Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,291   Posts: 1,535,449   Online: 932
      
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    shicks5319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sandia Park, New Mexico
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    106
    Images
    14

    Testing TMAX 400 (New)

    I have recently tested the new TMAX 400 in 4X5 sheets and have come up with an interesting observation.

    I have used TriX, the old TMAX and some of the Ilford films. When targeting Zone I at .1 above film base, all of these films want to be shot at something slower than box speed.

    However, I am finding that the new TMax is actually a little faster and my tests indicate that I should rate it at box speed.

    Before I get worried about my chemicals (I'm using HC-110), I thought I'd ask the group here if anyone has similar experience.

    Has anyone else found that this new film is actually a little faster than the old TMAX?
    Steve Hicks
    East of the Sandias, New Mexico

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by shicks5319 View Post
    I have recently tested the new TMAX 400 in 4X5 sheets and have come up with an interesting observation.

    I have used TriX, the old TMAX and some of the Ilford films. When targeting Zone I at .1 above film base, all of these films want to be shot at something slower than box speed.

    However, I am finding that the new TMax is actually a little faster and my tests indicate that I should rate it at box speed.

    Before I get worried about my chemicals (I'm using HC-110), I thought I'd ask the group here if anyone has similar experience.

    Has anyone else found that this new film is actually a little faster than the old TMAX?
    I have tested the new TMY in several developers next to the old TMY and film speed was virtually identical.

    Sandy King

  3. #3
    hal9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    228
    Images
    8
    I tested the KB version for 0.1 above b+f and got exactly box speed as my result. Never tested the old version.

  4. #4
    shicks5319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sandia Park, New Mexico
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    106
    Images
    14

    mystery solved

    Sandy and Hal9000,

    thanks for responding. I feel stupid admitting this, but it turns out I have been using a meter that I THOUGHT was calibrated with my other meters. Turns out its off by a full stop, which of course made my tests erroneous.

    Sorry to have troubled the forum with this.
    Steve Hicks
    East of the Sandias, New Mexico

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,156
    Thanks for the clarification. Needless to say, all of us make similar errors.

    So, I guess that thus far the differences shown have been pretty minimal at that...regarding all of the hoopla with the release of the new Tmax 400-similar to the fan fare when Rollei R3 film was released? Lots of promise, but not much substance? When photographers with the well deserved reputation of John Sexton "suggest" a major advantage when using a newly released film many of us sit up and take notice. I suppose more answers are still to come.

    Ed

  6. #6
    Amund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    902
    Images
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahler_one View Post
    Thanks for the clarification. Needless to say, all of us make similar errors.

    So, I guess that thus far the differences shown have been pretty minimal at that...regarding all of the hoopla with the release of the new Tmax 400-similar to the fan fare when Rollei R3 film was released? Lots of promise, but not much substance? When photographers with the well deserved reputation of John Sexton "suggest" a major advantage when using a newly released film many of us sit up and take notice. I suppose more answers are still to come.

    Ed
    Nah, my impression from the photographs I`ve seen from TMY-2 is that it`s a totally different film without that awful grain I`ve always disliked in 35mm.

    R3 is something way different, the worst film I`ve ever tried...
    Amund
    __________________________________________
    -Digital is nice but film is like having sex with light-

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pawlet, Vermont
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahler_one View Post
    Thanks for the clarification. Needless to say, all of us make similar errors.

    So, I guess that thus far the differences shown have been pretty minimal at that...regarding all of the hoopla with the release of the new Tmax 400-similar to the fan fare when Rollei R3 film was released? Lots of promise, but not much substance? When photographers with the well deserved reputation of John Sexton "suggest" a major advantage when using a newly released film many of us sit up and take notice. I suppose more answers are still to come.

    Ed
    I feel that the new TMY-2 is a move forward from the old TMY but it is lots of little advances rather than one big leap. It has (in my opinion) better grain (subtle), better resolving power (subtle), better contrast (subtle)...to me 3 subtles = a better film...and even if it is just a little bit better this is better than discontinued.

    I have posted two articles on this film on my web site: www.figitalrevolution.com as well as discussion here on APUG...my testing is on 35mm.

    Article: ONE
    TWO

    Best-
    Stephen Schaub
    www.figitalrevolution.com
    www.ystrap.com
    www.indianhillimageworks.com

    PS- I agree that this film is box speed...has been in the last 3 developers I tested.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Figital Revolution View Post
    I feel that the new TMY-2...has (in my opinion)...better contrast...
    What makes a change in contrast index (CI) "better?" Why would an increase or decrease be an improvement? Wouldn't either simply require changing development time so the target CI for one's printing method is retained?

  9. #9
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,173
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    What makes a change in contrast index (CI) "better?" Why would an increase or decrease be an improvement? Wouldn't either simply require changing development time so the target CI for one's printing method is retained?
    In my case the change in slope of the linear portion of the curve makes it easier to match my paper of choice, grade 2 Azo. It therefore means that I can make my ever dwindling cache of precious grade 3 Azo last a lot longer. So for me it represents a dramatic and much appreciated improvement.

    However, I think your point is well taken. If I weren't exclusively a contact printer, I would find the higher CI more difficult to control and therefore no improvement at all; in fact, quite the contrary.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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