T-Max 400 rated at 1600 or T-Max 3200 rated at 1600?

I was wondering whether T-Max 400 rated at 1600 or T-Max 3200 rated at 1600 would be better to use in low-life situations in terms of:

<p>

1) Contrast?

2) Tonality?

3) Shadow details?

and most importantly

4) Latitude of exposure?

<p>

I'm rather used to Tri-X rated at 1600 but T-Max is less forgiving so I am wondering about its potential use. After all, T-Max has smoother grain than Tri-X in many ways.

<p>

I was looking through Selgado's book Workers and I was wondering when Selgado chooses to use Tri-X vs. T-Max (his films of choice). I suspect that when he wants a grainier look, T-Max 3200 is preferable over Tri-X pushed?

It would be of great utility if you could illustrate your dilemma

with an image from your archives.

Hi Alfie,

<p>

I haven't tried doing either yet but someone posted this <a

href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0010/feature1/">link</a>

to NG a little while ago. Most of the shots featured are using T-

Max3200 rated at 1600. I like the smooth tones it produced in this

feature.

<p>

Cheers,

Angus

"...low-life situations...."

<p>

HEY! I resemble that!

<p>

Seriously consider Delta 3200. Having said that, given the two

choices you present, I'd go with the TM3200 for a true 1600. If "most

importantly" latitude of exposure is the criteria, the TM3200 would

win. It will also have more shadow detail than TM400. The contrast

and tonality, and to some minor extent even the grain, can be

controlled with development.

<p>

Speaking of development, if you're planning on using a commercial lab

for TM3200 at any speed... forget it. I've never seen a lab do it

justice (or at least any of the labs I've tried here in FL). The

usual result is chemical fogging thru the sproket holes that results

in light streaks in the images.

<p>

Also, TM3200 is very red sensitive - so if the lighting is

incandescent, or firelite you'll find it does better than TM400.

<p>

The Delta 3200, for me at least, is finer grained, and is better

handled by commercial labs (no chemical fogging). The contrast, speed

and range are close to the TM3200, but I've not developed any of it at

home, so I can't give you a direct A/B comparison there. It is a

real decent low light film however.

Sorry John but I haven't tried any of these setups so basically I

will experiment this weekend up in NYC with both then.

<p>

Thanks for the NG links. I really like the T-Max 3200 at 1600 with

its shadow renditions in tricky lighting. No doubt but the blowups of

those same photos would have been more revealing than the rather

small jpg's :(

<p>

T-Max is rather nice no doubt.

Alfie:

Saldago, I think, uses the same lab in Paris that HCB used for his

developing and printing. Personally, I think that Paris has the best

labs in the world, with New York and San Francisco a far second.

Philly isn't within walking distance. And that makes more of a

difference than what film you use. If I were you, I'd probably stick

to one of the C41 b&w films until you get set up to develop your own

negs. Personally, I swear by Xtol and T-Max. Until you're in a

position to control the process don't even attempt to compare films.

Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, Leica UVa, T-Max 400 in Xtol 1:1

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=703799&size=lg" WIDTH="750" HEIGHT="500">

Can anyone shed light on whether the 3200 shot at 1600 should

be "pulled" (under-processed) or processed normal, thus

overdeveloping? I had the impression that it shoiuld be processed

normal, thereby gibing you a more dense neg with more shadow detail.

Am I on the right track?

<p>

Cheers, Pat.

I haven't used the tmax 3200 since the ilford stuff came out -- but,

as I recall, the tmax 3200 is really a 1200-1600 speed for "normal"

exposure/development, whatever that is, and it says so on the kodak

pages (used to, anyway). there are developing times for 2400 and 3200,

and it does nicely, but best at the lower speed. most develop charts

give all speeds -- or you are supposed to experiment and fumble

yourself. In essence, 3200 is one stop push on a film that tolerates

it well.

I think T-Max P3200 is actually an ISO 800 film. Thus, 1600 is

already a one-stop push. Better shadow detail can be expected

compared to pushing T-Max 400 two stops. The grain will be evident

on uniform areas, but will tend to dissolve into the texture of the

subject in detailed areas.

I truly believe that it's best to test the films you use to decide

what's right for you. There are so many variables, and the

processing of the film is the biggest.

<p>

Having said that, and assuming that you can process it yourself,

I would go with the TMZ 3200. It 's nominal speed is 1000. So

even at 1600, it's a bit of a push, but I find the results are

wonderful at 800 and 1600. You sould test to come up with your

own processing times, but in my experience, the tonal range and

shadow detail are incredible at these speeds.

<p>

I shoot Tri-X in Rodinal for semi-low light, and T-MAX 3200 at

various speeds as needed for really low light. Seems like I rarely

shoot in decent light. ;)

<p>

T-MAX 3200 has a very different look from it's slower cousin,

T-MAX 400. I've never liked T-Max 400 because I find the grain,

although small, sort of mushy and unsharp when enlarged. Of

course that's just my personal opinion. I find that Tri-X grain

more closely matches that of the T-MAX 3200. Not just because

it's grainly, but because of the character of the grain. That's why

you can't easily tell when Salgado shoots 3200 or when it's Tri-x.

FWIW, some of the folks at Modernage in NYC suggest TMAX 3200, shot

at 1600, and then processed "normally." I assume that means

following the development times for 3200, but I didn't ask.

<p>

I often shoot TMAX 3200 at 1600 and have Modernage process it without

any special instructions. I have also shot it at 3200. Though my

sample is limited, shooting at 1600 seems to give a slightly richer

tone, but that might just be my imagination.

<p>

This is TMAX 3200 at 1600:

http://www.photo.net/photo/663415

<p>

This is TMAX 3200 at 3200:

http://www.photo.net/photo/663459

<p>

Maybe there's a difference, maybe not.

<p>

RE: Salgado and grain, I get them impression his grainy effects come

from Rodinal and grade of paper--not so much from the choice of film.

Not precisely on topic, but if you would like to see a shot taken

with Neopan 1600 which I rated at EI 800 go here:

http://web-graphics.com/steinerphoto/000415.html#000415

and click on the red photo title.

I do carry Tmax3200 for real low-light night-shots and if a large

grain is desirable. But for normal low-light fotography I have

changed to Neopan 1600. I even did some portraits with it. Great film

with very low grain and excellent contrast for its speed. If I come

in my photostore the people put 3 roles on the counter by default.

<p>

ReinierV

T-max 3200 'IS' a 1600 ISO film IMHO. Get it deved at 3200 but rate

it at 1600. I would'nt bother with trying to push TMY to 1600 if you

need any shadow detail - you won't get any.

Try Ilford Delta 400 pushed to 1600. Here's an <a

href="http://not.contaxg.com/files/0017/21patriceferris_.jpg">example</a>.

Alfie:

<p>

For having tried, I can answer that it's better to use TMAX 3200

rated 1600 than 400 rated 1600

<p>

First, the tonality is better.

The contrast is greater too as you are exploiting a 3200 film with a

1000 ASA nominal speed pushed to 1600. Just use a good light measure

cell as in a Minox 35 or a M6 or R7.

<p>

Don't forget that Salgado has used a film TriX because it was

available, we have the Tmax3200.

<p>

It's quite often I have my Minox 35 with Tmax 3200 rated 1600. I

don't have anything under my hand to show but it's pleasant.

<p>

Quit thinking, have fun.

X.

A couple of things...

Answering the origional post of this thread, I read an interview with salgado about the worker shots. kodak3200 had just come out and he was raving about it. He stated that when he was "inside" he shot with the 3200 and when he was outside he would shoot trix.

along with dev and paper grade....shooting 3200 and trix can give you some grainy shots...most people know this but love the tonality of these films

I would say that 3200 looks better at 1600 than tmax400. 3200 is grainy, but it works great. Now, trix at 1600 IMO looks better than 3200 shot at 1600. The origional poster was asking about tmax, right?