TMAX 100 for fine art landscape: real issues or overblown rhetoric?
Matthew J. Cordery
color transparency, I'd like to know why there seems to be this
love/hate relationship with TMAX 100. This might be something of a
moot point since I bought my Wisner in order to take it out to the wild
places on foot. Being weight conscious (not only of the weight in my
pack), Readyloads are obviously attractive and probably necessary. Also,
some people seem to be doing good fine art work with it. Do people
really feel that it blocks up all that badly or has some glaring flaw
that can't be corrected or ignored? I'll probably have to live with it
but forearmed is forewarned. Of course, I'll eventually do my own
testing and what not but I thought I'd get some background info. Any
good reason not to use the TMAX developer as opposed to say, XTOL (I
have no preference obviously, just trying to get the best negative in
terms of tonal gradation and sharpness). Forgive me if I'm trespassing
on well-packed ground here. :-)
Matthew
dmww
sure as heck can't see anything wrong with John Sexton's results with TMX.
Can anyone explain in layman's terms what the purported problems with TMX
are?
Thank you.
Dave
Matthew J. Cordery <for...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:374B079E...@hotmail.com...
Mike McDonald
"dmww" <dm...@earthlink.net> writes:
> I, too, would like to better understand the complaints about T-Max 100. I
> sure as heck can't see anything wrong with John Sexton's results with TMX.
>
> Can anyone explain in layman's terms what the purported problems with TMX
> are?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Dave
I think the basic complaint is that T-Max isn't Tri-X.
Mike McDonald
mik...@mikemac.com
Christopher Perez
in D-76 and be of very fine grain. Between the 'toe' and 'shoulder' of the
exposure range is the longest and flatest 'curve' one will ever see. I
haven't
been able to 'block' the highlights under any circumstances.
So problems? I donno. Never seen any. I doubt John Sexton has any
problems with it (not that I can in any way compare myself to the artist).
And viewing his prints... well... words are useless...
I hope this helps.
- Chris
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
L. J. Powell
> As someone who is getting back into b&w work after many years of doing
> color transparency, I'd like to know why there seems to be this
> love/hate relationship with TMAX 100. This might be something of a
> moot point since I bought my Wisner in order to take it out to the wild
> places on foot. Being weight conscious (not only of the weight in my
> pack), Readyloads are obviously attractive and probably necessary. Also,
> some people seem to be doing good fine art work with it. Do people
> really feel that it blocks up all that badly or has some glaring flaw
> that can't be corrected or ignored? I'll probably have to live with it
> but forearmed is forewarned. Of course, I'll eventually do my own
> testing and what not but I thought I'd get some background info. Any
> good reason not to use the TMAX developer as opposed to say, XTOL (I
> have no preference obviously, just trying to get the best negative in
> terms of tonal gradation and sharpness). Forgive me if I'm trespassing
> on well-packed ground here. :-)
> Matthew
Choice of film is as much emotional as it is factual. IMO. FWIW.
I happen to like T-Max. I prefer TMY over TMX, but TMX is nice also. I
have used it for many years, and I have done lots of testing with it so I am
reasonably comfortable with it.
What I can tell you is, in the words used in a magazine article to describe
it many years ago, T-Max is a film for consenting photographers. What that
author meant was that it is designed for photographers who will take the
time to use it properly. It is not a forgiving film. It does not have wide
lattitude for exposure errors. Used properly, it produces beautiful
results. Used badly, it is a problem, and one of the major symptoms is that
the highlights will block up
My experience is that it should be tested thoroughly to determine an
exposure index and a development time. If you do careful testing, you will
arrive at a calibration that will give beautiful negatives.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Louie J. Powell, APSA
Glenville, NY USA
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Maison/7881/
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Butzi
wrote:
>What I can tell you is, in the words used in a magazine article to describe
>it many years ago, T-Max is a film for consenting photographers.
I agree that this is a good way to put it!
> What that
>author meant was that it is designed for photographers who will take the
>time to use it properly. It is not a forgiving film. It does not have wide
>lattitude for exposure errors.
On this, though, I'd disagree. I'd say that TMX is intolerant of
processing variation, because it's sensitive to development time
and temp. On the other hand, I think that more is made of this
than is really warranted.
On the other hand, I don't know that I'd agree that TMX does not
have a wide latitude for exposure errors. It's certainly true that
if you underexpose, you're toast, because of the short toe. On
the other hand, there is no shoulder. None. I've overexposed film
by four or five stops (by pulling the dark slide before closing the
shutter) and been stunned to find good detail in the highlights of
the resulting negative. Eventually halation becomes a problem but
that's way up there. For all intents and purposes it's impossible
to overexpose. Four or five stops overexposure is pretty serious
latitude.
> Used properly, it produces beautiful
>results. Used badly, it is a problem, and one of the major symptoms is that
>the highlights will block up
I've got to say, I've never seen a TMX negative that had blocked up
highlights. I've certainly seen (and made!) negatives where the
detail in the highlights was sufficiently far up the tonal scale that
it was a challenge to get that detail into the print. But that's not
blocked up, because the detail and the contrast are still there.
By comparison, the last roll of Delta 3200 I exposed had highlights
(in this case a white object in the hot spot of a theater spot) that
were completely blocked up. No contrast, no detail.
I think that perhaps the disagreement is about what 'blocked
up highlights' means. I always thought it meant 'no variation in
density in the negative'. Some folks use it to mean 'prints made
with normal contrast and normal shadow print placement from negatives
made under high contrast lighting will have the highlights all appear
paper base white in the print."
--
Web site under (slow) construction at http://www.halcyon.com/butzi/
Bill Peters
T100 is a fine film. I have now used several hundered sheets. It has a
distinctive look, a smoothness of image tonality that is obvious when I
hang prints in group shows where most images are made on Tri-X.
T100 is primarily developer sensitive, its characteristic curve shape
changing with developer formulation. It is a disaster in regular Tmax
developer with a curve that increases in slope (contrast) toward the
highlights. It behaves very nicely in Tmax RS or D-76 1:1. I use the
later.
T100 is sensitive to emulsion damage upon development. Some claim more
so than Tri-X. I have had problems with both. For an easy development
method that really works visit David Kachel's site:
http://members.aol.com/workshops5/
Use his method of tube development in trays. I've tried everything else.
This method produces flawless negatives with little more work than
straight tray development.
Do not overdevelop. Test. Calibrate using the methods in Phil Davis'
book Beyond the Zone System. Until you have the patience to apply Phil's
techniques use about 60% of Kodak's recommended development time and
expose the film at EI 50. If you do happen to underdevelop, selenium
intensification will nicely give a T100 negative a one grade boost in
contrast. If you overdevelop it may be hard to find paper soft enough to
print the negative or excessive dodging may be needed.
It seems to me that the contrast build up on overdevelopment plus the
upswept characteristic curve in some developers have contributed to
"negative" reputation of T100 in some quarters. With some testing and
care it will yield 4x5 negatives with amazing quality and a smoothness
of tone that is 8x10-like.
Enjoy,
Bill Peters
Dick Weld
Dick Weld
tdau...@my-deja.com
"Matthew J. Cordery" <for...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As someone who is getting back into b&w work after many years
> really feel that it blocks up all that badly or has some glaring flaw
> that can't be corrected or ignored? I'll probably have to live with it
> but forearmed is forewarned. Of course, I'll eventually do my own
> testing and what not but I thought I'd get some background info. Any
> good reason not to use the TMAX developer as opposed to say, XTOL (I
> have no preference obviously, just trying to get the best negative in
> Matthew
I seem to get the best negative with TMX in Xtol, unless the contrast
range is extreme, when DI-13 should be considered. It was developed by
Phil Davis specifically for TMX in such circumstances.
An additional advantage of TMX not yet mentioned is its long range of
appropriate reciprocity, not matched by TMY, nor do I believe by Delta
100.
Welcome back to B & W.
Ted Daughety
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Joseph O'Neil
<for...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As someone who is getting back into b&w work after many years of doing
>color transparency, I'd like to know why there seems to be this
>love/hate relationship with TMAX 100. This might be something of a
>moot point since I bought my Wisner in order to take it out to the wild
-snip-
Tmax is a very different film from other B&W films, and I
think the best way to explain how, is "ordinary" B&W film - Tri-X,
FP4, Agfa 100, etc, well you can manipulate and "play around" with
these films by altering times, developers, exposure, etc.
Tmax however, works great, BUT, it only seems to work great in
one of three developers (D76, Xtol or Tmax). Also, I find Tmax
devlops more like a colour film - you have to develop it at exaclty
the right temp & time, or it blocks up on you.
Look at good ole Tri-X by comparison. I can develop tri-x in
HC-110, Xtol, Rodinal, PMK pyro or Perceptol and each developer will
not only work, but will give me a different look.
I cannot seem to do that with Tmax. D76, Xtol and Tmax
developer all seem to give me the same "look", and any other developer
seems to, at least for me, truns out crud.
Ilford's Delta films, by comparison, works well in a whole
range of developers, and surpizingly Delta works great in Pyro.
So I think the negative attitudes towards Tmax have to do with
the nature of "do it our way or the highway" while other B&W films
from Ilford, Agfa and Kodak all can be altered and manipulated into
different looks by various means.
If you are just starting back into B&W, I would not reccomend
Tmax, rather go with a more forgiving film like Tri-X or FP4, then
move into Tmax. You may or may not like it. If you sort of like it,
but not totally, try Delta. I think it's the film Kodak should of
made instead of Tmax. Almost all the benefits of Tmax, plus some of
the lattitude of "traditional" B&W films.
joe
http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil/store.html
London, Ont, Canada
Michael Liczbanski
processed in so many ways, every serious photographers eventually develops
his/her personal list of likes and dislikes, often quite subjective. The
only "negative" attribute for *me* of TMAX is that it is utterly bad when
underexposed even by as little as 1 stop. OTOH my "favorite" emulsion -
APX100 - suffers from the same malady :-) I prefer the tonal range of
APX100 over TMAX, but - again - this is my personal preference.
As for TMAX (and Delta films) I use them when I have to (i.e. APX100 or
TRI-X are not available) and process both in D76 for a nice, long tonal
range with a very distinctive look of...well... TMAX.
And if you want the convenience of Ready Loads - TMAX is your only option in
the states.
Michael
Matthew J. Cordery wrote in message <374B079E...@hotmail.com>...
>As someone who is getting back into b&w work after many years of doing
>color transparency, I'd like to know why there seems to be this
>love/hate relationship with TMAX 100. This might be something of a
>moot point since I bought my Wisner in order to take it out to the wild
>places on foot. Being weight conscious (not only of the weight in my
>pack), Readyloads are obviously attractive and probably necessary. Also,
>some people seem to be doing good fine art work with it. Do people
>really feel that it blocks up all that badly or has some glaring flaw
>that can't be corrected or ignored? I'll probably have to live with it
>but forearmed is forewarned. Of course, I'll eventually do my own
>testing and what not but I thought I'd get some background info. Any
>good reason not to use the TMAX developer as opposed to say, XTOL (I
>have no preference obviously, just trying to get the best negative in
Steve Shapiro
Matthew J. Cordery <for...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:374B079E...@hotmail.com...
> As someone who is getting back into b&w work after many years of doing
> color transparency, I'd like to know why there seems to be this
> love/hate relationship with TMAX 100.
> Matthew
>
As I understand the faulty rap on TMax had begun by Ansel who claimed the
gamma or range of grey tones was too sharp, not many gradations. Saxton
overcomes this by 'painting' his negatives with selenium.
It's been aptly described, frommy experience, in that TMax is a time and
temperature type of film; whereas those of us who do development by
inspection and love to push back and contract film find T&T development a
bore.
There have been times in my life when photographing for print, as in press
work, and coming back with a roll of great shots, good negatives and
immediate on point prints was a bore, too.
It all depends, if you mean that you're used to working with images within
one and a half stops as to what color reversal fiolm offers, then TMax time
and temperature is the way for you to go. Good reliable film.
The recent portfolios in View Camera with TMax convinced me, because I
photograph in deep shadow woods and foggy days a lot, and with uncoated
lenses I get the best shadow detail; by my tests and tests I can do t&t with
TMax and get tight on it. Badda boom.
S. Shapiro
(check the time of this post, baby)
TDuffy8486
>>color transparency, I'd like to know why there seems to be this
>>moot point since I bought my Wisner in order to take it out to the wild
>>places on foot. Being weight conscious (not only of the weight in my
>>pack), Readyloads are obviously attractive and probably necessary. Also,
>>some people seem to be doing good fine art work with it. Do people
>>really feel that it blocks up all that badly or has some glaring flaw
>>that can't be corrected or ignored? I'll probably have to live with it
>>but forearmed is forewarned. Of course, I'll eventually do my own
>>testing and what not but I thought I'd get some background info. Any
>>good reason not to use the TMAX developer as opposed to say, XTOL (I
>>have no preference obviously, just trying to get the best negative in
>>terms of tonal gradation and sharpness). Forgive me if I'm trespassing
>>on well-packed ground here. :-)
>>Matthew
>>
>>
>
>
Based on the number of replies you've received, its evident that you may be
travelling on trodden ground, but well packed, it ain't. The love/hate or
hate/hate relationship with TMAX goes all the way back to its introduction in
the early '80s.
I tried very hard to make TMX work for me, thinking that if only I were a
little more careful or precise I could benefit from its signifcant advantages:
very fine grain, fantastic reciprocity characteristics and extraordinary shadow
detail. I've come to resent the all the time I wasted trying to make it work.
The problem to me is highlight separation or blocking, even on the newer Kodak
papers designed to compensate for this problem. When I moved from roll film to
sheet film, it was easy to set up a test to convince myself it wasn't something
I was doing wrong. Shoot a series of exposures at your tested EI (or half the
speed on the box, if you don't want to test) on both TMAX and anything else
(APX 100, Delta 100, BPF) and vary your development time around "normal". Then
print your best print from each negative on any paper you normally use. This
test has the advantage that, by trial and error, you will produce the best
possible negative and print without depending on your expertise.(first see what
is possible, then figure out how to do it more consistently). You will find
that the TMAX highlights will never show the gradation
and snap possible with virtually any other film. Compare it to your other
print. A TMAX print will just not look or feel right by comparison.
Yes, there are a certain few who get consistently good results with TMAX, but
the numbers are few and they are "full timers". I think most of us large format
shooters do this as a hobby and on a part time basis. Why fight the odds when
you'll get better results with less effort using something else?
By the way, I seen some of John Sexton's original prints. I think his older
Tri-x stuff has a better feel about it than what he has done on TMAX...
Thor Lancelot Simon
Steve Shapiro <sgs...@redshift.com> wrote:
>
>Matthew J. Cordery <for...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:374B079E...@hotmail.com...
>> color transparency, I'd like to know why there seems to be this
>> love/hate relationship with TMAX 100.
>> Matthew
>>
>As I understand the faulty rap on TMax had begun by Ansel who claimed the
>gamma or range of grey tones was too sharp, not many gradations. Saxton
>overcomes this by 'painting' his negatives with selenium.
I don't see much difference, looking at the curves, between the gamma
of TMax and "traditional" black-and-white films. The slope of the curve
is about the same -- of course, TMax has a much longer straight-line
section of the curve, but that should _appeal_ to a Zone System shooter;
it certainly does to me!
I'm not sure (in fact, I'm pretty convinced of the opposite!) AA was
actually shooting much sheet film when the TMax films were introduced.
Having read quite a bit by Sexton on his development procedures, I
don't recall anything about painting selenium toner onto negatives. I
recall reading about fairly normal development using TMax-RS developer
in a Jobo and fairly typical ratings for TMX and TMY in Tmax-RS.
>It's been aptly described, frommy experience, in that TMax is a time and
>temperature type of film; whereas those of us who do development by
>inspection and love to push back and contract film find T&T development a
>bore.
So what does that *mean*? That Tmax provides predictable response to
controlled development? That's the essence of a film suited to Zone
System technique.
I find the claims of highlight blocking with TMX to be bewildering --
unless they're coming from rollfilm shooters who are using that godawful
Tmax (not RS!) developer. With the length of the straight-line section
of TMX's curve in most developers, it's almost impossible to put density
on the negative without detail -- you may have to expose the paper damned
near forever, but the highlights certainly won't "block up". In fact,
TMX is much *more* forgiving this way than most films I've worked with.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
Tom Ferguson
you need to be more careful in developing it: yes. But it isn't
as bad as it's reputation. I suspect that this has caused part
of the "bad press". Particularly from those who use a "lab" to
do their processing.
To me the larger issue (on the problem side) with T-max is
getting a corrrect exposure. Many older films gently lowered
their contrast as you over exposed them. This could be "nice",
if you included a too "hot" spot, the film automaticly lowered it
for you (automatic burning!). Within normal ranges T-Max 100
will not do this, it will give you that too "hot" spot as a too
"hot" spot! Likewise, may older films gently lowered the
contrast if you underexposed them, T-Max 100 cuts off quite
quickly if underexposed.
If you want T-Max 100's tonal range (very nice to my eyes), grain
(nice and small), and reciprocity (wonderful), then you have to
pay the price. Develop accurately, meter very carefully, and
apply zone system "plus and minus" developing when needed. If
you want to play loose and quick, it isn't the film for you.
That isn't a values judgment. I have two original Bresson's
hanging on my walls, I doubt if he likes T-Max! It is wonderful
we have these choices.
Tom
----------
In article <7iljgl$kmf$1...@panix7.panix.com>, t...@panix.com (Thor
Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>In article <7il34l$kte$1...@remarQ.com>,
>Steve Shapiro <sgs...@redshift.com> wrote:
>>
>>Matthew J. Cordery <for...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:374B079E...@hotmail.com...
>>> As someone who is getting back into b&w work after many years of
>doing
>>> color transparency, I'd like to know why there seems to be this
>>> love/hate relationship with TMAX 100.
>>-- snip --
>>> Matthew
>>>
>>As I understand the faulty rap on TMax had begun by Ansel who claimed
>the
>>gamma or range of grey tones was too sharp, not many gradations.
>Saxton
>>overcomes this by 'painting' his negatives with selenium.
>
>I don't see much difference, looking at the curves, between the gamma
>of TMax and "traditional" black-and-white films. The slope of the curve
>is about the same -- of course, TMax has a much longer straight-line
>section of the curve, but that should _appeal_ to a Zone System shooter;
>it certainly does to me! <Big Snip>
Lee Carmichael
neg. Cannot remember where I saw it but I did see it. I use a lot of TMX and
some TMY and I process in HC110. It is quick and easy and I have changed my mind
about these films. It took a while but I came around. But I still like the Deltas
and HP5+.
TDuffy8486 wrote:
> >
> >Matthew J. Cordery wrote in message <374B079E...@hotmail.com>...
> >>As someone who is getting back into b&w work after many years of doing
> >>color transparency, I'd like to know why there seems to be this
--
As usual,
Lee Carmichael
mailto:cl...@flash.net
check out http://www.pgtopg.com/filmbytes
T Pole 1
Ahhhhhh. Kodak and TMAX 100. Yes there is a love hate relationship with this
film, actually I think its with Kodak and we, photographers, take it out on the
film. You know kill the messenger.
I use it and like it, notice I said like. It is a decent film, but I don't use
Kodak chemistry. The main reason is that big Yellow themselves don't reccomend
using it for sheet film. Why ? Good question. I think that the sheet film is in
someway different from the roll film. Hey we always ask Kodak and hope for an
answer.
As for the readyloads. Well I can't speak for them myself since I never used
them, I did work for the guy who invented them for about a year. He was a
photographer and tinkerer. I know he wishes everyone used them, he would be far
richer.
And I guess you just bought a Wisner. Well it will serve you well in the wilds.
I love mine, I think its about 8 or 9 years old and its just as smooth now as
it was the first day.
Well as with any film you will have to get to know the TMAX and figure out how
it best works for you. Hey you might grow to love it. I was wasting space here
trying to remember the name of a photographer that uses TMAX and loves it but
his name escapes me. Its not Sexton, he uses it. Anyway I'll let you get expose
some film.
Take care
Peace
Gwynn
Roger Cole
>Matthew,
>
>Ahhhhhh. Kodak and TMAX 100. Yes there is a love hate relationship with this
>film, actually I think its with Kodak and we, photographers, take it out on the
>film. You know kill the messenger.
>I use it and like it, notice I said like. It is a decent film, but I don't use
>Kodak chemistry. The main reason is that big Yellow themselves don't reccomend
>using it for sheet film. Why ? Good question. I think that the sheet film is in
Um, dude or dudette...Kodak doesn't recommend Kodak chemistry??? They
certainly DO. They do not recommend the regular T-Max developer for
sheet film as some people have had problems with dichroic fog. They DO
however, make and recommend a developer called "T-Max RS" - the RS
stands for "replinished systems" or some such, that they DO recommend
for TMX and TMY sheet film. Last I heard, this was what Sexton used.
I used to use it myself. It is a very different, much more
controllable developer than the regular T-Max developer. The only good
use for the regular stuff I ever found was pushing TMZ, and the RS
does that just as well. Kodak also makes, and recommends, Xtol and
D76, either of which will give excellent results (ok, John, there is
debate on the Xtol! ;-) ) with sheet films. Of course, they also
make HC110 and probably some others that I am forgetting.
Roger Cole
nst...@market1.com
It matters not what your film can do for you but what you can do for
your film!:) Don't waste your time debating over which film to use, get
out there and shoot. I've used Tmax and find it to be as good as any
other film over-all. The only objection to tmax i have is it takes
longer to fix it than it does to develope. Does that pink hue ever go
away???
Film is a matter of personal preferance, shooting conditions, subject
matter, ect. Myself would rather shoot ortho film on a hazy day and
develope by inspection. Over exposing and under developing makes
wonderful results and the finest grain i have seen, even with D76. Great
for really big enlargements.
Happy Shooting!!!
Shannon
In article <374B079E...@hotmail.com>,
"Matthew J. Cordery" <for...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As someone who is getting back into b&w work after many years of doing
> color transparency, I'd like to know why there seems to be this
> love/hate relationship with TMAX 100. This might be something of a
> moot point since I bought my Wisner in order to take it out to the
wild
> places on foot. Being weight conscious (not only of the weight in my
> pack), Readyloads are obviously attractive and probably necessary.
Also,
> some people seem to be doing good fine art work with it. Do people
> really feel that it blocks up all that badly or has some glaring flaw
> that can't be corrected or ignored? I'll probably have to live with it
> but forearmed is forewarned. Of course, I'll eventually do my own
> testing and what not but I thought I'd get some background info. Any
> good reason not to use the TMAX developer as opposed to say, XTOL (I
> have no preference obviously, just trying to get the best negative in
> terms of tonal gradation and sharpness). Forgive me if I'm trespassing
> on well-packed ground here. :-)
> Matthew
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Richard Knoppow
>On 5 Jun 1999 16:22:58 GMT, tpo...@aol.com (T Pole 1) wrote:
>
>>Matthew,
>>
>>Ahhhhhh. Kodak and TMAX 100. Yes there is a love hate relationship with this
>>film, actually I think its with Kodak and we, photographers, take it out on the
>>film. You know kill the messenger.
>>I use it and like it, notice I said like. It is a decent film, but I don't use
>>Kodak chemistry. The main reason is that big Yellow themselves don't reccomend
>>using it for sheet film. Why ? Good question. I think that the sheet film is in
>
>Um, dude or dudette...Kodak doesn't recommend Kodak chemistry??? They
>certainly DO. They do not recommend the regular T-Max developer for
>sheet film as some people have had problems with dichroic fog. They DO
>however, make and recommend a developer called "T-Max RS" - the RS
>stands for "replinished systems" or some such, that they DO recommend
>for TMX and TMY sheet film. Last I heard, this was what Sexton used.
>I used to use it myself. It is a very different, much more
>controllable developer than the regular T-Max developer. The only good
>use for the regular stuff I ever found was pushing TMZ, and the RS
>does that just as well. Kodak also makes, and recommends, Xtol and
>D76, either of which will give excellent results (ok, John, there is
>debate on the Xtol! ;-) ) with sheet films. Of course, they also
>make HC110 and probably some others that I am forgetting.
>
>Roger Cole
>
Kodak has very complete data sheets on most of their films and
developers available on their web site. The search engine leaves
something to be desired but usually some persistence will lead you to
what you are looking for. The data sheet for T-Max films is F-32. If
you click on "Find" and type this in it will take you to the sheet.
There are also data sheets on T-Max developers: J-86, HC-110: J-24;
D-76: J-78; Xtol, three sheets, numbers: J-106, J-107, J-108.
The site is at: http://www.kodak.com
>>someway different from the roll film. Hey we always ask Kodak and hope for an
>>answer.
>>As for the readyloads. Well I can't speak for them myself since I never used
>>them, I did work for the guy who invented them for about a year. He was a
>>photographer and tinkerer. I know he wishes everyone used them, he would be far
>>richer.
>>And I guess you just bought a Wisner. Well it will serve you well in the wilds.
>>I love mine, I think its about 8 or 9 years old and its just as smooth now as
>>it was the first day.
>>Well as with any film you will have to get to know the TMAX and figure out how
>>it best works for you. Hey you might grow to love it. I was wasting space here
>>trying to remember the name of a photographer that uses TMAX and loves it but
>>his name escapes me. Its not Sexton, he uses it. Anyway I'll let you get expose
>>some film.
>>Take care
>>Peace
>>Gwynn
>>
>
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Russell
printing both T Max films on Ilford MG paper; the results were not nearly as
good as with Kodak PMFA; the tonal range seemed compressed in the shadows.
Of course this is subjective. I think maybe some Delta fans prefer their
film because they are using the Ilford paper, which is likely matched to it
better. --Russell
Matthew J. Cordery <for...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:374B079E...@hotmail.com...
Scott Davis
Edwal TG-7, in the same concentrations and same process times as I used
for my 35mm, in a Yankee cut film tank. TMX/TMY are my favorite b/w films
if I'm doing pure b/w and want that superfine grain and smooth tonality.
This produces wonderfully rich tonalities with no highlight blocking. I
can print 95% of my negs at grade 2, with identical exposure and
development using this combination.
In article <374c69d4...@news.multiboard.com>, jon...@multiboard.com
(Joseph O'Neil) wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 1999 13:27:10 -0700, "Matthew J. Cordery"
> <for...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >As someone who is getting back into b&w work after many years of doing
> >color transparency, I'd like to know why there seems to be this
> >love/hate relationship with TMAX 100. This might be something of a
> >moot point since I bought my Wisner in order to take it out to the wild
>