Improved T-Max 400

Kodak has announced improvements to T-Max 400, apparently in
sharpness.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Im...X-400-released

On Oct 10, 1:13 pm, UC wrote:
Kodak has announced improvements to T-Max 400, apparently in
sharpness.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Im...X-400-released

There is a PDF on the kodak web site.

Here is a link for it:

http://tinyurl.com/269lnk


Wonderful film.

Draco

On Oct 10, 3:24 pm, Draco wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:13 pm, UC wrote:

Kodak has announced improvements to T-Max 400, apparently in
sharpness.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Im...X-400-released

There is a PDF on the kodak web site.

Here is a link for it:

http://tinyurl.com/269lnk

Wonderful film.

Draco

I never cared for it. I'll try this improved version to see what it
can do, as soon as it becomes available.

On Oct 10, 3:24 pm, Draco wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:13 pm, UC wrote:

Kodak has announced improvements to T-Max 400, apparently in
sharpness.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Im...X-400-released

There is a PDF on the kodak web site.

Here is a link for it:

http://tinyurl.com/269lnk

Wonderful film.

Draco

I never cared for it. I'll try this improved version to see what it
can do, as soon as it becomes available.

"UC" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 10, 3:24 pm, Draco wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:13 pm, UC
wrote:

Kodak has announced improvements to T-Max 400,
apparently in
sharpness.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Im...X-400-released

There is a PDF on the kodak web site.

Here is a link for it:

http://tinyurl.com/269lnk

Wonderful film.

Draco

I never cared for it. I'll try this improved version to
see what it
can do, as soon as it becomes available.

T-Max 400 varies with the developer somewhat, you may
find that changing developers will give you more
satisfactory results. I like T-Max 400 for portrait work
because it gives me a kind of skin rendition I like, smooth
and "glowing". I mostly develop it in D-76 diluted 1:1. I
will try the new stuff pretty soon, probaby in 120 because I
still have a lot of bulk film for 35mm.
I just looked at the Kodak site. There is not yet a data
sheet for the new version but there is a development chart.
The curious thing is that the FAQ sheet there for the new
film indicates the use of diluted developer but only full
strength developer is shown on the new development chart.
Also, some posts at the time Tri-X production was moved
to the color film plant, where Kodak now makes all its B&W
films, indicated the users found the new film finer grained
than 400T-Max. The tabular grain film should have been finer
grained. It looks like Kodak has finally caught up with
whatever was wrong.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

Richard Knoppow wrote:

T-Max 400 varies with the developer somewhat, you may
find that changing developers will give you more
satisfactory results. I like T-Max 400 for portrait work
because it gives me a kind of skin rendition I like, smooth
and "glowing". I mostly develop it in D-76 diluted 1:1.

While I prefer Xtol 1:1 for TMY, D-76 1:1 is also good.
I love the smooth, glowing and pleasantly sharp tonality,
particularly under even light with just a bit of snap -
think sunny, open shade or summer haze.

I look forward to testing TMY-2.

Dana

On Oct 12, 6:34 pm, "Richard Knoppow" wrote:
"UC" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Oct 10, 3:24 pm, Draco wrote:
On Oct 10, 1:13 pm, UC
wrote:

Kodak has announced improvements to T-Max 400,
apparently in
sharpness.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Im...X-400-released

There is a PDF on the kodak web site.

Here is a link for it:

http://tinyurl.com/269lnk

Wonderful film.

Draco

I never cared for it. I'll try this improved version to
see what it
can do, as soon as it becomes available.

T-Max 400 varies with the developer somewhat, you may
find that changing developers will give you more
satisfactory results. I like T-Max 400 for portrait work
because it gives me a kind of skin rendition I like, smooth
and "glowing". I mostly develop it in D-76 diluted 1:1. I
will try the new stuff pretty soon, probaby in 120 because I
still have a lot of bulk film for 35mm.
I just looked at the Kodak site. There is not yet a data
sheet for the new version but there is a development chart.
The curious thing is that the FAQ sheet there for the new
film indicates the use of diluted developer but only full
strength developer is shown on the new development chart.
Also, some posts at the time Tri-X production was moved
to the color film plant, where Kodak now makes all its B&W
films, indicated the users found the new film finer grained
than 400T-Max. The tabular grain film should have been finer
grained. It looks like Kodak has finally caught up with
whatever was wrong.

--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I did extensive testing of B&W films two years ago and found that Tri-
X had not changed one whit. It and Neopan 400 were very close in
sharpness and grain, with the Fuji product having a slightly better
grain pattern and tonal rendition on Ilford Multigrade. It has a bit
more highlight contrast than Tri-X but less than TMY. I suspect that
the reason Kodak improved TMY is that it does not sell as well as Tri-
X. I think they want to kill off Tri-X or at least boost the sales of
TMY-2. It is embarassing that 'old technology' Tri-X outsells TMY. TMY
was a failure from day one, in my opinion. I worked with it for quite
some time before giving up on it in disgust. The problem is that the
highlights are contrastier than the shadows, the reverse of Tri-X and
most general-purpose films.

In my testing I used Paterson Acutol* which clearly shows differences
in graininess and sharpness. TMY was the finest-grained of the 400
speed films but it had the least desirable tonality. Shadows always
look weak and flat, and highlight always look too harsh. When
development is adjusted to compensate for the excessive contrast in
the highlights, the shadows look even worse. (*as well as Paterson
FX-39)

HP5 Plus and Delta 400 were very similar in graininess, with better
latitude to be had in the HP5 Plus. I don't see any purpose for Delta
400. Neither was better than Neopan 400, which has a better green
response. Neopan 100 Acros, like Neopan 400, has better green
response. As a line of films, The Fuji films are clearly best all
around, pending trials of the new TMY. I am interested to see whether
the improved film will have a different curve. I don't really know
what to expect.

For what it's worth, Neopan Acros 100 is almost as fine-grained as
Ilford Pan-F with far better latitude and longer developing times,
making for much easier development.

The films as I see them:

Fine-grain films:

Tie:

1) Ilford Pan-F (speed 40) Finest-grained by a whisker
1) Fuji Neopan 100 Acros (speed 64) Almost as fine-grained as Pan-F,
but 1/2 stop faster, better green sensitivity

2) Ilford Delta 100 (speed 80) Almost as fine-grained as Neopan Acros
100
3) Ilford FP-4 (speed 125) Almost as fine-grained as Delta 100
4) Kodak Plus-X Pan (speed 125?) Not tested

????Kodak T-Max 100 (not tested) Reputed to be as fine-grained as
Ilford Delta 100 and Fuji Neopan 100 Acros

Fast films:

1) Fuji Neopan 400 (speed 320) Better grain pattern than Tri-X, better
highlight contrast
2) Kodak Tri-X Pan (speed 320)

Tie
3) Ilford Delta 400 (speed 250-320) Grain similar to HP5, inferior to
Fuji, poorer green sensitivity, poorer latitude than other ISO-400
films, including HP5 Plus. I see no point to this film at all.
3) Ilford HP5 Plus (speed 320) Grain similar to Tri-X, inferior to
Fuji, poorer green sensitivity
4) Kodak T-Max 400 (speed 250-320) Finest-grained of all ISO 400
films, but useless outdoors because of bizarre H&D curve, in which
shadows are too flat and highlights too contrasty. A terrible film
overall for outdoor work.


Very fast films:
1) Fuji Neopan 1600 (speed 500-650) Grain slightly larger than Tri-X,
about 1 stop faster than ISO 400 films
2) Kodak T-Max 3200 (speed 650-800) Significantly grainier than Fuji
Neopan 1600, 1/2 stop more speed
3) Ilford Delta 3200 (speed 800-1200) Significantly grainier than
Kodak T-Max 3200, 1/2 stop more speed; ugly 'popcorn' grain. I see no
use for this material.

So, my gadget bag is filled with Neopan 400, some Neopan 1600, and
some Neopan 100 Acros. I occasionally use HP5 Plus. I'm sick of the
look of Tri-X Pan after 40 years, and I can't stand TMY, so no Kodak
film for me.

If you really want some nice B&W images, especially when there are
large areas of foliage, get out and try some of the Neopans. The
foliage is rendered noticeably lighter by the Fuji films.

On Oct 13, 5:27 am, "Pieter" wrote:
I have been using Tmax developer with both TMX and TMY (100 and 400) films.
I have been diluting 1:9 at 75 degrees for the recommended times - I believe
13.5 for TMX and 15 minutes for TMY. Produces goog results.


T-Max 400 is not good outdoors.

In article .com,
UC wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:27 am, "Pieter" wrote:
I have been using Tmax developer with both TMX and TMY (100 and 400) films.
I have been diluting 1:9 at 75 degrees for the recommended times - I believe
13.5 for TMX and 15 minutes for TMY. Produces goog results.

T-Max 400 is not good outdoors.

Yes, that's your opinion (backed up by periodic references to some
mythical characteristic curve you never post). You're certainly entitled
to your opinion.

But, you know, it would be nice if, once in a while, you'd keep in mind
that that's all it is.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky

UC wrote:

I did extensive testing of B&W films two years ago and found that Tri-
X had not changed one whit. It and Neopan 400 were very close in
sharpness and grain, with the Fuji product having a slightly better
grain pattern and tonal rendition on Ilford Multigrade. It has a bit
more highlight contrast than Tri-X but less than TMY. I suspect that
the reason Kodak improved TMY is that it does not sell as well as Tri-
X. I think they want to kill off Tri-X or at least boost the sales of
TMY-2. It is embarassing that 'old technology' Tri-X outsells TMY. TMY
was a failure from day one, in my opinion. I worked with it for quite
some time before giving up on it in disgust. The problem is that the
highlights are contrastier than the shadows, the reverse of Tri-X and
most general-purpose films.

I do not understand how you could get such different results. I like TMX
film when speed permits, but otherwise I like old TMY (I have not tested the
new). The old TMY, in Xtol developer 1+1 with water, developed in a Jobo
CPE-2 processor gives the straightest line D:H curve I have ever seen right
down below Zone I. Tri-X 4164 has such a long toe that it has very low
shadow contrast, requiring sufficient exposure to get things off the toe.
The amateur Tri-X in 35mm format has a very different curve. Was that what
you tested?

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 21:35:01 up 7 days, 5:11, 5 users, load average: 4.46, 4.32, 4.23