I really do not understand the fuss. I like and use Kodak TMY-2, Ilford Delta 100 and Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ as well as both flavors of Kodak Tri-X.
Honestly, I don't find anything to dislike about the current offerings from Ilford and Kodak. All of them are simply superb.
Films vary. My guess is there there are a lot off non-Tgrain films that you would not like also.
in my view TMax 400 was probably the best &Wfilm ever madein 120. virtually no grain up to 11x14 enlargements.
Come on guys… He has the right to have a taste and an opinion.
He doesn't like T film. He is not the only one. And that's it.
It doesn't mean more than what it just said.
He also has the right to not be willing to work on that film if he doesn't want to.
And I also don't think he is on a crusade to ban T film from being used.
We have a nature of habits. We get use to stuff.
See, I have been used to drink Bourgogne long time ago. And I love Bourgogne.
Now in many occasions I have to drink Pinot Noir.. I don't like Pinot Noir !!!!
Both are wines but one needs Alka Selzer to be tamed….
Don't shoot me but I don't like T-grain, Pinot Noir & Alka Selzer….
It's just my taste. Use what suits you, either your soul or stomach !
And I'm happy for you if your taste is different.
At least we all shoot film...
I don't like the T-Max films. I tried 'em and didn't like 'em. But Alka-Seltzer works great for my headaches. And I'm not really a wine drinker. Give me a Stella or a Rogue Dead Guy.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I like TMY but sometimes find it too smooth and almost digital-like in its look. Some who dislike grain might like that. For some subjects to me it's a look that works, but not much. Usually I prefer Tri-X or HP5 or even better Neopan 400 as I slowly use my stash in my freezer. I'm just happy we still have a few to choose between.
I have a preference for traditionally grained films, but used T-Max 100 in ReadyLoads. I thought it was excellent, and am quite happy with the results I got from it. I still have some, and have no hesitation in using it. I do have some in 120, but usually opt for FP4+. I've no doubt that, given time with it, I'd get equally satisfying results in 120.
"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
i see what you are saying guillaume
i hate fresh film, and it doesn't matter what brand or style or code name
i can see why he doesn't like t grained films it can be different, finicky look strange
or whatever ... but in my opinion its just film
and the t grains don't look any different than tri x grains when steeped in coffee ..
it just looks like foggy, stained, reticulated, grainy film ...
i don't like shooting tmx (100 ) with artificial light (flash) all the highlights block and
it is a time-drain to try to print, tmy(1at least) doesn't block ..
vive le vin et le difference!
Guillaume and whoever else, this is not the first time OP has suggested tabular grain emulsions are un-natural and unholy because grains go in one direction (not correct anyway, whatever that is even supposed to mean). Of course everybody is free to like or dislike whatever they want for whatever reason. However since OP's reason is entirely philosophical, has no factual basis, and has nothing at all to do with image characteristics, I think it is as good a time as any to call BS on this entire tabular-conventional thing. I'm ok with people wanting more grain. That's cool. But all the rest of the crap people say about tabular films regarding sharpness, tonality, highlight detail etc. - I'm sorry but rational sensitometry doesn't support it. Furthermore, put a well crafted print in front of someone, and aside from differences in graininess (assuming one was told the speed of the film used and the size of the negative), anyone who tells you they can spot a tabular vs conventional film, well, I've got some land to sell them.