Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,926   Posts: 1,585,069   Online: 886
      
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 68 of 68
  1. #61

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by cao View Post
    Perhaps I'm the only one who has mixed feeling about this news. While I think it's great that the great yellow father is introducing a fast fine grain film. I'm thinking I may miss the current 400TMY. I may be in the minority, but I like the look of the grain at 9X to 16X enlargement. It almost seems like rough charcoal on paper with nice little salt and pepper dots; and I like this look with my street photography. I fear losing this. Am I alone here?
    No, I don't think so. Personally, I like the look of Tri-X better for that sort of work, but to each his own. I love the old TMY for its pushability. I'm looking forward to trying some of the reformulated stuff for comparison.

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by cao View Post
    Perhaps I'm the only one who has mixed feeling about this news. While I think it's great that the great yellow father is introducing a fast fine grain film. I'm thinking I may miss the current 400TMY. I may be in the minority, but I like the look of the grain at 9X to 16X enlargement. It almost seems like rough charcoal on paper with nice little salt and pepper dots; and I like this look with my street photography. I fear losing this. Am I alone here?
    I don't know if you're alone...but I certainly didn't care for the grittiness of TMY's grain when processed near or at its box speed. It had a tendency to show up in the subject matter where it was least welcome (broad expanses of sky, women's skin tones, etc.) and really called attention to itself in 35mm.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  3. #63
    jp80874's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bath, OH 44210 USA
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,445
    Images
    6
    I wonder if Ilford will see this as yet another reason to bring the 3200 speed
    sheet film to market that Simon mentioned at APUG Toronto and has mentioned again every now and then. Mentions are nice, but 8x10 and 7x17 product in hand feels so much better.

    John Powers

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    LaJolla, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm Pan
    Posts
    48
    The new tech publication for revised TMY (f-4043) is now available online from Kodak. Looking forward to making the switch from the old 35mm emulsion to the new

    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...bankBW.jhtml?i

  5. #65
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,194
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by DeanC View Post
    In light of the tmx update a few years ago, it's encouraging to see that they're explicitly saying that the sheet film won't be UV opaque (the 35mm and 120 will).
    I've just today printed two strips of 120 negatives, each containing the same pictures. One is TMY, the other the new reformulation. I made these negatives in the same location, using the same lighting, exposure, camera and lenses. The only difference was the film. I didn't shoot complete rolls so that I could cut the exposed portions off and fit them both on the same reel for development. They were developed together in a tank of Panthermic 777.

    I am happy to report the following:

    1) The new TMax is faster. The shadows are more open than the old TMax 400. I don't think it's quite a stop faster; perhaps about 1/2 stop, but definitely noticeable.

    2) The prints from the newer film showed much greater contrast. I printed the two strips together onto a sheet of Canadian Grade 2 Azo, the lowest contrast paper I have. The TMY is flat and a little muddy. The reformulated TMax negative next to it is dazzling. And it's just a first proof. This is the most exciting feature to me about this new film, as I would like to be able to print more negatives on that paper.

    3) There is absolutely no visible degradation due to any UV opacity from dyes in the backing. Mike Kadillak, if you're reading this, please confirm with Kodak that the rolls I was sent incorporated the blocking. If they did I'll be ecstatic, because it means that I can make contact prints with this rollfilm unlike TMX, which I find unprintable.

    If the sheet film outperforms the current TMax to this extent, Kodak will really have given us something here. Those of us who print on Azo or pt/pd will probably have to adjust our processes to reduce contrast (boo hoo!) but without sacrificing the short toe, long (well over D 2.5) straight line characteristic curve, and virtually no shoulder. We shouldn't have to push nearly as much to obtain the contrast we're getting now with low SBR scenes.

    That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

  6. #66
    JLP
    JLP is offline
    JLP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,598
    Images
    19
    They were developed together in a tank of Panthermic 777.
    Would you be willing to share your dev time in Panthermic 777?
    Just started using it but haven't dialed in on the TMY yet.
    Thanks.

    jan

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    fairfield county, Ct.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,829
    Images
    24

    UV

    John-are you absolutely sure you have the new film??The new boxes are marked different. I have NEVER had any problems printing with AZO and the older version. I'm speaking of the 120 and sheet film. if so great news!!
    Best, Peter

  8. #68
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,194
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Schrager View Post
    John-are you absolutely sure you have the new film??The new boxes are marked different. I have NEVER had any problems printing with AZO and the older version. I'm speaking of the 120 and sheet film. if so great news!!
    Best, Peter
    If you're addressing me, the name is Jim, and yes I'm positive. Kodak sent me ten test rolls. Instead of TMY there is 000 on the border.

    The have stated publicly that they are incorporating something in the backing which blocks UV as they have been doing for a number of years now with TMax 100. That film is totally unprintable as far as I'm concerned. I was worried that I would no longer be able to make contact prints from roll film negatives with this new formulation. My fears appear to be unfounded, unless since these were test rolls they didn't incorporate it because they only wanted to test the emulsion. That's why I want Michael Kadillak to check it out with his contacts at Kodak.

    They have also stated that no such blocking is planned for sheet film, so it's a non-issue for large format negatives anyway. I can't wait to shoot this stuff in sheets. Just can't wait.

    Jim Shanesy
    Gaithersburg, MD

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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