T-MAX 400: It Seems Blah As Far As Tonal Quality!

[j._mose]

I am basically a user of TMX and FP4 with Rodinal 1:50. I have also

used HP5 from time to time but mainly for 120 and 4x5. Recently, I

wanted a 320-400 range film for 35mm handheld use in low light

conditions. The local photo store was out of HP5 so I opted for some

rolls of TMY. I knew that Rodinal would probably yield too much

grain so I selected T-Max developer (I had some left over from

developing T-MAX 3200 a year ago). After developing four rolls of

TMY I find the look of the film to be very blah compared to the other

b&w films I named earlier. Years ago I used Tri-X with D/76 and

loved the results...the store didn't have Tri-X either.

 

I'd like some recommendations for film/developer combinations in the

400 ISO range? I am a big fan of Rodinal! However, I didn't find it

to be a winning combination with HP5 (not like TMX or FP4).

 

I tend to like my b&w negatives to have a strong and robust density

range...not into the zone system (as of yet). I also would like the

film to be true to its speed!

 

Thanks for your suggestions in advance!

 

Another off the topic question...has anyone tried Kodak's Ultra Color

yet..what do you think of it? Thanks.

 

Regards,

 

J. P. Mose

[bruce_karnopp1]

Re: Kodak Ultra Color

I used this once. I have been using Agfa Ultra (a negative color film) in 120. It was close to the look of Velvia but it was a negative film. This was when the film was ISO=50.

 

The Kodak Ultra did not come close to these other films. Agfa has updated its Ultra to ISO=100, but it is only available in 35mm, so I have not tried it. I shoot only 120 and 4X5.

[lowell_huff1]

I have had many photographers tell me how pleased they were with Clayton F 76plus developer with all speeds of the T grain films. I have the processing times and temps available.

[al_divenuti]

I'm not a real fan of TMY but you aren't doing that film any favors by souping it in T-Max developer.

 

Forget about the Kodak market-speak, T-Max developer has little to do with T-max films. T-Max developer is optimized for short development times, fine grain, and (apparently) blown highlights. If you search this board you'll find lots of posts to this effect, even among frequent users of the T-max films.

 

There are any number of developers that can do the job better. I think XTOL might be a good place to start if it's available to you.

 

I've used Kodak UltraColor 100 a few times and I think it's a good film overall - though it does not seem to produce natural skin tones which is a disappointment. I think it is far better than Agfa Ultra 100, however, which doesn't have anything going for it IMO.

[andrew_oneill]

xtol 1+1, 1+3.

[mark_sampson]

In general, Rodinal works best with slow and medium speed films, unless you want big sharp grain. I've never cared for TMY but that doesn't matter- I have found XTOL 1:2 to work very well with Tri-X, a noticeable improvement over the old standby D-76 1:1. Perhaps it will offer the same advantages (sharpness, tight grain, long tonal scale) to TMY.

[ken_schroeder]

J, you are condemning the T-Max 400 without much of a trial. Personally, I'm a Tri X fan. That is not a criticism of T-Max 400, just an admission that I have never used it. Before I used it in the field, I would first run personal speed and development time tests. My personal speed for Tri -x is 200. I would use that as an initial guess for the T Max 400, too. I have no idea if that is "true" to its speed. It gives me shadows rich in detail. I tend to like negatives which have lots of shadow detail and delicate highlights.

 

I believe you would find the study to become familiar with the Zone System beneficial. The best book (in my opinion) on the subject is Fred Picker's Zone VI Workshop. It is now out of print, but is very readily available at reasonable cost. The equipment recommendations are dated, but the technique and teaching method method is both solid and user friendly.

[ronald_moravec1]

You grab a year old bottle of developer previously opened and criticise the film for being flat!

[al_divenuti]

Excellent point, Ken, be careful not to underexpose TMY...

 

I've only shot it a few times but I've never rated it higher than EI 250. I hear of quite a few folks rating it at 200 and 160.

[ed_workman]

When TMY came out I tried it in 120, hoping it would be obviously sharper/less grainy than TriX. I first found that it was not full speed in D-76, so I went to T-Max and thence to TMaxRS. After many rolls over several weeks, including parallel tests with TriX I concluded there was not enough difference to warrant a change...I got 8x10 prints that were essentially identical from TriX or TMY. Be aware that the subjects were in full, bright sunlight typically, and EI 400.

[david_goldfarb]

I agree that TMY is kind of blah in 35mm. I've seen more interesting results with TMY in 4x5" and larger, and people who are really gung ho about TMY seem to shoot it in large format.

 

Delta 400 is a lovely film, though. Try it at EI 200 in Perceptol or something of that nature, or 400 in D-76.

[jon_porter1]

I like TMY. Not as much as Tri-X, but I still think it's an excellent film. I've used it at EI 250

and 500 and developed it in Xtol, FX39 and HC-110 with good results. Xtol 1:1 probably

gets my vote as best all-around developer with this film.

[ken_schroeder]

One parting thought: If Tri X is discontinued, and the only film available was T Max 400 (or any other film), I believe most dedicated photographers would find ways to do good work with it.

[michael_j._kravit1]

If you find TMY Blah, than you need to learn to process your film correctly. I regularly shoot TMY and process in D-76 or DDX to obtain a density range of 1.9 for palladium printing.

 

By blah, I assume you mean flad or lifeless. If this is the case, refine your processing and I think you will find out that your are suffering from a disease known as "opeator error".

 

Good luck and give it another try.

 

Mike

[lex_jenkins]

I was satisfied with the tonal range and contrast handling I got from 35mm TMY at 400 in Rodinal. But the grain is very gritty and, for my tastes, unpleasant for most purposes. However if you want grainy photos without having to resort to the usual tricks - underexposing and overdeveloping, which results in lost shadow detail - it's worth considering.

 

More often I use 35mm TMY for pushing, usually 1600 and develop in Microphen. Most of the time I use Microphen as straight stock solution when pushing but occasionally use it 1:1. Great combination for dim, contrasty situations such as live theatre, concerts and street shooting. It even works pretty well under blazing sunlight, tho' that's not its strong point. It gives me a different flavor from pushed Tri-X, especially Tri-X in Diafine (TMY and Diafine don't mix).

 

Re: Kodak's Ultra Color - since I've recently moved and am currently without a b&w darkroom I've been trying more color films that I've avoided or didn't previously have time to experiment with. 400UC is one of the best color negative films I've tried for all around shooting. Its colors are vivid yet realistic and the skin colors are natural and flattering. In that respect it offers some advantages over another of my favorites, Kodak Gold 100, which has beautiful skin tones but usually delivers subdued colors overall. And both are readily available at fair prices at places like Wal-mart.

 

Naturally it depends on good processing and printing on good paper. Keep in mind that many low priced minilabs use consumer grade papers designed to exaggerate color and contrast at the expense of what the film was intended for. So if you don't get good prints the first time try another lab. I've gotten good results from the local run of the mill Frontier machines.

 

400UC also seems to work well right at ISO 400 and has good latitude compared with NPZ, which doesn't seem to tolerate underexposure well and should probably be rated below 800 for most purposes.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

For 400 speed B/W films, I use Fuji's Neopan 400, burned @ 320. Beautiful grain and tonality. The Ilfod Delta 400, is also very good. They both push well too. Also, the Neopan 1600 is very good. I overexpose all my negative films by 1/3 a stop. Much better grain and shadow detail. I don't care for Kodak color negative films. However, their 100 & 400 UC films are very good.

 

Russ

[ken_hughes4]

"(apparently) blown highlights"

 

this would be due to exposure and development shortcomings..it has nothing to do with the film.

[StuartMoxham]

For the English and Europe based readers Kodak Profesional Ultra Color 400 is called Kodak Profesional Elite Color 400. And the Ultra 400 that you find in the supermarket and general stores in England and Europe is what is known as KODAK MAX Versatility Film or KODAK MAX 400 Film in the states. Once you are familiar with Kodaks packaging it is easy to tell the difference.

[david_goldfarb]

Michael Kravit writes--

 

"If you find TMY Blah, than you need to learn to process your film correctly. I regularly shoot TMY and process in D-76 or DDX to obtain a density range of 1.9 for palladium printing."

 

I think this supports my contention that people who really like TMY are shooting it in large format. I suspect that this has to do with the local contrast effects that come with a larger format, overcoming the muddy midtones I've seen with TMY in 35mm. It may also be that developing TMY in 35mm to sufficient density to get a good tonal range involves a grain penalty that isn't an issue in LF. While TMY is theoretically less grainy than traditional 400-speed films, I find the grain structure of TMY unattractive.

 

That said, under the right lighting conditions, I've occasionally gotten decent results with TMY in small and medium format, but I've gotten consistently better results with other films.

[gareth_harper]

I use 35mm Tmax. It's seems to me to be a much lower contrast film than tri-x but it does have a lovely broad range of mid tones.

I've used it with Ilfosol S, which gives quite fine grain and a very sharp result. I also use it with DD-X, not quite as sharp but finer grained and more tonal.

I am also increasingly becoming a fan of tr-x in Rodinal.

[j._mose]

Thanks for all the advice so far...I will revisit using TMY with different developers and also at ISO 200. I have a box of 50 sheets in 4x5....I'll give it a try after the holidays.

 

RONALD MORAVEC WROTE:

"You grab a year old bottle of developer previously opened and criticise the film for being flat!"

 

This brings up a very good point! The developer was actually around six months old but in it's orignal concentrated strength. I also transferred the remaining developer into a container that I could squeeze air tight. I assumed it would be good for at least a year. Any thoughts? What about Rodinal? I have read postings referencing two-three year old bottles performing just as well (I use it a lot so this has never been an issue).

 

Again thanks for all the information so far!

 

JP Mose

[al_divenuti]

J.P.

 

Assuming you have transferred the T-max developer to the topped-off bottles after you first used it and you have not allowed air into those containers, you are probably o.k. As far as I know, whatever other shortcomings it may have, T-max developer has a reputation for pretty good shelf life.

 

But another danger exists in rendering judgement because scanning negatives is never easy and very often the end result is not an adequately accurate representation of the original to attempt to determine errors in processing.

[marek sramek]

I found TMY to work very well with Xtol (1:1), much better than D-76.