I was using your words, you said "I never understood the whole "Tmax is flat" thing..."
The highlights just don't POP for me, it's very low contrast, which I dislike.
Look at my B&W images in my gallery...
But that is a consequence my taste in final print quality and how I treat the film, not the film itself. I understand that different photographers have different tastes, and I wasn't posting my images for any reason other than to show that it's incredibly hard to tell a difference between something like Tri-X or TMax 400 unless you know what it is first.
The type of dark shadows and intense highlights you seem to prefer is equally possible with TMax as with Tri-X. You just have to change how you process TMax in order to emulate the tone curve of Tri-X. TMax has a straight line, and Tri-X has a shoulder. If you agitate less when you process TMax, say every three minutes or so, you will bend its straight line to resemble Tri-X. Tri-X has a bit longer toe too, while TMax has a more abrupt toe, so you can either expose TMax less, say EI 800 or 1,000, and push some of the shadow values onto the toe of the curve, and use something like Xtol to 'rescue' them again, but with a hair less definition than box speed. Or you can give Tri-X more exposure to keep its shadows off the toe, to look more like TMax does at box speed. There are so many additional variables that contribute to what a negative looks like at the end of the day, other than the film itself.
For what it's worth, anyway...
Last edited by Thomas Bertilsson; 02-20-2013 at 12:19 AM. Click to view previous post history.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
The hate isn't hate, it's reality, Kodak will soon be gone. Someone will probably buy the Tri-x formulation, but knowing the age and size of the machines that coat the film, it might not make financial sense to re-design smaller machines and the larger machines are too big for demand.
Aren't both Tmax and Tri-X made in a relatively new factory that Kodak only put up a few years ago?
Also the picture of the woman is great, good detail and smooth tones and a very natural composition. as well as some nice lighting from the window.
Same here. If anything I initially had some difficulty knocking down the contrast on TMY-2 400. I believe this may have something to do with the spectral response of the film. I ended up souping it in Barry Thorton's 2-bath. It's a brilliant film. I prefer the aesthetic of Tri-X, but in sheer technical terms TMY-2 400 may be the best B/W film Kodak ever made.
I like HP5+, mainly because it is lower contrast than Tri-X and does some beautiful delicate things with tonality and a single coated lens.