Over what years, Harry? Digi photography is an adolescent medium that doesn't even know what it is half the time. I was in full throttle with TMax well before that kind of thing was remotely either affordable or practical by the public. Most of the time the "digi look" is just overdone, corny, crude, half-baked, amateur whatever. What does this thread legitimately have in common with that? Highlight roll-off ?????? Not if you have a decent light meter and know how to use it, along with an appropriate development regimen. That kind of problem happens when people overexpose the film because they don't trust its native curve to do what it's engineered to actually do. So, no, I wasn't trying to imply you have that problem personally; and I do recognize that TMax films aren't the best choice for casual snapshooters who rely on the voodoo of careless "latitude" instead of actual metering. And what I have also discovered is that a lot of the current digi generation doesn't even know what a real light meter is. So when they decide to switch to real film - and quite a few do, at least in this area - TMax drives them nuts. But these are a pair of films so versatile in terms of gamma and fully analog curve tweaking that they can be made to resemble quite a variety of other films, but not necessarily visa versa.
The first two seem to have too much burned out highlights. The whites are clipped. The fourth seems the best and most natural. Nicer tones; better contrast. I agree with scanning, there are so many variables, it's hard to pin down comparisons unless you use the same post processing settings and scan procedures. ALso, should be the same shots with the same lighting. That just throws more variables making comparisons harder.
How about Rollei Ortho?ACROS is an entirely different category of pan - Orthopan. The only other recent film in this category I can think of was Efke 25.
I miss Verichrome Pan a lot....Love Tri-X. Love TMX too.But heck I love HP5 and FP4 just as much!
If you are careful with you processing, TMX and TMY are unbeatable. Tiny grain, huge dynamic range, no rolloff of the high values. I used Panatomic exclusively until it was discontinued and resisted the tabular films for years. But Kodak reformulated them and their tendency to have a strongly upswept curve was reduced (with careful processing). Nowadays (and this may be blasphemy to some) I don't miss Panatomic-X or Verichrome Pan. I'm 64, shot my first roll in 1965, and I still get a huge charge out of looking at the film as soon as it exits the processing!
But Kodachrome, that one I miss....
Love Tri-X. Love TMX too.But heck I love HP5 and FP4 just as much!
If you are careful with you processing, TMX and TMY are unbeatable. Tiny grain, huge dynamic range, no rolloff of the high values. I used Panatomic exclusively until it was discontinued and resisted the tabular films for years. But Kodak reformulated them and their tendency to have a strongly upswept curve was reduced (with careful processing). Nowadays (and this may be blasphemy to some) I don't miss Panatomic-X or Verichrome Pan. I'm 64, shot my first roll in 1965, and I still get a huge charge out of looking at the film as soon as it exits the processing!
But Kodachrome, that one I miss....
Adox chs 100 II - but it has not been available for a while...Ortho films and Orthopan are quite different. True ortho can't see red at all; but orthopan is in fact panchromatic, but with distinctly reduced red sensitivity.
I recall reading that T-Max negatives are to be thinner than Tri-X and print equally well. IDK if it is, I will have my second try around TMX soon and will see.Here are two contact prints of 35mm done by a prolab. Not sure what developer, probably XTOL. The lef one is Tmax 400 and the right one is TriX 400. The right TriX seems lighter than flat scan I did of the film. Is the contact light because the print wasn't printed right or because of the negatives or developing?
View attachment 232763
Tmax400 is the bomb for smaller formats!I haven't used Tri-X for a while, but until recently I was shooting both T-Max 400 and Plus-X regularly. I have/am transitioning over to using T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 as my two films, but T-Max 400 is certainly most used.
Good negatives in both of Plus-X and T-Max 400 look a little bit different if all you are doing is inspecting them visually.
I've had pretty good success printing minimally exposed T-Max 400 negatives. My personal preference tends toward negatives with acceptable exposure, rather than generous exposure.
I expect the lab has a standard procedure for contacts that isn't fine tuned for each film. If you were doing your own contacts, you might very well adjust exposure slightly when you switched between them.
I've shown this a few times before. This is from a T-Max negative that is positively ghostly it looks so thin:
View attachment 232793
You didn’t bracket the family shots but outdoors shots of the buildings you didHere are two contact prints of 35mm done by a prolab. Not sure what developer, probably XTOL. The lef one is Tmax 400 and the right one is TriX 400. The right TriX seems lighter than flat scan I did of the film. Is the contact light because the print wasn't printed right or because of the negatives or developing?
View attachment 232763
Sorry Bill. I should have mentioned I was referring to the rebate area, not the actual shots. It's lighter there with the TriX.You didn’t bracket the family shots but outdoors shots of the buildings you did
Peter Could you explain what you mean by that? What would you recommend? And why?Tmax400 is the bomb for smaller formats!
Oh, no worries. That's probably not a real difference. Adrian Bacon is studying fog that he sees increases with increasing pH (as the developer is more active when the developer is more alkaline), that would appear exactly like that under controlled contact printing conditions. It's possible the difference between your two contact prints is fog, but probably not. The lab probably just casually created contact prints for you without being too careful to control exposure.Sorry Bill. I should have mentioned I was referring to the rebate area, not the actual shots. It's lighter there with the TriX.
Yes.Are yellow orange and red filters different between Tmax and TriX due to the films characteristics?
The T-Max has slightly less yellow sensitivity
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?