I'll say this, I never cared for the grain in the first TMY's in D76 straight.
I mostly go 1:1 now so maybe it wouldn't be so offensive.
Marking 400TMY-2 is given to the latest emulsion introduced in or around 2007.
I actually had another roll of 400TMY from the same source, expired 11/2004, but in uncompromised foil bag. I just exposed this roll in the same camera, same lens, same shutter, same light meter. Processed it identically to yesterday's version. The neg is being dried as I post this.
Scanning the neg indicates to me that this well sealed but expired 400TMY is also grainy, though not as bad as the one from yesterday. The grain is worse than Delta 3200 at EI 1600 (and it goes without saying worse than HP5 Plus).
10 years old HP5 Plus stock works just fine, so does this mean 400TMY ages faster??
I don't know how old your rolls are, but in general I have found that 400 speed Kodak film does not age well. How was it stored? How 'expired' is it?
Fuji Films keeping properties are usally better than Kodak's at least according to a friend who works in the German Kinemathek as Film restorer.
The same friend indicated that 100TMX and 320TXP sheets age very well under those same conditions. It was based on his input that I decided to stockpile a large quantity of 320TXP over the last year, mostly 5x7 plus a bit of 8x10.
Sal, isn't that story interesting? It'd be nice to hear his words directly but back to Thomas Bertilsson for a moment, who said "400 speed Kodak film" which would include TX and 400TX. So, what's the story about these?
I thought 400TMY-2 would be a great film to leave in a point-and-shoot, shoot whatever you feel like and process when the roll is done, because you get both grain and speed. But I guess this is no longer so, until itís proven that the film doesnít deteriorate for years.
Now I compared the 400TMY in punctured foil bag (air+), and another roll of 400TMY in intact foil bag (air-). Fog level is higher in (air+) by about 0.1 density unit. Although it is not easy to compare because I didnít expose step wedge, but by looking at the images, (air+) version had maybe 1 to 1.5 paper grade worth of contrast lower, and also with lower speed. Grain of (air+) is like Recording Film, whereas (air-) is still much worse than Delta 3200. Not only that, the image lacks resolution (worse in air-, but both bad), and a flat grey surface came out mottled. I mean all b&w film does that to some extent, especially fast one, but this is the worst Iíve seen.
If you miss the feel of old Recording Film, I have some for sale, but you could bake a brick of TMY and achieve very similar results. More genuine grain effects than any digital plugin. I actually shouldíve exposed grey card out of focus, so that I could scan the neg to get real grain pattern. (Maybe Iíll do that with Recording Film.)
Doh... I just bought some old stock of 400 tmax circa '96 in 35mm. We'll see how that goes, after I finish a roll. It was very cheap so whatever.