If you are interested in the Zone VI Newsletters, I found them on the internet archive:In the 1970s, Fred Picker wrote Zone VI newsletters about the perfect negative. He was deeply into the technicalities of developers, agitation, densities, etc. You can read his newsletters if you are interested in some procedures for calibrating your negatives. He was addressing sheet film, but you can apply it to roll film as long as you recognize that your frames can't get individual development time.
i did a day trip to yosemite on friday. for my handheld shots, using my fuji gsw680iii, I shot 6 rolls of tmax 400 and 3 rolls of trix. 1 of each shot at 400, the others shot at 200 as it was clear and bright. with a negative of that size, grain is not an issue for me. but there was s subtle difference in the tonality, which is in my eye, the key difference between the films. im scanning a few, just to get an idea of the results. I prefer the results from the tmax 400 shot at 200. grain is finer than my fp4 shots, very high acutance and sharpness and the tonality I love for the high sierras. the tri-x was fine and I would shoot this film all day if I didn't have lots of tmax 400. but for me, Tmax 400 is the best 400 speed emulsion that is still made (I have a soft spot for provia 400x). Its too bad that kodak prices for 4x5 are out of line compared to their 120 prices.
With the exception of the somewhat moderate difference in grain, I don't think that the differences are differences in what the films are intended for.Ok thank you for that comment. So what is Tri-X really suited for compared to TMAX 400? I know Tri-X has that gritty look with bigger grain, but Im trying to figure out what they are both intended for. Could you say TMAX 400 is more a portrait film? Or general use film?
yeh, I adjust the times. For box speed or iso 320, I develop in pyro-m 72 degrees for 19 min. I agaitate every 2 min. for ISO 200 same developer same temp but I develop for 16 min.When you expose at EI 200 do you adjust the development time, or do you use the same time as recommended for devloping E! 400?
Different spectral response.Other than the speed, why would people choose Tmax 400 over Tmax 100?
many of the reason Matt gave. but the main ones for me are I can shoot it at 200 or 400, so that means handheld in my fuji 6x8 and 6x9 rangefinders. I get great tonality, grain finer than Fp4 and great prints from 1 film. I shoot tmax 100 at 50 as I don't like the results I get at 100. so add filter factors and you are shooting at 20 or slower, not great for handheld.
Other than the speed, why would people choose Tmax 400 over Tmax 100?
Why then do you prefer Tmax 100?You can't shoot Tmax100 past 100. At least not practically, it does not tolerate under exposure very well. I'm far from an expert but that's my experience.
Speed is the major factor, I get far more wiggle room with 400. That being said I prefer Tmax 100.
Why then do you prefer Tmax 100?
In general, high speed films have more grain and less tonality. .
What exactly do you mean by "less tonality"?
What exactly do you mean by "less tonality"?
Good question. After 15 or 20 minutes searching online; and after checking the indexes of two technical books on developing and printing b&w negatives - I did not find a clear and concise definition of tonality in the context of black and white photography.What exactly do you mean by "less tonality"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?