Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,303   Posts: 1,536,261   Online: 799
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,247
    Images
    296
    Good example, Bill. I still recommend to shoot a roll of Tri-X with and without the filter, and a roll of TMY-2 with and without the filter, in rapid sequence in the same conditions. That will tell the OP more than anything we can tell 'horacekenneth' here.
    "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

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    MD
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    289
    Haha, I know I can't ask a question without try for yourself being the best answer. I needed some basic input from those who have tried before to determine whether to order tmax in 120 or 35, my filter set is not complete from camera to camera...

    And thanks Bill, that photo is helpful to put things in perspective.
    Last edited by horacekenneth; 05-01-2013 at 03:53 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    Skin shows filtration quite a bit; observe the freckles between film types. Both unfiltered. More blue sensitivity would make blemishes/freckles more prominent.

    I don't have an outdoor tri-x photo for you, but

    here's tmax 400:
    http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showima...mageuser=36069

    here's foma 100:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/1375969...n/photostream/

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The windswept plains of northern Ohio
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    123
    My question is, why not just keep shooting Tri-X?? They still make it.
    Tri-X in HC-110 forever.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,936
    Quote Originally Posted by jp498 View Post
    Skin shows filtration quite a bit; observe the freckles between film types. Both unfiltered. More blue sensitivity would make blemishes/freckles more prominent.

    here's tmax 400:
    http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showima...mageuser=36069

    here's foma 100:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/1375969...n/photostream/
    I assume this is the same girl in both shots? If so and based on the freckles maxim then Foma is definitely not the stuff to use for clouds when you have forgotten your filter. I wonder how much yellow filtration would be required with a Foma film to match the sky produced by an unfiltered TMax film? The difference in the freckles prominence is amazing

    pentaxuser

  6. #16
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    Same girl in both. Here's a tmax400 photo an hour or so before the foma100 photo. Harder to see face details, but it's definitely clear looking skin.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/1375969...7631531250923/

    I'm not a big fan of the foma film due to some quality inconsistencies I've seen, but love their paper. If you want a non-tmax film, stick with tri-x or ilford. It's all personal choice and I like tmax400.

  7. #17
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,247
    Images
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by jp498 View Post
    Skin shows filtration quite a bit; observe the freckles between film types. Both unfiltered. More blue sensitivity would make blemishes/freckles more prominent.

    I don't have an outdoor tri-x photo for you, but

    here's tmax 400:
    http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showima...mageuser=36069

    here's foma 100:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/1375969...n/photostream/
    The lighting conditions look highly dissimilar. To see any comparative difference I would say you'd need identical lighting in both shots.
    "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

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    MD
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Tractors View Post
    My question is, why not just keep shooting Tri-X?? They still make it.
    Haha, I like Tri-X but I have an idealistic ungrounded idea in my head of what t-max is supposed to look like differently and I want it.

    Thanks for the film comparison, very interesting. I like foma film very much in large format.

  9. #19
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    I like the foma look too, I've just had bad luck with qc.

    Get it out of your mind that tmax has a certain look. It is sufficiently versatile, that it can have a variety looks depending on how it's used and developed. You're looking for something that's elusive.

  10. #20
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,227
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by jp498 View Post
    Get it out of your mind that tmax has a certain look. It is sufficiently versatile, that it can have a variety looks depending on how it's used and developed. You're looking for something that's elusive.
    This. It is a very flexible film and quite sensitive to development choices.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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