Tmax 400 sheet film

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Jennifer, Sep 6, 2004.

  1. Jennifer

    Jennifer Member

    Messages:
    61
    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Hi,
    I'm stuck in which film to buy limbo. I was decided on Tri-x 320, but...
    I have found some information on the web that indicates tmy400 developed in D-23 gives very good results. I do like the advantage of the pre-hardened emulsion and the reciprocity is great. I do want that great "look" of tri-x. Anyone have used this combo. Also the developing time is long, which I need for I will be using a daylight tank, which from what I read does work, if longer times are used. So what are your thoughts on TMY and d-23 and the "look" of it. I will be doing the zone system and will be doing N, N-, N+.


    Thanks,

    Jennifer
     
  2. Tom Duffy

    Tom Duffy Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    New Jersey
    I recommend you work with the tri-x 320. Start with a standard that works well in a variety of developers. If you want to branch out later, you'll have something to compare to. Many people don't like tmax film. I'm one of them. I've shot a bit of it lately and much prefer the tri-x look.
     
  3. Donald Miller

    Donald Miller Member

    Messages:
    6,242
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Depends somewhat on what you want to ultimately do with the negatives. TriX is a standard that has been supported by photographers over time. Therefore if you want to rely on the experience of others this would be a good film.

    If you want to develop a relationship with materials that have greater potential then TriX, I personally think Tmax 400 is an excellent alternative. Tmax 400 in pyro developers will build much greater density range. This amounts to a greater ability to do N+ development then you will find with TriX. TriX will not expand much past N+1 in my testing. Tmax has much greater expansion potential.
     
  4. voceumana

    voceumana Member

    Messages:
    165
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    USA (Utah)
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I did some testing of TMY a few years ago, and it looked very promising. It is a quality film, but requires VERY careful exposure and procession. Tri-X and TMY are on the opposite end of the spectrum in this regard as Tri-X is very forgiving with exposure and with processing.

    TMY has a VERY short toe, so if you underexpose the shadows, detail is lost. Tri-X has a longer toe, so it will record some detail even if underexposed.

    TMY is not a film for casual users, whereas Tri-X can be.

    Last night I re-read Photo Techniques reviews of the Kodak B&W films after re-formulating them. Whereas TMY used to be finer grain than Tri-X, Tri-X is now finer and close to Plus-X. Then comes T-Max 100 as the finest.

    This was from comparison with 1 batch of the newly formulated emulsions and may not be your experience.


    Cheers,
    Charlie
     
  5. Tom Hoskinson

    Tom Hoskinson Member

    Messages:
    3,879
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Location:
    Southern Cal
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Charlie, I was intrigued by your "short toe" comment. What developer gave you the "short toe" with TMY?

    PC TEA is a non-staining developer that gives results that are comparable to XTOL's.

    Kodak TMY 400 120 Roll Film, Developed in Pat Gainer's PC TEA diluted 1:50
    Developed 9.5 min. @ 70 F with gentle agitation: 10 sec/minute
    B+F 0.14
    Frame # Visual Channel
    1 0.25
    2 0.34
    3 0.45
    4 0.56
    5 0.69
    6 0.82
    7 0.93
    8 1.04
    9 1.15
    10 1.23
     
  6. voceumana

    voceumana Member

    Messages:
    165
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    USA (Utah)
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I think that was from the Kodak Pub on this film. I'll have to dig it up as well as my film speed tests.

    Charlie
     
  7. Jennifer

    Jennifer Member

    Messages:
    61
    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Hi,
    Thanks for the replies. I'm still pondering it. Using D-23 could one expect
    N+2 and N-2 ?. I won't be using Pyro, or other related developers. I even decided to use nothing that uses "HQ". I had got some, and read hazards of it, and got rid of the stuff !. For paper dev i'm going to use mostly phenidone-ascorbic acid.

    Jennifer
     
  8. lee

    lee Member

    Messages:
    2,913
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Location:
    Fort Worth T
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Using D-23 could one expect N+2 and N-2 ?

    Maybe N+1 1/2 and the same for the minus stuff.

    It is not exactly only the developer but how it works with the film. D-23 is mostly sodium sulfite and some Metol. I would wear gloves with tray developing to avoid dermitius from the Metol after a prolonged exposure time. I have several friends that are very alergic to Metol now so use it carefully. I am not saying don't use it just be careful.

    lee\c
     
  9. Tom Hoskinson

    Tom Hoskinson Member

    Messages:
    3,879
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Location:
    Southern Cal
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The data I posted reflects the response of TMY 400 film to a phenidone-ascorbic acid film developer (BTW, it is also a good paper developer). The Triethanolamine (TEA) supplies the alkali. The only other ingredient is water.

    D23 is Metol, Sodium Sulfite and Water - nothing else. And as Lee has pointed out, Metol also has some toxic characteristics and must be handled with the proper precautions - gloves, for example.

    Hydroquinone, Pyrocatechin (Catechol) and Pyrogallol are all closely related benzine ring compounds. They are all toxic if ingested or if the dry chemical dust is inhaled. If they are all handled properly, using appropriate chemical safety and disposal procedures, they do not constitute either a health or environmental hazard.
     
  10. g.frost

    g.frost Member

    Messages:
    8
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Tri-X. You are just getting started, do you want to be delighted or frustrated with
    your initial results? I'm not sure about D-23, I'm using D-76H. (all you need is to
    add borax to your chemical inventory) I don't think there is much difference in hardness/durability of emulsion, grain is not an issue. I just think it will be so much
    easier to dial in your process and get beautiful, printable negatives quickly.
    I'm sure with dilution you can get to N-2. N+1 should be easy as well. For N+2 I don't
    know as I've never had occasion to push it that far. (that's where you may need the
    borax) I've used TMX, Delta 100, HP5+ and tried FP4+ and TMY in sheet films.
    Tri-X is a really nice flexible film, I can't see how you would regret the choice.
     
  11. fhovie

    fhovie Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,247
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Port Hueneme
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I use D76 for pushing and pulling roll films but for sheet film; it has to be pyro - I don't understand why you would so quickly discount those. PMK or PyrocatHD (I now use the latter) It is cheap realiable and does things you just cant do with D76, D23, Microdol or any of those other non-pyro developers. The precautions you take with Metol are plenty good for pyro - don't get it in you or on you. My very best work has been in the care of these chemicals for years and they have never let me down - they compensate the highlights, build in unparalleled sharpness and are very forgiving. And of course the film of choice is TRI-X. I gave away my tab grain (B&W)films a long time ago. I may re-visit them some day but when I hike into the woods with my LF camera on my back and get a once in a lifetime shot of a sunrise over a waterfall with a certain cloud formation (or whatever), I know that my Pyro times and methods will give me a good printable negative without worry over loss of shadows or blocked up highlights.
     
  12. Jennifer

    Jennifer Member

    Messages:
    61
    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Hi,
    Well all this information :smile:. Looks like the votes are counted...Tri-x, good ole Tri-x !. On the pyro, yes what I seen in "AA" the print, and online it does do quite well. I just don't want to deal with it, even tho it works better.
    Thanks for all the information. Time to spend more money, and by the end of the month, i'll be up and running.

    Jennifer


    I was going to have a digital darkroom....but I can't find a digital safelight !
     
  13. dr bob

    dr bob Member

    Messages:
    871
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Annapolis, M
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I really don't think you will be disappointed with your choice. There is a wealth of data and experience available here and elsewhere if "things happen" :smile:

    I've use this stuff since, nevermind, and still go back most every time I try something new. One or two other films you may want to consider are the 100-125 ISO films like PXP, Classic, and FP4. They are slower of course, but seem to have superior grain characteristics, if that is important to you - it ain't that important in general.