TMY II Image Results

[stephen sullivan]

Hello All,

 

For Nov. 11 ~ 13 I was in Port Townsend, WA and I took these two shots with Kodak's New T-MAX 400

{aka TMY II}

 

EOS 1 w/ EF 28mm f/1.8 USM with a B&W UV

 

Typical Port Townsend day. Cloudy Gray with a storm approaching.

 

Both images where handheld in Auto Exposure Mode

 

Oh Yeah. TMY II in D-76 1:1

 

Nikon Coolscan 5000ED

 

10x6.62 @ 200dpi

 

16x - 16bit - GEM 2 - USM Gray 2% 2% 0

 

Crop only in PS2 and Save for the web<div></div>

[stephen sullivan]

Next<div></div>

[25asa]

So how do you think it compares against the old version?

[stephen sullivan]

Scott, you'll love it. Just fine someone to dev in D-76 @ 1:1. I've seen results in Xtol @ 1:1

and doesn't look as good.

 

Me and TMY (not this ver. TMY II) do not get along. I had yet to shot TMY and get a decent

result. If I shoot 400, I'll shoot Tri-X, Neopan 400 or Delta 400

 

TMY II is a completely different animal. I don't even know why they call it T-MAX 400.

IMO it's not TMY. Again IMO, Kodak has developed a completely new film and decided to

call it T-MAX 400 II

[stephen sullivan]

Please remember- these are just straight scans. No manipulations or bumping of CD. I

didn't even spot or dust the images.

 

For me, when this film hits the market, so-long Tri-X, Neopan 400, HP5+ and Delta 400.

[hitam_jantung]

TMY has been my film of choice for many years, and TMY-2 is an improvement. Not a completely different film, it has the same characteristic curve shape, same spectral sensitivity, same recip. characteristics, but it's sharper, finer grained, and a little faster in my testing. No other 400 speed film comes close to the image structure performance of TMY-2, and non-T-grain 100 speed films are only close. As far as I can tell, only TMX and Acros are finer grained, with Delta 100 and Pan F+ coming in a draw. This is an amazing film! If you didn't like TMY's color rendition, curve shape, or processing requirements, you probably won't like TMY-2 either, but if you liked TMY, you'll probably LOVE TMY-2. I do. TMY-2 is the only film I need. Finally.

[d_s31]

Where did you guys get it? I can't seem to find it online.<p/>Also, how does it look with full strength D-76 - if you tried? Did you try T-MAX Dev?

[stephen sullivan]

I got my two Test Rolls of TMY II from the lab that developes my film. They'll rename nameless. Kodak contacted them, "Please try and choose some of your customers to try. Then report back with results."

 

I only saw printed (11x14s) results from TMY II when using D-76 1:1 & Xtol 1:1. The D-76 1:1 were more pleasing to look at.

 

I hope to sometime next week to post some more images from the second roll.

[25asa]

My question is how does it compare to good old Tri-X 400? How does its grain look? And the tonality compared to Tri-X?

[stephen sullivan]

How does it's grain look? TMY II IMO falls in-between TMX & Plus-X as does it's resolution.

 

Tonality? I can't honestly say. I was just doing snap shots on a very cloudy / overcast day.

 

Trust me Scott, when you get your hands on some, you'll love it.

[25asa]

Wow. I'll have to pick up a roll when the stock gets this way. It will take an awful lot to get me to switch from Tri-X 400. That bar none is my favorite B&W 400 speed film. I also like Plus X too. I never was a big fan of TMX.

[hitam_jantung]

I was given six 35mm rolls, by three separate parties. I still have two rolls left. How does it compare to TX? TMY-2 is finer grained and sharper than TX, with very little toe or shoulder in the TMY-2 curve, compared to the TX curve. TMY-2 grain, while much finer, is still a T-grain, and looks different than TX grain, when you can see it. If you've used TMX, you can expect a very similar look from TMY-2. The tonality of TMY-2 is the same as TMY, because the spectral sensitivity is the same, and the characteristic curve shape is the same. IMO, most people who have preferred TX to TMY will continue to prefer TX to TMY-2, because they are very different films, and TMY-2 is simply an improved version of TMY, but as Mr. Sullivan illustrates, there will be some converts, probably those who demand high image quality at high EIs. The classical TX shooter who automatically derates his film to EI 200, underdevelops, and restores contrast in printing will probably not see the virtues of TMY-2, especially in 35mm, where overexposure impacts grain and sharpness far more than in larger formats. If you'll pardon the tangient, I think the practices of LF shooters like Ansel Adams and his ilk have corrupted many 35mm shooters. The methods used to secure good printing negatives from LF film are not forgiven in smaller formats. 35mm shooters would do well to look to the practices of sub-miniature shooters, who must learn to optimize their negatives to make even small prints. These shooters avoid overexposure at all costs, and generally prefer acutance developers to solvent-type developers. TMY-2 is a dream come true for this group, giving unmatched speed-to-grain performance. After all, a tripod defeats the purpose of a sub-mini camera, so these tiny negs are made hand-held. If you've never seen a well made print from a sub-mini negative, you might be amazed at what can be accomplished with expert technique. My suggestion, should you decide to try TMY-2, is to expose at ISO 400, and develop in a dilute developer, like Xtol 1:1, or D-76 1:1. I would not recommend HC110 or Rodinal because they offer no improvement in grain or sharpness for the speed loss they cause.