Both are top quality films that can make nice images. Tmax requires more care in developing; smaller changes produce stronger results. Needs more fixing and washing as well compared to traditional films. The upside is that it is so versatile. Someone familiar with it could emulate any look except for the grain. I've used tmy/tmy2 since it came out and have this familiarity with it. John Sexton would be a more reputable person of skill who can make the film do what he wants. It'd be a foolish business decision, but I think Kodak could discontinue tri-x and we'd be able to adapt to tmy2 because of it's versatility. But people who like grain and sloppy darkroom workers would howl.
This is more of a personal thing. I've used both films alot, and my preference is for Tri-x, simply because it's very forgiving and more importantly, it's grainier. I shoot MF and prefer the grain. If I shot 35mm my preference may differ. Both are great films, but to me Tri-x has a bit more character.
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
All three films in thought here are great though. Not a slacker in the bunch.
Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
Wow a lot of responce. I find the claim of Anchell very strong. For him his saying is correct I suppose.
I have never used Tri-X. I use TMax 400 for my work in 35mm as well as 4x5. I test all of my films with step wedges and all that to see how a film is with my developer. I personally prefer the straightness of the curves which I see with "modern" films over that of "classical" films. I suppose to see "microscopic
variations in contrast" you need a microscope in sorts.
The general look and feel of a film of course in combination with a certain paper should fit.
There are a lot of claims and thoughts out there, some true some only in part.
Hopefully we with have both films and all others for a long time to keep everybody happy and the discussions going.
TMY has (slightly) finer grain than TX, but I like the look of TX better. Anchell may be on to something, or maybe not. I also liked the look of TMX much more than PX, and TMX is still my favorite 100 speed class film.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Any opinion about a certain film says more about the photographer using it, than about the film itself.
Prints reveals truths that negative scans obscures.
I can't even call BS, because I don't even understand it.
Originally Posted by BetterSense
I mean I understand it, but... I don't understand it. Rounded pebble shape means better microcontrast- how?
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
I think we should just rejoice in the fact that both versions of Tri-X as well as TMax 400 are available to us today. All of them are amazing films, each with some individual strengths. The day either of them become unavailable will be a sad day.
Having used both TX400 and TMY/TMY-2 a fair bit I have to say I often need to look at the negative itself to tell what film it was unless I remember. In using them I find Tri-X 400 is more forgiving in processing, in that it reacts to processing alterations slower, and TMY-2 is more forgiving in exposure in that it records a longer brightness range, but it reacts much quicker to processing changes, so it might be a little bit more difficult to handle in the darkroom. Tri-X has lower resolution and more grain, for better or worse (depending on what you want). But other than that I find that they are more similar than they are different and it's easy to use both films to make the type of negative that my paper likes, and to me when I get the print just right, the rest becomes academic and no longer even interests me.
"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".
By the way, how does the production still go on with Kodak's current problems? I hope they are not just emptying the stores...
Keep in mind that Steve Anchell refered to the 1980's.,
Originally Posted by AndreasT
The current Tri-X and the 1980's Tri-X are not the same film, its just a name on the box.
Present day T-Max and Tri-X share much more similarities than they did in the 1980's.