I have never ever had any problem from the film.
That scan image looks either super pushed or underexposed. Do test images in normal lighting.
If it's a developing issue, do note that the film is more responsive to changes in development. Sloppy work regarding temperature, time, etc.. will result in bigger changes than traditional films.
I have never seen that from any iteration of TMY/TMY-2, in either 35mm, 120, or sheets.
Color me surprised.
"Make good art!"
- Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
Good Morning, Ryuji,
I find myself in general agreement with previous responders; TMY grain has never been the slightest problem for me. By the way--could anything possibly be as grainy as the old Kodak Recording Film?!
Ryuji and sloppy work?
Sloppy work regarding temperature, time, etc.. will result in bigger changes than traditional films.
Punched foil and film oxidation is the most likely cause.
If that's the case, TMY is not a good film to leave in infrequently used cameras... I've developed HP5 Plus that were in fact exposed 10 years ago but came out as if it were exposed yesterday.
Originally Posted by JaZ99
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
TMY can suffer from micro reticulation during processing as can Neopan 400. This is reticulation of the surface of the film. Like normal reticulation it's caused by temperature fluctiations during processing.
While I've never had this problem with films I've processed myself I have seen it first hand with 120 TMY. A friend had 2 or 3 roll of film off me and processed them in my tanks, chemistry, thermometer etc. His films had wexcessive grain, my 35mm TMY was fine, the only differnce was temperature control over the whole cycle, I noticed and commented at the time about his not checking the fixer and wash water temperatuers and the tap water was below 10ºC. I always buy film in bulk and the rest of the 120 TMY was OK so it wasn't the film stock.
Micro reticulation doesn't increase the inherent grain of the film itself but the effects of the surface artefacts show up as increased graininess in prints. Usually the effects are so mild it's just a slight difference in apparent graininess and it's rare to see the extremes.
Way back in 1927 there was suggestion to overcome this effect by sandwhiching a negative with a siutable liquid and glass, a technique Ctein used for many years. It's the same reason why high end drum scans are wet mounted.
In recent years most film companies have gone to great lenghts to make films more scanner friendly by better hardening of the emulsions so that the top surface of the film has less effect during scanning. Kodak did a lot of work because the first digital minlabs high-lighted the problem and gave grainier prints than optical.
Oh no, not micro-reticulation again!
Ian, remember that lengthy thread with PE a while back? With controlled temperature shocks up to +/-10C at various processing stages, I could not get this to happen at all with TMX, TMY, Tri-X, FP4, Delta, even Neopan 400 which was supposed to be most prone.
Yes Michael but since that thread I've found a lot more about the work done to minimise it, and perhaps more interesting how the effects of the emulsions surface and the increase in apparent graininess in prints has been known about for at least 85 years.
Ctein new about the effects.
Most films are now well hardened to minimise any problem and it seems to be a combination of choice of developer and temperature variations that cause it to be an issue with just a few films.
Rodinal is one developer where it may occur and there's plenty of people who've had issues with Neopan 400 which will reticulate fully and even start to frill away from the base in some instances.
I guess it is possible. I did not perform the tests with a high pH developer like Rodinal. But what you're referring to now seems like a different supposed effect than what we had discussed back in the old thread, which had to do with whether there is such a thing as temperature-induced "grain clumping/migration" with modern films.
It's exactly what I was discussing in that thread.
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
The big mistake is that when people describe prints with excessive grain some talk of grain clumping. Kodak talk about the grain size in films and the graininess in prints.
What a films grain looks like under a microscope can be measured and is quite different from the graininess of a print which is also affected by any surface artefacts of the emulsion.
The thread was taken off path by misunderstanding. Micro reticulation is the surface reticulation of a film or paper. With an RC paper it causes a dull sheen and you can easily induce it with temperature changes, steaming reverses the effect, it can happen with colour & B&W papers, RC or FB. Temperature of drying can play a part as well.