T Max 100 vs Plus X vs Ilford 125
Ryan Hare
I know these kinds of posts appear really often, but I'm looking for
experiences with the various medium speed b&w films out there, in
particular T Max 100 vs Plus X. I've read that Plus X does not feature as
fine grain as even T Max 400. Is this true?
Thanks in advance for any help!
Ryan
Allan Tingey
than Ilford FP4+ but it is also a slower film than FP4+. Most
people shoot it ISO 64 instead of 125.
Allan Tingey
xx
Plus-X, mostly for studio shooting. Yes, TMY probably has better
grain than Plus-X. But plus-X has this beautiful extended tonality
that I just can't get out of TMX. And TMY under strobe is the kiss
of death, we're talking major blocked up highlights.
Rick
In article <36E58003...@ibis.genetics.utah.edu>,
a...@ibis.genetics.utah.edu says...
Allan Tingey
better looking print than anything else on the market. I shoot
it whenever conditions allow, giving in to Tmax-400 only when
I need some speed. The only film I know of that can better
Plus-x is Panatomic-X... if only Kodak would make some.
Allan Tingey
W. P. Foxworth
Allan Tingey wrote in message <36E694A5...@ibis.genetics.utah.edu>...
>I agree. I'll go even further and claim that Plus-x makes a
>better looking print than anything else on the market. I shoot
>it whenever conditions allow, giving in to Tmax-400 only when
>I need some speed. The only film I know of that can better
>Plus-x is Panatomic-X... if only Kodak would make some.
Actually there are rumours that Fuji might be releasing a slow BW film based
on Panatomic-X (something in the range or ISO 100-125). I shoot a lot of
Fuji Neopan 400... My favorite film by far. It produces amazing prints.
However it's sometimes hard to find. Luckily I own a large freezer!
Allan Tingey
been able to trace it's source. I have called Fuji but they were
no help. If you know of magazine article some other reliable
source with information about this product please let us know.
Allan Tingey
Bill Baker
rsch...@worldnet.att.net (xx) wrote:
> Yes, TMY probably has better
> grain than Plus-X. But plus-X has this beautiful extended tonality
> that I just can't get out of TMX.
Yeah. T-Max just doesn't look very subtle in its rendering of
mid-range tones. It feels like a film that was designed to look crisp
and render detail, to accentuate edge detail to the eye in lieu of
tonality. Make for a great newspaper photo film, although I don't
shoot that stuff anymore.
Grain character is relative anyway. I've got a shot of Coit Tower
taken on Plus-X with a cigarette pack Rollei (equivalent of a P&S)
blown up to 2O" X 30". Yeah, if you look at it from six inches away
the grain is ugly, but from farther away your eye see the film grain as
surface texture of the masonry, and anyway the dramatic contrast of
architectural masses overwhelms the grain. If it was a more subtle
composition of smooth surfaces, you couldn't enlarge the print beyond
11X14.
The one caveat I offer is that T-Max looks pretty good when shot
without filters, but Plus-X exposures can end up looking like grey
pudding.
Jeliza Patterson
>In article <7c51f4$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>rsch...@worldnet.att.net (xx) wrote:
>
>> Yes, TMY probably has better
>> grain than Plus-X. But plus-X has this beautiful extended tonality
>> that I just can't get out of TMX.
>
>Yeah. T-Max just doesn't look very subtle in its rendering of
>mid-range tones. It feels like a film that was designed to look crisp
>and render detail, to accentuate edge detail to the eye in lieu of
>tonality. Make for a great newspaper photo film, although I don't
>shoot that stuff anymore.
Are there any other films that have that "crisp" character of T-Max that
don't suck up fixer so much? Since I don't have access to a darkroom of my
own, I have to send my stuff out to be processed, and if I forget to make
really big notes on the order slip, it always comes back purple.
And are there any color films with that crisp quality?
Jeliza
--
valk...@cmu.edu http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~valkyrie/
"Doesn't anyone in this town wear pants anymore?" (Helen Morgendorfer)
Allan Tingey
Allan Tingey
Paul Friedman
>
> I agree. I'll go even further and claim that Plus-x makes a
> better looking print than anything else on the market. I shoot
> it whenever conditions allow, giving in to Tmax-400 only when
> I need some speed. The only film I know of that can better
> Plus-x is Panatomic-X... if only Kodak would make some.
>
>
I understand that this is a matter of taste, but have you tried
Agfa APX100? For landscape, at least, you might find that you
enjoy it. Plus X has an interesting gradiant. Too grainy for me,
though, in 35mm. Nice when the enlarging ratio is small (hence, the
bigger the negative, the more I like Plus-X
--
>>remove the NOSPAM-BITTE from the address to reply<<
Paul Friedman
>
> Actually there are rumours that Fuji might be releasing a slow BW film based
> on Panatomic-X (something in the range or ISO 100-125). I shoot a lot of
> Fuji Neopan 400... My favorite film by far. It produces amazing prints.
> However it's sometimes hard to find. Luckily I own a large freezer!
Fuji makes at least one, and I think two, 100 ASA B&W film(s). The
one that is kinda sorta available in the US is SS. Nothing to write
home about. If you already knew this, then to
quote Gilda Radner.....never mind.
Javier Henderson
> Fuji makes at least one, and I think two, 100 ASA B&W film(s). The
> one that is kinda sorta available in the US is SS. Nothing to write
> home about. If you already knew this, then to
> quote Gilda Radner.....never mind.
Interesting, I never heard of anything other than Neopan 400
and 1600. I went hunting on Fuji's website, and only found those two
films. This doesn't necessarily mean the films you speak of don't
exist, though. It seems there's a conspiracy amongst film manufacturers
to hide information really well, as far as their websites are concerned.
-jav
lemonade
<a...@ibis.genetics.utah.edu> wrote:
> I agree. I'll go even further and claim that Plus-x makes a
> better looking print than anything else on the market. I shoot
> it whenever conditions allow, giving in to Tmax-400 only when
> I need some speed. The only film I know of that can better
> Plus-x is Panatomic-X... if only Kodak would make some.
I have some nice negs on Plus-X, and Panatomic-X. But I can't say they are
any better than what I have on Agfapan 100, which is my standard.
--
Due to the intolerable volume of spam these days, I no longer supply a
valid email address.
Paul Friedman
guess not. It is avaialbe from a few sources tho-- including B&H
via the mail at $1.99 per 135-36. Cheap <grin>. Again, nothing special.
I'm sure I've seen information somewhere (helpful, eh?) about another
Fuji 100 ASA B&W film. I hav never seen this film advertised tho.
--
Cbwahls
>better looking print than anything else on the market.
Uh Oh! With all this praise for Plus-X, Kodak is sure to quit making it :)
Chuck
fondly remembering Ektar 25
Allan Tingey
is done in 8x10 and Agfa has discontinued this film in that format.
Allan Tingey
Paul Friedman wrote:
>
> Allan Tingey wrote:
> >
> > I agree. I'll go even further and claim that Plus-x makes a
> > better looking print than anything else on the market. I shoot
> > it whenever conditions allow, giving in to Tmax-400 only when
> > I need some speed. The only film I know of that can better
> > Plus-x is Panatomic-X... if only Kodak would make some.
> >
> > Allan Tingey
> >
>
> I understand that this is a matter of taste, but have you tried
> Agfa APX100? For landscape, at least, you might find that you
> enjoy it. Plus X has an interesting gradiant. Too grainy for me,
> though, in 35mm. Nice when the enlarging ratio is small (hence, the
> bigger the negative, the more I like Plus-X
>
Paul Friedman
the graininess of Plus-X becomes a non-issue. Ya, I can certainly
see Plus-X for 8x10 work.
G Brown
> Well, for what its worth I used to be a TMX zealot but switched to
> Plus-X, mostly for studio shooting. Yes, TMY probably has better
> grain than Plus-X. But plus-X has this beautiful extended tonality
> that I just can't get out of TMX. And TMY under strobe is the kiss
> of death, we're talking major blocked up highlights.
>
> Rick
Doesn't that just mean you are overdeveloping it?
You can control the density range by your development of it. Why, I wonder
do people make these statements? Why? Doesn't it just show ignorance of
basic black and white film development?
--
gbr...@va.med.umich.edu -- real address
W. P. Foxworth
>Doesn't that just mean you are overdeveloping it?
>You can control the density range by your development of it. Why, I wonder
>do people make these statements? Why? Doesn't it just show ignorance of
>basic black and white film development?
Absolutely not. Reducing development changes the slope of the charactirestic
curve but does not create a shoulder. Underdevelopment allows the highlights
to retain details but does not mean that these details will be visible on
the print. Tmax films are notorious for having highlights that do not print
well in contrasty situations even if the negative has details in the
highlights. In practice this means that if you print for the hightlights,
the print will be very flat and grey. But if you print with apropriate
contrast, your highlights will be blown out. Using compensating developers
help create a shoulder, and are therefore a popular choice for these films.
Also manufacturers are producing papers with a longer toe to help compensate
for the lack of shoulder in some modern films.
Basic BW photography suggests underdevelopment to prevent blowing out the
highlights in the neg. Even beginners know this. However, more advanced
photographers know that getting the right tonality in the final print means
that you have to match paper, film and developer.
Hope this helps!
Will
xx
densitiometer, I would rate TMY at 320 developed to 97.5% of Kodak's
recommendation in D76 1:1. I rated it at 400 in Xtol 100% 1:1. For High
flare situations I would derate it it ei 200-250 and develop 80%-85%.
This ei 200 configuration is how I used it under strobe situations.
Yes, I'm familiar with the concept of controlling gamma/contrast with the
degree of development, with the appropriate change exposure index. This
will overcome some of what I consider TMY's limitations as compared to TX.
There is no question TMY is finer grained; but, I prefer the "look" of TX.
Rick
In article <gbrown-ya02408000...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
gbr...@va.med.umich.edu.-nospam says...
>
>In article <7c51f4$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>rsch...@worldnet.att.net (xx) wrote:
>
>> Well, for what its worth I used to be a TMX zealot but switched to
>> Plus-X, mostly for studio shooting. Yes, TMY probably has better
>> grain than Plus-X. But plus-X has this beautiful extended tonality
>> that I just can't get out of TMX. And TMY under strobe is the kiss
>> of death, we're talking major blocked up highlights.
>>
>> Rick
>
>Doesn't that just mean you are overdeveloping it?
>You can control the density range by your development of it. Why, I
wonder
>do people make these statements? Why? Doesn't it just show ignorance of
>basic black and white film development?
>
Ronno
100 is supposedly the sharpest 100-speed film available at the moment. They
are both very good, very fine grained, and less sensitive to changes in
developing speed and time than T-max is. This is particularly important if
you are not doing the processing yourself. Good luck.
gra...@delphi.com
size by Kodak?
It had a wonderful tonal scale as I recall.....
jerum...@gmail.com
השתחררתי מהצבא לא מזמן, הגעתי למסקנה שהגיע הזמן לקנות רכב דו גלגלי. זה פשוט הפתרון הכי משתלם מבלי לקרוע את עצמי בשתי עבודות.
התחלתי לברר על דגמים בחברות שונות, ואני עדיין די מתלבט. האם כדאי לי לקחת דגם מהנה ושימושי כמו X MAX 125 http://www.yamaha-motor.co.il/?catid=%7BD9B9C910-AA1B-48F3-9576-C6273D70DA2B%7D , או שעדיף להתחיל ממשהו אפילו יותר קטן כמו מיו למשל....
עוד לא הוצאתי רישיון, אני עדיין באמצע השיעורי נהיגה. אולי כדי לקחת אופניים חשמליות וזהו?
תודה מראש