Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,997   Posts: 1,524,289   Online: 863
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,039
    Images
    38

    Testing TMY vs TMY-2

    Is anyone else doing side by side comparisons with the new and the old TMax 400? I ran a test yesterday after getting a new batch of clearly marked TMY-2. I shot both old and new on the same subjects at as near the same time possible considering I wanted to use the same camera. It was a cloudy day so not much changing.

    I shot the films at EI 250 and shot a zone 7 test. I processed them in Rodinal 1:50 at 70F (which is my standard temp). The films both came out over developed a little at 9 minutes. I think I will cut back to 8 minutes.

    On the light box the films are identical except one says Tmy-2 and the other says Tmy. Looking at them under an 8x loupe I could see no difference in grain. Pretty disappointing as I was expecting much less grain. Density and contrast seemed identical.

    I taped a small piece of one film to a small piece of the other and put them in a negative carrier and put them in the Beseler 45 all the way up to the top with a 50mm nikor enlarging lens on. I purposely didn't keep track of which piece of film was which so I could do a blind test through the grain focuser. My first pick of which was finest grain was the old Tmy. But they were so close I couldn't really see a difference. I taped another set of films together and looked at them being aware of which was which and again they were so close that any differences might have been my imagination. I came to the conclusion that maybe the Tmy-2 was slightly more even grained and the old was slightly more clumpy looking.

    I am going to print the films today. But obviously the new is not much different from the old in my test. Considering the positive reviews I have read I was expecting an obvious difference but in truth I don't see it yet.

    Anyone else have similar results?
    Dennis

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    I'll be doing my own comparisons by contact printing a Stouffer Step Wedge and a Chrome-on-glass Edmund's AF resolution chart on both film types. I'll also do some shots of open sky to check for uniformity, etc.

    Developer will be freshly mixed Yellow Box Kodak D-76 used one-shot, undiluted. Agitation will be per Kodak's documented agitation procedure.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  3. #3
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,039
    Images
    38
    I forgot to say my test was with 120 film.
    DP

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by dpurdy View Post
    I forgot to say my test was with 120 film.
    DP

    Dennis,

    I am currently doing some comparisoin testing of TMY and TMY-2 in sheet film size for an article in View Camera so will have to withhold my conclusions about the sheet film until the article appears. I am using D76 1:1 for the tests and developing with constant (rotary) agitation.

    However, a few weeks ago I did some real life comparison testing of TMY and TMY-2 in 120 format with a Mamiya 711 camera and 65 mm lens. I evaluated the results by doing a very high resolution scan (5050 ppi) of the negatives, and then cropping out a small section of the scan and blowing it up. When the crops were adjusted for density and contrast I could see a very definite improvement in grain size and sharpness in the new TMY-2. The 120 negatives were developed in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100 with minimal agitation.

    I would suggest that the 8X loupe does not provide enough magnification to see differences that may exist in the negatives, or perhaps Rodinal is not a good choice for the comparison.

    Sandy King

  5. #5
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,039
    Images
    38
    Hi Sandy, I am definitely interested in better testing techniques than mine. However when it comes to the proof in the pudding I have to see things relative to my uses and techniques. I don't take my first test as the final judgement by any means. And I first referenced the grain difference because that is the easiest thing to look at quickly. I am far more interested in tonality and really the grain is of less concern as I can make an acceptable 14x14 inch print from the old stuff. I put the film at the top of my enlarger and examined it through a grain focuser because as you say an 8x loupe isn't enough on a light box. There might be a definite sharpness increase and grain decrease visible on your high res scan but from what I can tell so far it wouldn't be significant or even perceptable at normal viewing. But as you say perhpas Rodinal is the wrong soup.

    Thanks Dennis

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by dpurdy View Post
    ...perhpas Rodinal is the wrong soup...
    One either loves grain or hates it. I fall into the latter category. I've tried Rodinal on all manner of films, and the only one I ever found for which it was a perfect match was APX 25.

  7. #7
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,167
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by dpurdy View Post

    Looking at them under an 8x loupe I could see no difference in grain. Pretty disappointing as I was expecting much less grain. Density and contrast seemed identical.

    Anyone else have similar results?
    Dennis
    Print them together on the same sheet of paper and you will see a dramatic difference in contrast. I couldn't see any difference either until I printed them.

  8. #8
    MikeSeb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Prospect (Louisville), KY, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,062
    I'd be happy to be able to FIND some TMY-2. Just got a two-pro-pack order from B&H, who told me they were shipping the new stuff--NOPE, it was the old stuff.
    Michael Sebastian
    Website | Blog

  9. #9
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    One either loves grain or hates it. I fall into the latter category. I've tried Rodinal on all manner of films, and the only one I ever found for which it was a perfect match was APX 25.
    I prefer to think of it thus: one either loves acutance or hates it.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,062
    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoJim View Post
    I prefer to think of it thus: one either loves acutance or hates it.
    I love acutance. Try some Delta 100 in Perceptol 1:3.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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