Yellow filter on Tmax question

horacekenneth · Apr 29, 2013

With Tri-X I use a yellow filter to keep the clouds from blending in with the sky. Will I need to do the same with Tmx or tmy?

I've seen a lot of posts saying that tmax is balanced so that a yellow filter is not needed for natural tones, I'd just like to know if that includes clouds.

Thanks

Mainecoonmaniac · Apr 29, 2013

You can also try an orange or red filter for greater separation of clouds and sky. Try the orange filter first.

ROL · Apr 29, 2013

horacekenneth said:
With Tri-X I use a yellow filter to keep the clouds from blending in with the sky. Will I need to do the same with Tmx or tmy?

As previously mentioned, you are unlikely to notice much difference among panchromatic films. Stronger yellow filters will cut more of the blue light though, allowing for increased definition of defined cloud structure against against a blue sky. This will be of great assistance to you when you print the negative, giving you both a head start on darkening clear sky to communicate its character as you visualize it, and revealing cloud composition.

horacekenneth said:
I've seen a lot of posts saying that tmax is balanced so that a yellow filter is not needed for natural tones, I'd just like to know if that includes clouds.

What you have read, or how you have presented it here is unspecific nonsense. Yellow filters (not orange, not red – unless your visualization includes unnatural portrayals) will not dramatically affect landscape mid tones, with the only important exceptions being lightening yellowish elements and removing the blue from deep shadows. In red rock country, a green filter may be used quite effectively to assist with skies, lighten (green) foliage, and affect "natural" landscape tones buy darkening them. Please read the filter sections (and the rest) of The Negative and/or Natural Light Photography, both by Adams, who knew and communicated these concepts better and more completely than anyone on these forums, including me.

jp498 · Apr 29, 2013

tmy2 does seem to have a little bit of yellow filter built in compared to tri-x and it's noticeable in skin tones/blemishes/freckles to me. If you're after skies, don't bother with a light yellow. Go straight to the deeper yellow or orange.

Richard Jepsen · Apr 29, 2013

When I used the film it appears to take the place of a light yellow filter in regards to sky tone.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 29, 2013

From Kodak's Tech pub on their web site:

* The blue sensitivity of KODAK PROFESSIONAL
T-MAX Films is slightly less than that of other Kodak
panchromatic black-and-white films. This enables the
response of this film to be closer to the response of the
human eye. Therefore, blues may be recorded as slightly
darker tones with this film—a more natural rendition.

That explains why some see the film as rendering sky blue a little darker than Tri-X.

The moral of the story is - try TMax 400 with and without a yellow filter, and see which you like best.

horacekenneth · Apr 29, 2013

Thanks guys.

Gerald C Koch · Apr 29, 2013

The blue sensitivity of KODAK PROFESSIONAL
T-MAX Films is slightly less than that of other Kodak
panchromatic black-and-white films

The operative word here is slightly.

Bill Burk · Apr 30, 2013

I have often made the claim that I don't "need" a yellow filter with TMY-2. Yes it is slight. If clouds are important, you would still want to use filters. But you can get away without it.

Here is an example photograph that led me to that conclusion. No filter. 1/300 f/16 The day I took the picture, I didn't even notice clouds in the sky. I expected blank white, and made no adjustments when printing. Galerie 2.

Dad and the twins, Laguna

Thomas Bertilsson · May 1, 2013

Good example, Bill. I still recommend to shoot a roll of Tri-X with and without the filter, and a roll of TMY-2 with and without the filter, in rapid sequence in the same conditions. That will tell the OP more than anything we can tell 'horacekenneth' here.

horacekenneth · May 1, 2013

Haha, I know I can't ask a question without try for yourself being the best answer. I needed some basic input from those who have tried before to determine whether to order tmax in 120 or 35, my filter set is not complete from camera to camera...

And thanks Bill, that photo is helpful to put things in perspective.

jp498 · May 1, 2013

Skin shows filtration quite a bit; observe the freckles between film types. Both unfiltered. More blue sensitivity would make blemishes/freckles more prominent.

I don't have an outdoor tri-x photo for you, but

here's tmax 400:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

here's foma 100:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/7316260982/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Red Tractors · May 1, 2013

My question is, why not just keep shooting Tri-X?? They still make it.

pentaxuser · May 1, 2013

jp498 said:
Skin shows filtration quite a bit; observe the freckles between film types. Both unfiltered. More blue sensitivity would make blemishes/freckles more prominent.

here's tmax 400:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

here's foma 100:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/7316260982/sizes/l/in/photostream/

I assume this is the same girl in both shots? If so and based on the freckles maxim then Foma is definitely not the stuff to use for clouds when you have forgotten your filter. I wonder how much yellow filtration would be required with a Foma film to match the sky produced by an unfiltered TMax film? The difference in the freckles prominence is amazing

pentaxuser

jp498 · May 1, 2013

Same girl in both. Here's a tmax400 photo an hour or so before the foma100 photo. Harder to see face details, but it's definitely clear looking skin.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/7316261512/sizes/o/in/set-72157631531250923/

I'm not a big fan of the foma film due to some quality inconsistencies I've seen, but love their paper. If you want a non-tmax film, stick with tri-x or ilford. It's all personal choice and I like tmax400.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 1, 2013

jp498 said:
Skin shows filtration quite a bit; observe the freckles between film types. Both unfiltered. More blue sensitivity would make blemishes/freckles more prominent.

I don't have an outdoor tri-x photo for you, but

here's tmax 400:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

here's foma 100:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/7316260982/sizes/l/in/photostream/

The lighting conditions look highly dissimilar. To see any comparative difference I would say you'd need identical lighting in both shots.

horacekenneth · May 2, 2013

Red Tractors said:
My question is, why not just keep shooting Tri-X?? They still make it.

Haha, I like Tri-X but I have an idealistic ungrounded idea in my head of what t-max is supposed to look like differently and I want it.

Thanks for the film comparison, very interesting. I like foma film very much in large format.

jp498 · May 2, 2013

I like the foma look too, I've just had bad luck with qc.

Get it out of your mind that tmax has a certain look. It is sufficiently versatile, that it can have a variety looks depending on how it's used and developed. You're looking for something that's elusive.

polyglot · May 2, 2013

jp498 said:
Get it out of your mind that tmax has a certain look. It is sufficiently versatile, that it can have a variety looks depending on how it's used and developed. You're looking for something that's elusive.

This. It is a very flexible film and quite sensitive to development choices.

Yellow filter on Tmax question

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency