun for them?

I'm just pointing out that there is an alternative, and that a film's inherent characteristics is just one piece of a much larger puzzle.

 

[dorff]

Ilford films bland?

FP4+:

My wife Alicia:

Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed by Roger Cole, on Flickr

You amputated your wife's foot! And you are still alive!??

 

[dorff]

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?

Ewww! You need to figure out how to expose and develop properly. No1 culprit is usually over-agitation. But really, before I buy a word of this, I'd like to see comparisons side by side of your own work with Ilford, Kodak and Agfa films. All this visceral stuff without at least some visual support is not helpful to the discussion.

 

[AgX]

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.

Tabular crystals fit that strategy perfect, as long as technically feasable.

Grain is in first instance a film issue, but some films just do not work well with standard developers, as those high-resolutiuon films.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Tabular crystals fit that strategy perfect, as long as technically feasable.

Grain is in first instance a film issue, but some films just do not work well with standard developers, as those high-resolutiuon films.

What high-resolution films?; Tmax seems rather soft to me,buIan makes a good point.overagitation is a problemas it is killing acutance.however I'm comitted to rotation development and happilylive with the consequences.

 

[StoneNYC]

Slow-25ASA-ultra fine grain film.... I mean, doesn't HAVE to be T-grained does it? And for that matter wasn't TechPan experimental T-grain anyway? Or am I wrong (which I am often).

Anyway it's all in fun, the whole thread is silly anyway, why ask for Tmax25 when there's plenty of wonderful PanF+ out there from Ilford

 

[MattKing]

What high-resolution films?; Tmax seems rather soft to me,buIan makes a good point.overagitation is a problemas it is killing acutance.however I'm comitted to rotation development and happilylive with the consequences.

If only Stone could achieve your wisdom

 

[AgX]

What high-resolution films?

Gigabitfilm GTP
Rollei ATP
Adox CMS

Kodak Imagelink
Agfa Copex

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

1. They used tripods a lot more.
2. They were often shooting with larger formats AND making smaller prints than are popular now, often contact prints of medium format, quarter plate etc. so camera movement didn't show as much.
3. They undoubtedly passed up a lot of shots. We never see the ones they passed up.
4. We probably don't see a lot of the bad ones they didn't pass up either. The ones that turned out ok were kept.

A bit more development and/or harder paper does fine for foggy days.

 

[Roger Cole]

You amputated your wife's foot! And you are still alive!??

Actually, she loves that photo. Concessions have to be made in cramped areas (a New Orleans cemetery, those who have been in them know how tight they are) and a fixed lens.

 

[Roger Cole]

Ewww! You need to figure out how to expose and develop properly. No1 culprit is usually over-agitation. But really, before I buy a word of this, I'd like to see comparisons side by side of your own work with Ilford, Kodak and Agfa films. All this visceral stuff without at least some visual support is not helpful to the discussion.

All my Ilford shots posted above were developed in a Jobo with continuous agitation - no problem.

 

[MDR]

Roger Regarding your points

1. I specifically said Handheld ( I've seen thousands of handheld photographs prints and negs made in the early 1900 some are out of focus, some showed camera movement but a large portion of them was sharp even by todays standards.

2. I agree with you

3. Just like we do now

4. Just like today

5. Changes tonality

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger Regarding your points

1. I specifically said Handheld ( I've seen thousands of handheld photographs prints and negs made in the early 1900 some are out of focus, some showed camera movement but a large portion of them was sharp even by todays standards.

2. I agree with you

3. Just like we do now

4. Just like today

5. Changes tonality

Ah, so you did. Sorry about the handheld/tripod thing, my mistake.

Maybe the world was just brighter then, back before it changed from black and white to color. Took a while to dim down too, which is why they made do ok with early, slow color films. (Calvin and Hobbes reference for those who didn't catch it.)