I have completed a comparison article of the old and new versions of T-Max 400 which has been placed in the Subscriber Section of the View Camera web site. The article will be published in the March/April issue of View Camera. If you are a subscriber to View Camera you can see it now by going to the View Camera site, clicking on the Subscriber link, then entering your userid (vcsub) and password (located on the front cover of your magazine).
Do you mean that you won't give the details of your findings here in APUG. A person must subscribe for 20 something dollars to View Camera? Could you just in brief give your findings? In the spirit of APUG? I subscribe to APUG. This is just an advertisement for View Camera Mag then?
I have followed Sandy's communications since back when the B&S forum was the only place to talk alt photo.. along with Vaughn and Kerik. Since before APUG was even started. I have great respect and fondness for Sandy. That doesn't mean I don't get to say I am disappointed he can't share his findings. He probably has a contract that says he can't post his article anywhere but that won't stop me from complaining about it.
In any case I have done my own side by side comparisons and posted them and I already know that to me it is much ado about nothing. I have done now something like 13 side by side tests and if I didn't know the film was different I wouldn't think it was different. The differences in my system are so small that they could be my imagination. Still I wanted to read what Sandy found with his high rez scanner.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
I have followed Sandy's communications since back when the B&S forum was the only place to talk alt photo.. along with Vaughn and Kerik. Since before APUG was even started. I have great respect and fondness for Sandy. That doesn't mean I don't get to say I am disappointed he can't share his findings. He probably has a contract that says he can't post his article anywhere but that won't stop me from complaining about it.
In any case I have done my own side by side comparisons and posted them and I already know that to me it is much ado about nothing. I have done now something like 13 side by side tests and if I didn't know the film was different I wouldn't think it was different. The differences in my system are so small that they could be my imagination. Still I wanted to read what Sandy found with his high rez scanner.
I don't have any sort of contract but it would, IMO, be professionally inappropriate for me to talk about the details of an article that has not yet appeared in print. That would apply to any magazine or professional journal, not just View Camera.
However, subscribers to View Camera are free to download the article and comment on it as they choose.
On the other hand, you might notice that I have already made several posts to APUG in which I discuss my work with the new TMY-2 film. My original tests, which I have already reported here, were made with 120 film and a Mamiya 7 camera with a lens known to be able to resolve over 100 lp/mm. I developed the film in a staining developer and found a significant improvement of the new TMY film over the old in terms of grain and sharpness. Like any film the response of TMY-2 may be expected to change depending on choice of developer, dilution and type of agitation. We have already seen that here on APUG as some people have found that TMY-2 gives higher contrast than TMY, and others the contrary. For the article in View Camera I used D76 1:1 and got somewhat different results than with my first tests with 120 film and a staining developer.
Based on my own tests, and those of several other people, my general opinion, which I have already expressed on APUG, is that the new TMY-2 has finer grain and is sharper than the old TMY, but that the difference is incremental rather than spectacular. I suspect that as more and more people test and use the new film this is the consensus that will emerge.
Oh Jesus-some people just got way too much time on their hands...with all the contributions that Sandy AND View Camera have made for US where is the BS coming from?? If you don't have $20 to support something you supposedly care about....well just take the next train will ya!!
Have a nice day, Peter
Sandy: Much appreciate your doing the relevant tests, and sharing with the View Camera subscribers. From your curves it appears as though we can probably use our existing family of curves if using D-76. However, if using DDx one wonders if the same situation would obtain, i.e., no "urgent need" to retest. Perhaps Fred Newman can do some tests using DDx and post the results...or perhaps I can....
Sandy: Much appreciate your doing the relevant tests, and sharing with the View Camera subscribers. From your curves it appears as though we can probably use our existing family of curves if using D-76. However, if using DDx one wonders if the same situation would obtain, i.e., no "urgent need" to retest. Perhaps Fred Newman can do some tests using DDx and post the results...or perhaps I can....
I would agree about development times, if using D76 1:1 and the 4X5 film. My tests with the 120, however, gave quite different results when I developed in a staining developer.
I suspect, but don't know for sure, that one of the reasons Kodak modified the emulsion of TMY was to make it more scan friendly. Kodak previously improved the Portra color films to make the grain less apparent when scanning, and I found this to also be the case with TMY-2.
My personal choice of developer for this film would be one of the staining developers, especially for medium format. The dye stain clearly reduces the appearance of grain.
View Camera article on TMY versus TMY-2 
Linear Mode
