TMY2 vs FP4

[William D. Lester]

I've been experimenting a bit with 35mm FP4 and the new TMY-2. To my eye, at least in the 8x10 or smaller prints I

make, I'm finding the TMY-2 exhibits grain and sharpness similar if not better than FP4. I haven't formed an opinion

on any tonal differences between the 2 films. I'm rating the TMY-2 at 320 and the FP4 at 100. The higher speed is

definitely helpful especially since I wish to use the camera hand held. Has anyone else compared these 2 films and

possibly formed an opinion as to their comparative qualities?

[stephen sullivan]

I can't speak on the FP4+, but I've shot both Plus-X and T-Max 400 (TMY2). The grain and ability to resolve are very dang close to my

eye. This is based upon 11x14 & 16x20 enlargements. Both films were developed in D-76 1:1 @ 20c

 

The new TMY2 is an amazing film.

[profhlynnjones]

For me, TMY is sharper and the grain is about the same but 2 stops faster.

 

I was a huge fan of FP4 and HP5 but when they changed to FP4+ and HP5+ I stopped using them, the grain was worse and the sharpness much worse.

 

Lynn

[lex_jenkins]

TMY and FP4+ aren't similar at all. The tonal qualities are entirely different. FP4+ has a more traditional look, not quite like Plus-X but not too far from it. TMY looks like TMY, with a distinctive characteristic, tho' without the melodrama of TMX.

 

TMY grain is sandy and gritty at worst, and only when pushed hard or exposed normally and developed in something like Rodinal. Resolution is excellent. Like most conventional emulsions, FP4+ grain varies depending on how it's exposed and developed, but the grain tends to be a bit larger and softer. When exposed at around EI 64-80 with appropriate development it's virtually grainless, just not particularly "sharp" looking (a very subjective thing).

 

FP4+ doesn't push particularly well. TMY is useful up to 6400 in Microphen. Not to say *good*, but useful, and very good up to 1600.

 

Until this thread came up, it had never occurred to me to compare the two. They're that different.

[richard_]

I second what Lex said. To me there two different animals. The one film that T-max 400 comes closes to, in my view, but which is no longer made is FortePan 400....

[mikeseb]

I have to agree with Lex--I'd never have put them in the same category. Doesn't invalidate your observations; I'm just

surprised.

 

That said, TMY2 is probably the best all-around film I've ever used. Kodak really hit a home run with this one. I'm gradually

drawing down my stocks of other films; TMY2 I suspect will do for 75% of my B&W shooting. The remaining 25% will be

400TX, TMX, 320TX, and 125PX in descending order of preference.

 

I usually process in a Jobo in Xtol straight or 1+1. Just fantastic tones; sharp; grain is beautiful and unobtrusive.

[iliafarniev]

I think TM and Deltas are made to suite scanning first and then traditional printing maybe. The F, FP and HP were

just for traditional printing. Say one was to meet the sensor quolities and digital pp while another one was to meet

the paper / developer ranges.

[robert lee]

"That said, TMY2 is probably the best all-around film I've ever used. Kodak really hit a home run with this one. "

 

No kidding. Good bet lots of other photographers think the same. My most recent order of TMY2 has been backlogged at Freestyle for three weeks now.

 

TMY2 is the one reason I'm shooting lots of 135 again. It's even gotten me started up with Xtol.

[lex_jenkins]

The fact that T-Max 100 and 400 scan well is a coincidence. The T-grain and epitaxial grain films were designed long before scanners were commonly available to photographers.

[gt1]

"My most recent order of TMY2 has been backlogged at Freestyle for three weeks now."

 

I bought the last 4 rolls of 120 TMY2 that they had in the retail store last Thursday. I'm hoping to develop them tomorrow night, possibly tonight.

[lex_jenkins]

School season is starting again. TMY has long been a staple of schools that still emphasize b&w film. Chances are the distributors are filling those orders first.

[William D. Lester]

Thanks for the responses. A little background for those who seem surprised at the comparison. I've been shooting and developing black and white film for just over 25 years. I started with 35mm and FP4. Over the years I worked my way up to medium then large format. As a medium and large format user, I used a lot of Tmax 400. In the last couple of years, I've grown weary of lugging camera equipment in my travels and wound up one day purchasing a used Leica M6. The most liberating thing I've done in years as far as carrying euipment goes. The problem is that 35mm needs all the help it can get if you want to make prints that you can be satisfied with after using larger format films. I naturally went back to FP4 which is an excellent all round film and I've had lots of experience with it. The new TMY-2 came along and because I've had experience with TMY I decided to try it after reading favourable reports. It really is a nice film. As I mentioned earlier, at least to my eye, the sharpness and grain structure don't look any different than the FP4. Plus it is 2 stops faster which plays well with a hand held small camera like the Leica. I just haven't made up my mind as to how the tonality compares to the FP4. I looks very, very good and so far I think I can live with the print quality especially since I don't typically make large prints - mostly 8x10 or smaller. I was just trying to see if others had made similar observations. I don't scan anything. All my prints are made in a conventional darkroom on fibre base paper. I use Xtol as my film developer.