Yellow filter on Tmax question

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by horacekenneth, Apr 29, 2013.

  1. horacekenneth

    horacekenneth Member

    Messages:
    428
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Location:
    MD
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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
     
  2. Michael R 1974

    Michael R 1974 Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,200
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Ca
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It's a very small difference, so I'd say it depends on what yellow filter you are used to. If it is a very light yellow, maybe you can get away without it. But if you're using say a common Wratten #8 (light yellow) or anything stronger you'll still need it.

    Best to test for yourself, of course.
     
  3. Mainecoonmaniac

    Mainecoonmaniac Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,781
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    You can also try an orange or red filter for greater separation of clouds and sky. Try the orange filter first.
     
  4. ROL

    ROL Member

    Messages:
    792
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 29, 2013
  5. jp498

    jp498 Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Location:
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  6. Richard Jepsen

    Richard Jepsen Member

    Messages:
    683
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Location:
    Oklahoma, US
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    When I used the film it appears to take the place of a light yellow filter in regards to sky tone.
     
  7. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    14,947
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 29, 2013
  8. horacekenneth

    horacekenneth Member

    Messages:
    428
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Location:
    MD
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Thanks guys.
     
  9. Gerald C Koch

    Gerald C Koch Member

    Messages:
    5,437
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Southern USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The operative word here is slightly.
     
  10. Bill Burk

    Bill Burk Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,610
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    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

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    14,947
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  12. horacekenneth

    horacekenneth Member

    Messages:
    428
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Location:
    MD
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2013
  13. jp498

    jp498 Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Location:
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  14. Red Tractors

    Red Tractors Member

    Messages:
    132
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Location:
    The windswep
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My question is, why not just keep shooting Tri-X?? They still make it. :D
     
  15. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,921
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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
     
  16. jp498

    jp498 Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Location:
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  17. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    14,947
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The lighting conditions look highly dissimilar. To see any comparative difference I would say you'd need identical lighting in both shots.
     
  18. horacekenneth

    horacekenneth Member

    Messages:
    428
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Location:
    MD
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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.
     
  19. jp498

    jp498 Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Location:
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  20. polyglot

    polyglot Member

    Messages:
    3,469
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    South Austra
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    This. It is a very flexible film and quite sensitive to development choices.