Again, I think it's the spectral sensitivity that gives T-Max films the "digital look." I don't think it's hard to tell the difference in a print, because the texture is different, but from a small image on screen, I think T-Max can often pass for digital and vice versa.
Well, it's almost impossible to tell on a small, low-resolution, low-tech computer screen whether the image was film or digital, anyway. That's probably one reason why some people now prefer very grainy films; it reveals that it's film.
But I know a guy who spent a lot of time in Photoshop to mimic the grain of Trix etc. He made fakes that everyone thought was Trix shots but was digital.
Well, it's almost impossible to tell on a small, low-resolution, low-tech computer screen whether the image was film or digital, anyway. That's probably one reason why some people now prefer very grainy films; it reveals that it's film.
But I know a guy who spent a lot of time in Photoshop to mimic the grain of Trix etc. He made fakes that everyone thought was Trix shots but was digital.
Depends. I can usually tell, and I can usually spot Photoshop attempts to mimic particular film looks, but the way that a film renders colors in shades of gray is an important part of the film's signature that most people don't think about very much, and is a matter of taste. When you look at a low resolution image or a small print, grain becomes a less important factor, but the spectral sensitivity of the film is unrelated to resolution, so it's just as visible.
Anyway, when I look at a photograph and think to myself, "that has a real T-Max look," the color rendition is what I'm usually responding to.
...So, I've been wondering exactly WHY people say S curve films are more forgiving in exposure. I think it's just the opposite! The S curve is on a fixed place and you have to place your exposure according to that...
I'm not supposed to know well, but a linear curve (sounds funny doesn't it?) has the same contrast (more or less) throughout it's useful length. I wouldn't call that bad, but a scene with a lot of contrast becomes somewhat difficult to print nicely (also depending on skill). The information is there, but you can't just use softer filtration, it will look dull. If you try to give midtones the contrast you like, chances are that highlights will be wiped out, so you'll need to do some burning. On the other hand, an S shaped curve will give you good midtone contrast, but gradually reduced highlight contrast. That means that you'll have an "acceptable" print without a lot of effort. If that's acceptable or not depends on taste. Some people like it, some don't. Anyway, I don't have a densitometer to fully back my statement, so take it with a grain of salt.
A linear scale doesn't mean you get a frozen contrast, or a 1:1 relationship to the scene. It means only that you build density in proportion to the exposure. The difference is important.
First you establish the gamma ( or slope of the curve) by development.
Secondly, different paper/developer combinations have different curves.
Finally, the relationship of development time to agitation will (with many developers) allow you to shape the curve to your will.
To me, that is the greatest asset of the new films.
Finally, that Tri-X or TMY have linear curves in D-76 (and XTOL) doesn't mean you will only get linear curves from those films with ALL developers. Different developers can change the curve shapes with certain films.
TMY2 is unique in that it can give you a stark upswept curve, an S curve, a straight line, or varying measures of shoulders.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
Gosh, David, I don't know if the difference between TMY2 and TX color rendition is worth talking about. TMY does have a little bit higher sensitivity to yellow-green than Tri-X, along the lines of FP4.
d
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
A linear scale doesn't mean you get a frozen contrast, or a 1:1 relationship to the scene. It means only that you build density in proportion to the exposure. The difference is important.
Ok, there's a language issue here, I meant exactly what you said.
Originally Posted by df cardwell
First you establish the gamma ( or slope of the curve) by development.
Yes, obviously.
Originally Posted by df cardwell
Secondly, different paper/developer combinations have different curves.
I've got limited experience in that field because of poor availability of different papers/developers. There's not much to chose from here...
Originally Posted by df cardwell
Finally, the relationship of development time to agitation will (with many developers) allow you to shape the curve to your will.
To me, that is the greatest asset of the new films.
Finally, that Tri-X or TMY have linear curves in D-76 (and XTOL) doesn't mean you will only get linear curves from those films with ALL developers. Different developers can change the curve shapes with certain films.
TMY2 is unique in that it can give you a stark upswept curve, an S curve, a straight line, or varying measures of shoulders.
I know, I've seen your article. Very nice work, thanks! For the record, I've used TMY2 at 200 (pulled) and 400, in different lighting conditions, developed in D76 1+1. I must say I'm impressed.
Gosh, David, I don't know if the difference between TMY2 and TX color rendition is worth talking about. TMY does have a little bit higher sensitivity to yellow-green than Tri-X, along the lines of FP4.
d
It's part of the overall look. I think it's more visible in an image than the chart suggests. Why might a musician have a strong preference for one of two instruments made by the same maker? The differences might be subtle but still undeniable.
I don't want to single out anyone's images, but usually when someone posts what great results they're getting with T-Max films, I usually think, "yeah, they look like T-Max--works for you, but not for me."
There are some interesting exceptions. For instance, John Sexton has done a lot with T-Max, but I think he does so much local manipulation at the printing stage that it doesn't matter what film he uses. I think he wants a negative shot in relatively flat light rendered relatively neutrally on film so that he can dodge and burn, bringing out subtle features of the light that are there and suppressing elements that he finds distracting, and T-Max works for that approach.
I'll chime in here b/c I've in the last 6 months began to use TMY-2 alongside TX. I've shoot a good deal of both. Mainly portraits and fashion, if that matters.
In the end, after I've learned them and how they work in the developers I use, there is SO little difference that it is nearly a mute point. That is if I want to match them. With that, they both have a few personality characteristic that can be accentuated more easily, and this is why I use both. But I'm talking about subtleties in grain and curve that I'm not sure anyone else even sees...
The biggest difference I can see consistently is TMY-2 has less grain at a similar EI, and is much much much sharper than TX.
The TXP I've shot is processed in replenished Xtol, a developer that gives great shadow detail and beautiful modulation of the highlights, which fits like hand in glove with the TXP characteristics.
In order to get the TMY-2 look like TXP you need a developer that doesn't give a linear response, and the one I used was Edwal 12. You want to shoot TMY-2 slightly underexposed for this developer, probably about EI 400 to 500 or so in order to simulate some of the shadow behavior of TXP. In order to get the highlights you agitate often to create as much of a shoulder as you can. Edwal 12 in itself possesses a talent for creating an S-shaped curve, and you emphasize it a bit by underexposing and agitating vigorously.
I'm pretty sure you could do the same with Rodinal, since it will also sacrifice some shadow detail, AND will build density in the highlights like mad - basically as much as you want - Rodinal is one heck of a powerful developer.
Those are two developers where you might be able to make TMY-2 look like TXP. Try it and see! But be open minded and experiment. You can do it.
- Thomas
Originally Posted by MattKing
Out of curiosity (and maybe for Cheryl Jacobs' sake) I'll ask this question:
"What steps would you take to make TMY-2 behave like TXP-320 in T-Max developer?"
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
Adv Reply
