Switch to English Language Passer en langue franÁaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,283   Posts: 1,534,922   Online: 870
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,416

    Question for 400TMY and 400TMY-2 shooters

    This is specifically for those who regularly shot 400TMY, and now regularly shoot 400TMY-2.

    I used to test TMY regularly, and I didnít really find surprise, but someone gave me a few rolls of 400TMY (refrigerated) but I didnít want to use inherited material for anything critical, and so I used it to test my newly repaired camera.

    I found this particular roll of 400TMY to be extremely grainy, like Kodak Recording film (if you remember what it is). It is grainier than Delta 3200 developed in the same developer. I didnít overdevelop, and the negativeís density is about right. When I tested TMY before, it was always very fine grained.

    I also inherited many rolls of 400TX, Neopan 400, etc., but I actually donít recall a single incident where the inherited film behaved differently from the film I buy in bricks and cold stored. So, Iím wondering if others observed erratic rolls of 400TMY before.

    Now, another question is whether anyone observed any erratic roll of 400TMY-2.

    Anyone?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Can't answer the first question, but have never observed any erratic rolls of TMY-2.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    714
    Never. Even that 2nd version (or third depending on how you count) was quite fine grained. How was the base fog? Might have had a fairly stressed storage....

  4. #4
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,810
    Reticulation?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,416
    No reticulation on this negative.

    Attached are a scan of a frame of this neg. The entire roll looks like this. One is full frame 6cm square image. The other is a crop that is about the same as 35mm frame size. The grain is worse than TMZ or Delta 3200.

    I also noticed that the speed was slightly slower than usual. Fog level is about usual.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 20120118-scan0004-2_webSamples-2.jpg   20120118-scan0004-2_webSamples.jpg  

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,401
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuji View Post
    I used to test TMY regularly, and I didnít really find surprise, but someone gave me a few rolls of 400TMY (refrigerated) but I didnít want to use inherited material for anything critical, and so I used it to test my newly repaired camera.

    I found this particular roll of 400TMY to be extremely grainy, like Kodak Recording film (if you remember what it is). It is grainier than Delta 3200 developed in the same developer.

    I didnít overdevelop, and the negativeís density is about right. When I tested TMY before, it was always very fine grained.

    So, Iím wondering if others observed erratic rolls of 400TMY before.

    Now, another question is whether anyone observed any erratic roll of 400TMY-2.

    Anyone?
    Are you absolutely sure that the film was stored as well as the person who gave it to you claimed it was?

    I found TMY2 to be an excellent film for studio portraits on medium-format, but I still prefer HP5 Plus for general outdoor photography. Both films perform perfectly well enough for me in D-76 1+1.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,416
    I think 400TMY was introduced in 2003, so it is at most 8 years old. The previous owner always kept the stuff in fridge. I always kept the stuff in fridge. I moved my studio due to expansion of my photo business perhaps 4 times during that period, and of course there could be some time where the film would sit unrefrigerated during the move. Generally speaking, though, I move film in middle of night and together with expensive wine and cheese, so as to minimize exposure to heat.

    One thing I noticed is that the foil bag was pierced so that air could get inside. But the film wasnít fogged or anything. What's noticed are huge grains, poor shadow details, and poor resolution. Maybe the film deteriorated due to air even at 2 degrees centigrade over at most 8 years period?

    I also processed Delta 400 that was sitting in a camera for 6 years. It had poor shadow details and very grainy look, but it wasnít as bad as this freshly exposed 400TMY.

    Why do you prefer HP5 Plus over 400TMY-2 for outdoor shoots?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,401
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuji View Post
    One thing I noticed is that the foil bag was pierced so that air could get inside. But the film wasnít fogged or anything. Maybe the film deteriorated due to air even at 2 degrees centigrade over at most 8 years period?

    I also processed Delta 400 that was sitting in a camera for 6 years. It had poor shadow details and very grainy look, but it wasnít as bad as this freshly exposed 400TMY.

    Why do you prefer HP5 Plus over 400TMY-2 for outdoor shoots?
    I would throw the 400TMY away and buy some fresh TMY2. I like TMY2 very much, but I just prefer the 'look' of HP5 Plus more despite it being a traditional technology film.

    Others swear by Tri-X, Neopan 400 or Delta 400 etc.

    To be honest, TMY2 could easily replace both FP4 Plus & HP5 Plus, so no need for me to stock those two films.

  9. #9
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,860
    Images
    32
    Scanned negs always appear grainier than when printed optically. The possibility of poor storage conditions and age coupled with scanning could have contributed to the overly grainy appearance.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum

  10. #10
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,907
    Images
    1
    I think the perhaps this frame was underexposed?
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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