Improved T-Max 400

On Oct 17, 9:32 am, UC wrote:
On Oct 16, 8:18 pm, Dana Myers wrote:



Richard Knoppow wrote:
My experience the T-Max 400 is quite different from UC's:
I find the tone rendition good for both indoor and outdoor
use and have often shot outdoor portraits with it.

Same here, with the following qualification: TMY works best
under relatively even lighting with just a bit of sparkle.
Open shade or hazy sunlight. While this is true of outdoor
portraiture in general, it's especially true of TMY.

I've generally found Kodak's published film curves to be
pretty accurate. Tone rendition from the films tends to
confirm the curves. T-Max has a quite short toe and a very
long and quite straight mid portion so its shadow contrast
should be fairly high. My photos on it tend to show this.

I was fortunate enough to have a stack of H+D curves for
T-Max films in Xtol sent to me by Kodak way back when. I've
not seen them in a publication since, though I have not searched
exhaustively. I was not surprised to find that TMY has a very
straight curve and medium-length toe ; it jived with me experience
with the film quite well. TMX has a similar toe but a bit of a
shoulder, something I'd also noticed.

Michael is certainly correct that TMY will give dense highlights
under contrasty light, that's certainly true. I don't know what
to make of his observation that TMY presents low shadow contrast;
that's contrary to my experience, but is perhaps due to developer
choice.

So, if you're shooting outdoors under unpredictable light where
you might have to deal with direct sunlight/contrasty light, TMY
might not be the easiest film to print afterwards.

Dana

In contrasty light that shows texture, the highlight area tend to have
greater brightness and contrast (think of a white stucco building in
harsh light). Lens flare (present in every lens) will tend to degrade
contrast in the shadows (as it makes up a larger portion of the light
in the shadow area). So, films intended for outdoor use (which means
high-flare situations) will have less contrast in the highlight areas
and more in the shadows, as this provides a better (more even)
contrast from shadows to highlights. The white stucco does not 'need'
any boost in contrast (and perhaps could use a cut in contrast to keep
things under control); the shadows could indeed use a little more snap
because the sky is going to cause some flare in the shadows.

Kodak used to discuss this in their old film literature when they made
a larger variety of emulsions for portraiture, commercial, and press
work. Each of these film types had curves suited to the flare
conditions and application.

TMY has relatively less contrast in the shadow areas, and more
contrast in the highlight areas, that Tri-X Pan (400). It is suited to
situations of LOW FLARE ONLY, where shadow contrast can be maintained.
It is a studio film above all. It is NOT well-suited as a general-
purpose film. Those who use diffusion enlargers and work mostly with
color negative film will have less problem with highlight contrast.
Those who use condensers will find Tri-X Pan a better film overall.

What the NEW TMY will look like is a mystery. I anticipate it will be
somewhat more like Tri-X, but only slightly so. That is, I predict the
curve will look more like that of TMX (T-Max 100) than of Tri-X Pan
(400) or Plus-X Pan (125) for 35mm.

Curve for TMX in D-76:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...009_0438ac.gif

Curve for TMY in D-76:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...002_0509ac.gif

Curve for Tri-X Pan in D-76:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...009_0492ac.gif

Curve for Plus-X Pan in D-76:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...009_0433ac.gif

"UC" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 17, 1:41 am, (Thor Lancelot Simon)
wrote:
In article
. com,



UC wrote:
On Oct 16, 5:50 pm, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:

pretty accurate. Tone rendition from the films tends
to
confirm the curves. T-Max has a quite short toe and a
very
long and quite straight mid portion so its shadow
contrast
should be fairly high. My photos on it tend to show
this.

In recent tests (performed in 2005) the TMY
characteristic was clearly
evident. Highlights had more contrast and shadows less
contrast than
Tri-X, Neopan 400, and HP5 Plus. It was clear as could
be. The films
were exposed and developed to yield similar overall
contrast and
printed on Ilford Multigrade paper with the same
filtration.
Developers were Paterson FX-39 and Acutol. TMY is
clearly different
from other ISO 400 films. Side-by-side comparisons of
identical
subject matter are perhaps the best way to see these
differences.

there is no doubt whatsoever of the results, which were
consistent
with previous experience with these materials.

I'm sure you'll just respond with more insults (though
you seem to
have learned your lesson about insulting Richard, which
just makes
you seem particularly foolish and rude) but why don't you
simply
post the curves your original message on this topic said
you had?

I have no idea to what you are referring. I don't make
curves. Kodak
and the other firms publishes this information.

It would settle the debate in your favor -- if those
curves you claimed
you measured actually exist.

Look on the Kodak web site.

T-Max 400:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...002_0507ac.gif

Tri-X
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...009_0490ac.gif

The difference between the slopes in the upper regions and
the lower
regions is clear and unmistakable.

These two curves are quite interesting. Both films have a
long straight line portion for the degree of contrast
normally used. What I find curious is that the Tri-X curve
indicates its slightly faster than T-Max 400, this may be an
artifact of the measurement. If the exposures are started at
equivalent contrast points on the toe the curves are not so
much different. I am surprized that Tri-X is capable of a
density of log 3.0, this is very high. T-Max films are known
for their ability to produce very high densities so that is
no surprize. This is much higher than is generally used for
negatives where a density of around 1.2 is about the
maximum. Both of these films appear to have enormous
overexposure latitude.
In fact, the T-Max curve does appear to be slightly
upward deflected. However, this seems to vary with the
degree of development. If you lay a transparent straight
edge on the curves you will see what I mean.
My experience with T-Max 400 and the newer 400T-Max is
that it does not seem to have the kind of tone rendition I
would expect from a very long toe film. I use it both
indoors and outdoors and largely for portraiture where it
gives me a kind of "glowing" skin rendition that I happen to
like very much. It must have reasonable toe contrast because
I get the same desirable skin rendition on pictures of
people with black skin. I don't know why you have problems
with it outdoors but would have to see examples of the work
to be sure. You might be right but word descriptions of
images don't tell much and scanned images have to many
variables involved.
Its clear from Kodak's literature than the kind of
developer can have a significant effect on the curve shape
of film, especially toe contrast. It might be useful to you
to try 400T-Max in some other developer than you are using.
I've been using D-76 or D-76 1:1 (to get longer development
times) with good results.


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

"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 16, 8:18 pm, Dana Myers
wrote:
Richard Knoppow wrote:
My experience the T-Max 400 is quite different from
UC's:
I find the tone rendition good for both indoor and
outdoor

What the NEW TMY will look like is a mystery. I anticipate
it will be
somewhat more like Tri-X, but only slightly so. That is, I
predict the
curve will look more like that of TMX (T-Max 100) than of
Tri-X Pan
(400) or Plus-X Pan (125) for 35mm.

Lots of snipping of a very long thread...

I suspect that Kodak has taken the opportunity to refine
the emulsion making process. I suspect it drifted with time
and performance may have suffered.
When Tri-X production was moved from the old B&W plant
to the color film plant a few years ago it changed a bit. I
think the same thing happened, the emulsion was not changed
so much as the process was brought back to optimum. At that
time people began reporting they were getting finer grain
from ISO-400 Tri-X than from 400T-Max. This should not have
been the case and suggested to me that the T-Max line had
drifted. AFAIK, T-Max films have always been made in the
same plant as color film so I suspect the "new" TMY is
partly the result of getting the manufacturing process back
to par. Its likely that the new stuff may be slightly finer
than Tri-X as it should be. We shall see. Kodak has
published a developing chart for the new version of the film
but has not posted any sensitometric data yet.


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

On Oct 17, 6:25 pm, "Richard Knoppow" wrote:
"UC" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 16, 8:18 pm, Dana Myers
wrote:
Richard Knoppow wrote:
My experience the T-Max 400 is quite different from
UC's:
I find the tone rendition good for both indoor and
outdoor

What the NEW TMY will look like is a mystery. I anticipate
it will be
somewhat more like Tri-X, but only slightly so. That is, I
predict the
curve will look more like that of TMX (T-Max 100) than of
Tri-X Pan
(400) or Plus-X Pan (125) for 35mm.

Lots of snipping of a very long thread...

I suspect that Kodak has taken the opportunity to refine
the emulsion making process. I suspect it drifted with time
and performance may have suffered.
When Tri-X production was moved from the old B&W plant
to the color film plant a few years ago it changed a bit. I
think the same thing happened, the emulsion was not changed
so much as the process was brought back to optimum. At that
time people began reporting they were getting finer grain
from ISO-400 Tri-X than from 400T-Max. This should not have
been the case and suggested to me that the T-Max line had
drifted. AFAIK, T-Max films have always been made in the
same plant as color film so I suspect the "new" TMY is
partly the result of getting the manufacturing process back
to par. Its likely that the new stuff may be slightly finer
than Tri-X as it should be. We shall see. Kodak has
published a developing chart for the new version of the film
but has not posted any sensitometric data yet.

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


I am repeating something I posted before.

The Kodak plant that made the old B&W films had to be shut down for a
number of reasons, and the process for manufacturing and coating the
older materials had to be adapted to the newer equipment. I had a
source at Kodak who explained all this to me, but he has retired. I
cannot recall all the details, but it had to do with efficiency and
consistency. The newer plant was much more efficient, and to keep on
making these products at lower volumes at the old plant would not be
acceptable from a profit and consistency perspective.

He told me the products that were moved to the newer plant would be
basically the same as they always were, and that included the
Kodachrome emulsions, I believe.

As far as the functioning of the products, I saw NO difference
whatsoever between Tri-X that I bought and tested last year and the
Tri-X of the last 30 years. It was certainly grainier than TMY, and
any assertion to the contrary must be based on improper processing. I
tested all the major films within the last three years. The tests
showed that Kodak Tri-X, Ilford HP5 Plus, Ilford Delta 400, and Fuji
Neopan 400 were almost indistinguishable in graininess when developed
in Paterson Acutol, a non-solvent developer. I saw very poor results
from AGFA Pan 400. I saw finer grain with TMY, but the same contrast-
curve differences I saw 20 years ago. Nothing of significance had
changed.

I am familiar with the article by the former Kodak employess, but it
is wrong. TMY is finer-grained than Tri-X and always has been. That is
why it was developed.

Kodak has been refining their manufacturing processes all along, just
as any company does. Differences in production between older and newer
products lie primarily in consistency and overall quality. The Tri-X
of today is better than the Tri-X of 30 years ago from a consistency
standpoint, but the image characteristics have scarcely changed at
all.

On Oct 17, 6:25 pm, "Richard Knoppow" wrote:
"UC" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 16, 8:18 pm, Dana Myers
wrote:
Richard Knoppow wrote:
My experience the T-Max 400 is quite different from
UC's:
I find the tone rendition good for both indoor and
outdoor

What the NEW TMY will look like is a mystery. I anticipate
it will be
somewhat more like Tri-X, but only slightly so. That is, I
predict the
curve will look more like that of TMX (T-Max 100) than of
Tri-X Pan
(400) or Plus-X Pan (125) for 35mm.

Lots of snipping of a very long thread...

I suspect that Kodak has taken the opportunity to refine
the emulsion making process. I suspect it drifted with time
and performance may have suffered.
When Tri-X production was moved from the old B&W plant
to the color film plant a few years ago it changed a bit. I
think the same thing happened, the emulsion was not changed
so much as the process was brought back to optimum. At that
time people began reporting they were getting finer grain
from ISO-400 Tri-X than from 400T-Max. This should not have
been the case and suggested to me that the T-Max line had
drifted. AFAIK, T-Max films have always been made in the
same plant as color film so I suspect the "new" TMY is
partly the result of getting the manufacturing process back
to par. Its likely that the new stuff may be slightly finer
than Tri-X as it should be. We shall see. Kodak has
published a developing chart for the new version of the film
but has not posted any sensitometric data yet.

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



My question to Kodak:

No doubt Kodak has been asked this one befo according to rumors
circulated by various parties of which I am not a member, the 'silver
content' of various films and papers is supposed to have been
diminished by deliberate acts of Kodak to achieve greater
profitability over the past few decades. Specifically, some have
reported that films such as Tri-X have been changed over the last 20
or 30 years to contain less silver. I would like Kodak to comment on
this.


I am not referring to the new facility.


Answer from Kodak:

Regarding Kodak Tri-X products, there are three basic Tri-X products
that professional photographers might be involved with. I'm not sure
what other films might be included in your description of "films such
as Tri-X." A significant change in silver content of traditional B/W
films would be accompanied by a significant change in other
characteristics -- tone reproduction, contrast, and granularity, for
example. Consistency of product has always been a prime goal in the
manufacture of Tri-X products, and, over the years, comparisons of
Kodak products with other manufacturers' products have shown Kodak to
be consistently ahead of other manufacturers in this regard. Any
"breakthrough" in technology that would allow a significant change in
the silver content or image structure would be better introduced to
the public as a new product than as a "secret" change to the Tri-X
films. In fact, such a breakthrough was introduced with the T-Max
films. Although some people within the company expected sales of Tri-X
would tail off following the introduction of the T-Max films and that
the products would be discontinued due to lack of sales, this has not
happened.


The current "best practice" for manufacturing these products is to
control the characteristics of all the materials going into the
product, and to control all parts of the manufacturing process so that
the "standard" product formulation will produce product with
consistent characteristics every time. This has been found to work
better than the procedure used in past years, when the film
formulation engineer had the freedom to "tweak" a component slightly
to compensate for apparent changes in raw materials in order to make
the resulting product closer to established aims. So it is probably
not true to say that a particular Tri-X product has always had the
exact same silver level for the past 30 or 40 years. But based on my
experience for the last 20 or so, I doubt that there would be any
variations greater than 5%, and certainly no permanent, intentional
level shift.


If you should have additional questions, please be sure to revisit our
site as we are continually adding information to enhance our support.


For immediate answers to commonly asked questions, please visit:
http://kodak.broaddaylight.com/kodak...nal/index.html


For product and technical information, service, support, and
downloads: http://www.kodak.com/go/professional


For information on ProPass Magazine: http://www.kodak.com/go/propass


Regards,


Peter V. Kodak Information and Technical Support Kodak Professional
Ph. 800-242-2424 ext. 19

On Oct 16, 8:18 pm, Dana Myers wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Richard Knoppow wrote:
My experience the T-Max 400 is quite different from UC's:
I find the tone rendition good for both indoor and outdoor
use and have often shot outdoor portraits with it.

Same here, with the following qualification: TMY works best
under relatively even lighting with just a bit of sparkle.
Open shade or hazy sunlight. While this is true of outdoor
portraiture in general, it's especially true of TMY.

I've generally found Kodak's published film curves to be
pretty accurate. Tone rendition from the films tends to
confirm the curves. T-Max has a quite short toe and a very
long and quite straight mid portion so its shadow contrast
should be fairly high. My photos on it tend to show this.

I was fortunate enough to have a stack of H+D curves for
T-Max films in Xtol sent to me by Kodak way back when. I've
not seen them in a publication since, though I have not searched
exhaustively. I was not surprised to find that TMY has a very
straight curve and medium-length toe ; it jived with me experience
with the film quite well. TMX has a similar toe but a bit of a
shoulder, something I'd also noticed.

Michael is certainly correct that TMY will give dense highlights
under contrasty light, that's certainly true. I don't know what
to make of his observation that TMY presents low shadow contrast;
that's contrary to my experience, but is perhaps due to developer
choice.

So, if you're shooting outdoors under unpredictable light where
you might have to deal with direct sunlight/contrasty light, TMY
might not be the easiest film to print afterwards.

Dana

I wanted to expand my comments:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrasty light that shows texture, the highlight area tend to have
greater brightness and contrast (think of a white stucco building in
harsh sunlight). The white stucco that is in the direct sunlight will
be in harsh light, showing its texture clearly. Every bump will be
emphasized by the harsh light.

On the other hand, the stucco that is in the shade will have both less
illumination and softer illumination, since the light falling on it
will be diffuse light from the blue sky.

A film like TMY will tend to exaggerate the contrast of the bright
areas (which are already contrasty) because its curve shape does not
shoulder off in the highlight areas the way Tri-X does. At the same
time, the shadow areas, which are in soft light, will fall on the less
contrasty part of the film's curve. A film like Tri-X will tend to
'balance' between the dark areas and light areas, reducing the
contrast of the brighter areas (which tend to be the contrastiest) and
increasing the contrast of the shadow areas (which tend to be the
flattest). In other words, you don't want a straight-line curve for
outdoor work!

Lens flare (present in every lens) will tend to degrade contrast in
the shadows (as it makes up a larger portion of the light in the
shadow area). So, films intended for outdoor use (which means high-
flare situations) will have less contrast in the highlight areas and
more in the shadows, as this provides a better (more even) contrast
from shadows to highlights. The white stucco does not 'need' any boost
in contrast (and perhaps could use a cut in contrast to keep things
under control); the shadows could indeed use a little more snap
because the sky is going to cause some flare in the shadows.

Kodak used to discuss this in their old film literature when they made
a larger variety of emulsions for portraiture, commercial, and press
work. Each of these film types had curves suited to the flare
conditions and application.

TMY has relatively less contrast in the shadow areas, and more
contrast in the highlight areas, that Tri-X Pan (400). It is suited to
situations of LOW FLARE ONLY, where shadow contrast can be maintained.
It is a studio film above all. It is NOT well-suited as a general-
purpose film. Those who use diffusion enlargers and work mostly with
color negative film will have less problem with highlight contrast.
Those who use condensers will find Tri-X Pan a better film overall.

What the NEW TMY will look like is a mystery. I anticipate it will be
somewhat more like Tri-X, but only slightly so. That is, I predict the
curve will look more like that of TMX (T-Max 100) than of Tri-X Pan
(400) or Plus-X Pan (125) for 35mm.

I would not be at all surprised if a newer version of T-Max 100 (TMX-2) soon follows TMY-2.

On Oct 14, 4:45 pm, UC wrote:
On Oct 13, 3:40 pm, (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:



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

It is clear you have never critical done testing of materials. I do a
lot of it.

Gawd, are you full of yourself!

On Oct 26, 10:04 am, wrote:
On Oct 14, 4:45 pm, UC wrote:





On Oct 13, 3:40 pm, (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

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

It is clear you have never critical done testing of materials. I do a
lot of it.

Gawd, are you full of yourself!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, I test the materials I use.

In article . com,
UC wrote:

No, I test the materials I use.

Do you? Because you referred to a H&D curve you had, purportedly,
generated yourself, but then when I challenged you to post it, you said
to look at the published Kodak curve (which does not appear to show
anything like the effect you originally claimed). So. Let's see some of
this data from the testing you supposedly do of the materials you supposedly
use.

Oh, I forgot, you just like to hang around here and _talk_ about all the
photography you do. One wouldn't expect less from a famous Usenet kook,
I suppose.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

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