For me, TMAX is excellent for documentary style photography. The fine grain and sharpness do produce a very good image.
But for artistic and subjective shots, classic films have that arty look that you want.
Ilford Delta is a compromise because I think it looks like a cross between t-grain and classic grain.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
Yep, that TMY-2 and FP4+ sure do look alike, which is my experience also. Confusingly similar.
Shoot film, folks, and be happy about the choices you have. If you really must find an answer to the difference between new and old films, the only way to satisfy your own curiosity is to try it and see for yourselves.
Use both films side by side, develop them to the same contrast, and print on the same paper. Make it an 'all other things equal' scenario and compare.
Enjoy yourselves too! Don't pay so much attention to the 'facts' on the internet. There's a lot of misinformation out there.
"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 contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
The TMY picture looks like it has been shot through a light yellow filter. Different colour response.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I don't really remember seeing "hate" for t-grain films. There are plenty of people who like the conventional-grain films better, either because they see or believe they see different outcomes, or for process reasons; but if anything I feel like I see more advocacy than denigration. (When Efke 25 was still with us, it was hard to talk about it for very long without someone saying "you should just use TMX/TMY which is better in every way and does your laundry for you too". OK, maybe I exaggerate a little.)
The difference in shoulder shapes between, at least, the Kodak t-grain films and conventional ones is objective and real. Of course it's only one step in the process, but a process is made up of choices at various steps; personally I find I get along better with the shoulder of TX or HP5+ than that of TMX/TMY, so why change?
(I got 1/2 on Stone's samples, by the way. The first pair I thought was pretty obvious based on the highlights, and I was right; but in the second I thought I saw the exact same difference, and I was wrong.)
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
More malarkey on this thread than in a British pot pie!
Pictures of Lily
Originally Posted by bdial
"He took to writing poetry and visiting the elves: and though many shook their heads and touched their foreheads and said 'Poor old Baggins!' and though few believed any of his tales, he remained very happy till the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long "- JRR Tolkien, ' The Hobbit '.
I'm going to assume you mean "scan and show a crop" rather than print. Therein lies the problems that many of us have been trying to get you to see across various and sundry threads.
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
1) The change from a physical artifact (from a negative or print) into a digital form changes the character of the result, period. Hell, printing a film to a paper hides much of the film curve from the viewer, scanning a print adds yet another layer of manipulation.
2) The negative is an intermediate medium. If you and I are looking at a positive image, physical or digital, it has been manipulated to get to that point.
Sure, the digital version of a physical can be manipulated to get close but it won't ever fully match, not on screen nor on paper printed from a digital file regardless of what machine prints it.
I am not making a claim as to which medium is better or worse. All I'm saying is that switching mediums manipulates the result. Once the results are manipulated they are no longer comparable.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
Good eye, see below...
Originally Posted by miha
So, originally this was about being shot the same, they would essentially be similar.
Originally Posted by ntenny
So, in the barns-only image, I did use a Red filter ON BOTH, and have 2 stops difference between them (adjusting for the same filter factor for both)
In the tree image, I used a Yellow filter, and gave 2 stops between them (and again adjusting for filter factor)
My original purpose of this shoot was to test the response of the films edge effects on a rotary processor, since I have switched to that and so it wasn't about spectral response as much, but how each films edge effects reacted in a normal shooting situation I might come across, to which in a scene like this I would personally use filters...
I don't think that using filters negates the fact that they both look similar with only slight differences in highlight and shadow response. Which can be attributed partly to each films response to color wavelengths (so to a small degree the filters used) but ultimately I don't think the look of the two images is so starkly different that one could say that the T-grain image is better or worse than the traditional grain image.
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller