Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,930   Posts: 1,585,360   Online: 1051
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant
    As someone who uses Tmax100 5"x4" & Tmax400 120 I know from long experience (since their release) that it is as easy to use as any other modern film.
    Ian
    Judging by your prints, you clearly enjoy the short tonal range of TMax. It merely affirms my point.

  2. #22
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    jjstafford wrote: "By studio film, I mean it is unfriendly to most daylight conditions in terms of contrast control and color response. TMax is wonderful when you can make the light match the film, for example in a studio with controlled light. Note that the published characteristics are derived from tungsten lighting (as most B&W film is)."

    I must say that I've never thought of TMX or TMY as being only for studio use. TMX is one of my favourite films for high brightness range landscapes. This is an example of a fairly contrasty scene (11 to 12 stops, if memory serves) that TMX recorded detail in everywhere. As for the spectral sensitivity, Kodak's published sensitivity curves are adjusted to give the response to an equal-energy spectrum for two different resulting densities, unlike other manufacturers.

    Best,
    Helen

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Helen: It is impossible to be sure via the 'net, but are there not a lot of blown highlights in that image?

  4. #24
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,438
    Images
    148
    Making statements like this shows your own weakness. How I choose to print is my own preferance. So why are you making a personal attack?

    Judging from low resolution scans is meaningless, as we don't have standarized computer monitor outputs etc. You have not seen ANY of my prints which I can assure you have very wide tonal ranges.

    Get out in the big wide world plenty of photographers are using Tmax, and have no problems at all using these excellent films, the differance is they know how to use them, which you admit (by default) you don't. So go learn a new lesson or two.

    Ian

    Quote Originally Posted by jjstafford
    Judging by your prints, you clearly enjoy the short tonal range of TMax. It merely affirms my point.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by jjstafford
    Helen: It is impossible to be sure via the 'net, but are there not a lot of blown highlights in that image?
    Not at all, the wall on the bottom half on the right hand side seems to be the brightest area and I can see detail on it all of it.

    I use exclusevely TMX 400 with my 8x10 and IMO there is no better film for landscape photography. Here is one pic for you, so you can see it is not necessarily a studio only film

  6. #26
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    jjstafford asked: "Helen: It is impossible to be sure via the 'net, but are there not a lot of blown highlights in that image?"

    No, there aren't. There's detail everywhere.

    Best,
    Helen

  7. #27
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,438
    Images
    148
    Equally you could have said:

    Ian, its impossible to be sure via the 'net but a lot of your images seem quite flat in contrast.

    And the answer is we are all running at different monitor gamma's.


    Quote Originally Posted by jjstafford
    Helen: It is impossible to be sure via the 'net, but are there not a lot of blown highlights in that image?

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant
    Get out in the big wide world plenty of photographers are using Tmax, and have no problems at all using these excellent films, the differance is they know how to use them, which you admit (by default) you don't. So go learn a new lesson or two.
    Ian
    Stop! I'm recovering from surgery and laughing hurts. "Get out into the world" indeed.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    Not at all, the wall on the bottom half on the right hand side seems to be the brightest area and I can see detail on it all of it.

    I use exclusevely TMX 400 with my 8x10 and IMO there is no better film for landscape photography. Here is one pic for you, so you can see it is not necessarily a studio only film
    Impressive, and I am qualified to criticize: I've seen a several hundred just like it.

  10. #30
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,438
    Images
    148
    Well if the stitches fall out of your lobotomy we won't worry then.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin