Today's film IS better.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes. It does change the curve that much. Try it and see for yourself.

And, re: cost of the developer, use it as replenished and you can find reasonable economy.

Okay, I've never heard of Edwal 12, but Photographer's Formulary claims to have an equivalent. For $15 a liter, but still.

Does it really change the curve of TMY that much? I'm having a heck of a time finding example images -- Flickr produces 10 results, which isn't enough of a sample to know if the photographer knows what he's doing...

EDIT: and those results all seem to be Edwal fg7, not Edwal 12. So, no luck there at all.

[applesanity]

Every time I try T-Max film, the result looks like if I whipped out my digital camera, took the same exact shot, then hit "desaturate" in Photoshop. That's the problem. I like the look of film, and T-Max is too good a film. Also, the critiques I get for my shots when I use Plus-X or Tri-X are hilarious - "Hey, that looks like film. How did you do that?"

Most people assume film is so dead that when they see a picture that has the grain and shifts and tonality and casts of film, they just think someone photoshopped the look of film. Of course, you can never come close to the look of film in Photoshop, nor can you print a RAW file into fiber paper. That's why I still use film. Not because I'm scared of technology, not because I'm trying to be a unique hipster retro trend thing, but because I like the look of film. Making a film "better" will, unfortunately, take that away from me.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Both are prints. Which is T-grain? Which is 'old style'? Does it matter?

[jp498]

A problem that never seems to be raised is that many Photo courses want their students to use films like FP4 and HP5, or Plus-X and Tri-X and seem very reluctant to embrace Tmax, Delta etc.

They used those films because, 1. it was cheaper by a couple dollars per hundred feet. 2. They were a little more forgiving of bad exposure and development. eg. Tmax responds more to temperature changes in development in my experience. Possibly 3. they were trained on these films and liked them, future be damned.

I've used TMY and TMX for 20 years, initially alongside Tri-X, tech pan, and some TMZ, but I ended up settling on TMY mostly because I did lots of sports. Now I'm trying efke 25 along with the TMY2 to understand their practical differences.

TMY looks a lot different than a desaturated color digital image. I would go the route of the desaturated color digital if they were the same.

If you want a grainy look, blow it up bigger, shoot wider and crop, or use a different film.

The business benefit of Kodak innovating film is they are creating new unique and useful films to sell. If they didn't innovate, it'd be a drive to zero of commodity film. Sorta like innovation is the only way to create new business in computers, semiconductors, etc...

[hrst]

Current T-Max technology means better grain/sensitivity ratio, or less wasted light. It's totally different thing than just "less grain" or "no grain". It's more like "more speed".

What I mean is that you can use TMAX3200 if you want grain. Then the advantage is that you'll get more speed. You can always use ND filters if you need to lose some light no matter what. But you can't add light.

T-Max films have nothing to do with "digital look". Saying that will only reveal that the sayer knows nothing about the basics of film or digital. I hate it when word "digital" is used here as a weapon to attack against different opinions. Tmax is film and looks like film. It's just a bit faster at same grain and you can control it like you can control any film. And if you don't know how to control it, it will give unique, "tmax-like" results, like any film gives it's own character. You may or may not like it.

Some people think you can control it even better than other films. Anyhow, the basics to control and use Tmax films are same as with any film and have nothing common with digital. If you can't use Tmax and would rather use digital, it just means that you can't use any film and you'd rather use digital. Gap between Tmax and other films is very narrow, gap between digital and film is 100000000 times bigger.

[jnanian]

Both are prints. Which is T-grain? Which is 'old style'? Does it matter?

you can say THAT again!

- john

[David Brown]

T-Max is too good a film.

Making a film "better" will, unfortunately, take that away from me.

You should try wet plate ... :rolleyes:

[SuzanneR]

Both are prints. Which is T-grain? Which is 'old style'? Does it matter?

If I had to guess, I think the horse pic is the "old style", but, as you say, it hardly matters. You've used film that suited your vision for each. All that matters, really, is the picture... and that you made them the way you saw fit.

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You're right, Suzanne. The girl with the dove tail joint in the wood shop is Tmax 400 from 35mm, and the other is Neopan 400 from 35mm. Both processed in Xtol, and the reason they look so different has nothing to do with the film properties. It's because of how the lighting was, and how I processed the film.

But it doesn't really matter either. I used the Neopan 400 because it was given to me to try out. Both are very nice films, and with some tweaking in the processing can be made to look remarkably similar.

[dwross]

You should try wet plate ... :rolleyes:

Or, dry plate or handcoated film! (Sorry, I couldn't resist ) I really do understand that not everyone is a d.i.y. type, but they're missing a lot of fun, and more seriously -- artistic control.)
d