Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,940   Posts: 1,585,653   Online: 891
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,139
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    I never used a densitomiter but TMZ made wonderful images in very dark situations that I could NEVER do with Tr-x or Tmax400.

    I could get it to "act" like 3200 NO problem... not sure Ansel Adams would agree but I made images I couldn't make any other way.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    I do have lots of examples of fogged (aged) film showing a loss of speed as it gets older.
    How old are those films you observed elevated fog?

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    I have NEVER purchased a roll of TMZ 3200 that showed a true 800!!! I have always seen this film to register an honest 400 like Tri-X but no more. On the other hand, Fuji 1600 and Ilford 3200 I do find to be able to actualize an honest 800.
    What are the expiration dates of TMZ you tried, and which developer do you use?

  4. #14
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,139
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    I DID find TMZ to degrade FAST outside of cold-storage... I thought the film looked "flat" or fogged if it sat in my bag for 6 months or more... of course hot car! (Even in the winter a car can get pretty warm!)

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    836
    I don't know much about "true Iso Values". I shoot the film at 3200, I develop and I print. And I really absolutely love the look this film gives.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,887
    hi david

    i have never had trouble with tmz, even very out of date tmz.
    about a year ago i used it ( at 3200 ) to document a roasting of sumatra
    and then brewing of the same coffee that i typically use as my film developer.

    the tmz that i used was stored on a shelf or drawer for 15 years or so
    here are the results:
    http://www.apug.org/forums/blogs/jna...negatives.html

    back in the 80s and early 90s when i used it often i would shoot it at 3200
    and it was fresh, and i'd process it in a conventional developer ( tmax rs, xtol, sprint )
    and never had trouble either ...

    all in all, i have learned over the years to have low expectations
    so sometimes i am pleasantly surprised.

    sorry for your troubles !
    john

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    850
    The results you get with a film like TMZ are affected by many factors. You can always get an increased contrast index by extending developing time. If you extend it too long you will get acceptable highlights but still poor shadow detail. If the light is low enough that you must expose TMZ at a higher speed than 800, that's what you have to do. The developer you use makes an important difference. A developer like Microphen, which is based on phenidone, will give you a little more speed than a developer like D-76, which is based on metol. Exposure is, of course, also very important. Someone who shoots Tri-X and insists it should be rated at 200 rather than 400 may be doing some of these things: using a camera with a meter which is off by one stop, metering improperly off of a very light colored subject, using a thermometer which is slightly off, underdeveloping. If you are using undiluted Microdol-X or Perceptol then you would need to rate Tri-X at 200. In most other developers, 400 wold be fine. By far the nost common problem with "rating" a film is underexposure when metering off of a subject which is lighter than 18% gray. Using a spot meter will not solve the problem. You have to understand what you are metering off of. In light which is not too high or low in contrast if you meter off of a white subject, you need to add two stops of exposure. This doesn't mean you are rating TriX at 100. It means that if you were metering off of an 18% gray card, it would show two stops of extra exposure compared with the reading taken from the white subject.

    Roll film shooting is not like digital shooting. You can't simply dial up the ISO for various shots and not for others. That's why a faster film can be useful. Fuji's Neopan 1600 is already out of production. TMZ may or may not still be in production. I do not have a problem getting 800 from TMZ. It must be handled very carefully, especially during loading, to avoid fogging but it can be done.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    I just want to clarify that I often shoot TMZ at 1600 or 3200. It's a wonderful film up there too.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,887
    from what i have heard, there is "lore" "urban legend" that suggests
    it is really "tmz1600", but "tmz3200" sounded better and was a cooler name, so
    they used that as the name, and the "real" iso is 1600 ...


    i have a few more expired rolls that i look forward to shooting !

    - john

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    from what i have heard, there is "lore" "urban legend" that suggests
    it is really "tmz1600", but "tmz3200" sounded better and was a cooler name, so
    they used that as the name, and the "real" iso is 1600 ...
    I'm not sure why you quote that as 'lore' or 'urban legend'. Kodak very clearly states in F-4016, pg 19:

    The nominal speed is EI 1000 when the film is processed in KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Developer or KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX RS Developer and Replenisher, or EI 800 when it is processed in other Kodak black-and-white developers. It was determined in a manner published in ISO standards. For ease in calculating exposure and for consistency with the commonly used scale of film-speed numbers, the nominal speed has been rounded to EI 800.

    Because of its great latitude, you can expose this film at EI 1600 and yield negatives of high quality. There will be no change in the grain of the final print, but there may be a slight loss of shadow detail. When you need a higher speed, you can expose this film at EI 3200 or 6400. At these speeds, there will be a slight increase in contrast and graininess with additional loss of shadow detail.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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