Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,943   Posts: 1,557,691   Online: 1190
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39
  1. #11
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,189
    Images
    6
    Sandy-

    How does TMY-2 print for you?

    Jim

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,160
    Sandy....regarding staining developers, would you have the same suggestion for the new TMY in 4x5? For one reason or another some of us have an antipathy towards anything having to do with Pyro....I have started to use Pyro recently, and I am still on the learning curve so to speak.

    By the way, I have heard that the late Mr. Davis was not convinced that objective evidence provided data that showed negatives developed in Pyro vs. those in conventional developers were any "better". Note the use of the word "objective"....I'm not sure that there is a completely objective way to evaluate some of the technical details in a given print. What's "deep black with lots of detail" to one is simply black with normal detail to another....

    Again, thanks.

    Edwin

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3 View Post
    Sandy-

    How does TMY-2 print for you?

    Jim

    Jim,

    I have not printed with TMY-2 on any kind of silver paper. I am an alternative printer (carbon, kallitype and palladium) and rarely do any printing with silver papers except for some contact printing with LF and ULF negatives.

    My working procedure when working with MF and 4X5 negatives is to scan and then make digital negatives for printing on the alternative processes. For this the new TMY-2 works very much like the old TMY.

    Sandy

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahler_one View Post
    Sandy....regarding staining developers, would you have the same suggestion for the new TMY in 4x5? For one reason or another some of us have an antipathy towards anything having to do with Pyro....I have started to use Pyro recently, and I am still on the learning curve so to speak.

    By the way, I have heard that the late Mr. Davis was not convinced that objective evidence provided data that showed negatives developed in Pyro vs. those in conventional developers were any "better". Note the use of the word "objective"....I'm not sure that there is a completely objective way to evaluate some of the technical details in a given print. What's "deep black with lots of detail" to one is simply black with normal detail to another....

    Again, thanks.

    Edwin

    Edwin,

    I am aware of Phil Davis' thoughts about staining negatives. And as you say, there is probably not a completely objective way to evaluate a print since aesthetic issues are at least as important as technical considerations. Another consideration, as it relates to Phil Davis, is that stained negatives present some complications for his BTZS methodology with VC silver papers. That is a valid point and one that I would consider if involved in BTZS and printing on VC silver papers.

    It is not clear to me why there should be any antipathy toward staining developers. All of the modern formulas are available in stock solutions that can be used with no more risk than other types of developers, and the stock solutions are very long lived. Even if one did not find any clear superiority on the print in their use, compared to a standard like D76, I would still find advantages in the staining developers in that they are more convenient to use, are very economical, and provide great consistency because of their long shelf life.

    In any event, my comment here was made in reference to scanning, where I have found that a TMY-2 negative developed in a staining developer has a finer grain structure than one developed in D76 1:1, when the two are developed to the same CI. The difference may not be significant when contact printing, but it very well could be if doing prints of more than 8X-10X negative size. Other traditional developers may produce finer grain than D76 1:1, but bear in mind that there is always a trade off in developers between sharpness and grain.

    Sandy King

  5. #15
    JLP
    JLP is offline
    JLP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,597
    Images
    19
    Not really a serious test but i exposed and processed my first 8x10 TMY-2 this last weekend. Did two exposures, one with TMY and one with TMY-2 Both taken with a New Nikon 120SW and within 20 seconds of each. Developed in Pyrocat MC 1-1-100 in a 3005 on a Beseler motor base.
    The TMY-2 is clearly underexposed by visual inspection. Printing last night on Azo grade 3 confirm this. TMY is printable but not the TMY-2
    It looks like the new TMY-2 is slower than the old, it also lacks a little in contrast developed for the same time as the TMY.
    One sheet doesn't do much i know so will continue to expose on of each until i get a better and more accurate understanding of the differences.
    It does look like a new personal test is required to get the full benefit from this film.
    Last edited by JLP; 02-05-2008 at 01:46 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: miss spelling

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,160
    Thanks again Sandy. Yes, I am using one of the premixed Pyro products patterned after your Pyro formula; thanks for all of the work you have done in an effort to make Pyro more readily usable. I realize that the toxicity is negligible with premixed liquid.

    I'll watch the thread closely for some additional comments such as the one just made by JLP ( thanks for taking the time to give us the benefit of your early experience ) and note that his comments regarding testing obtain with his use of Pyrocat MC, i.e. another staining developer. It will be interesting to see how those who use non staining developers report their experience. I'll see if I can dig anything up about DDX.

    Edwin

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahler_one View Post
    I'll watch the thread closely for some additional comments such as the one just made by JLP ( thanks for taking the time to give us the benefit of your early experience ) and note that his comments regarding testing obtain with his use of Pyrocat MC, i.e. another staining developer. It will be interesting to see how those who use non staining developers report their experience. I'll see if I can dig anything up about DDX.

    Edwin
    In all of the testing I have done so far with TMY-2 I have not found any loss of film speed compared to the old TMY, and that includes some testing with Pyrocat-HD as well as D76 1:10.

    Testing for film speed is quite difficult. In order for this type of testing to be accurate the comparison negatives must receive exactly the same exposure, and then developed to the same contrast, or CI. It is really very hard to do this with field testing so I always use sensitometry to test for EFS, then take my data into the field for verification. If done correctly the sensitometry is rarely wrong.

    Sandy King

  8. #18
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,333
    Images
    148
    In a round about way Sandy King is telling us exactly what we need to know about the new Tmax400, without any need to read his VC article. (That's not being anti VC).

    I had a run in with Sandy a few months ago when he asked what was the best film/developer combination to use on his trip to China, I challenged him for not thinking of using his own Pyrocat HD, to be fair he hadn't formulated the developer with smaller formats 35mm/120 in mind and hadn't tried them. I don't think he realised just how good his Pyrocat developer is.

    He's given us more than enough information to be able to almost seamlessly move from the old to new Tmax 400, so thank you Sandy.

    Ian
    Last edited by Ian Grant; 02-05-2008 at 03:27 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    In a round about way Sandy King is telling us exactly what we need to know about the new Tmax400, without any need to read his VC article. (That's not being anti VC).
    Ian
    Ian, there is still a great deal more in the article. If you want all the detail, read the article. I suggest a read if you can (realizing it is difficult where you are located).

    Further, for those that are interested, I suggest taking a look at threads on this subject over at the Large Format Forum. Some cross posting but also some additional information.

    If you can't get a copy of the magazine, the article will be up on the free articles section of the magazine website in about two months (after the March issue is out on the street).

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    47
    The only tests that matter to me are Kodak's, and my own; the former being conducted under certified lab conditions, and the latter with my own equipment and specific materials. The opinions of another user are of very little interest or use to me.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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