On Oct 12, 6:34 pm, "Richard Knoppow" <dickb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:1192047033.346350.167870@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 3:24 pm, Draco <JPD...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Oct 10, 1:13 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > Kodak has announced improvements to T-Max 400,
> >> > apparently in
> >> > sharpness.
>
> >> >http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Improved-Kodak-T-MAX-400-released
>
> >> There is a PDF on the kodak web site.
>
> >> Here is a link for it:
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/269lnk
>
> >> Wonderful film.
>
> >> Draco
>
> > I never cared for it. I'll try this improved version to
> > see what it
> > can do, as soon as it becomes available.
>
> T-Max 400 varies with the developer somewhat, you may
> find that changing developers will give you more
> satisfactory results. I like T-Max 400 for ****trait work
> because it gives me a kind of skin rendition I like, smooth
> and "glowing". I mostly develop it in D-76 diluted 1:1. I
> will try the new stuff pretty soon, probaby in 120 because I
> still have a lot of bulk film for 35mm.
> I just looked at the Kodak site. There is not yet a data
> sheet for the new version but there is a development chart.
> The curious thing is that the FAQ sheet there for the new
> film indicates the use of diluted developer but only full
> strength developer is shown on the new development chart.
> Also, some posts at the time Tri-X production was moved
> to the color film plant, where Kodak now makes all its B&W
> films, indicated the users found the new film finer grained
> than 400T-Max. The tabular grain film should have been finer
> grained. It looks like Kodak has finally caught up with
> whatever was wrong.
>
> --
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I did extensive testing of B&W films two years ago and found that Tri-
X had not changed one whit. It and Neopan 400 were very close in
sharpness and grain, with the Fuji product having a slightly better
grain pattern and tonal rendition on Ilford Multigrade. It has a bit
more highlight contrast than Tri-X but less than TMY. I suspect that
the reason Kodak improved TMY is that it does not sell as well as Tri-
X. I think they want to kill off Tri-X or at least boost the sales of
TMY-2. It is embarassing that 'old technology' Tri-X outsells TMY. TMY
was a failure from day one, in my opinion. I worked with it for quite
some time before giving up on it in disgust. The problem is that the
highlights are contrastier than the shadows, the reverse of Tri-X and
most general-purpose films.
In my testing I used Paterson Acutol* which clearly shows differences
in graininess and sharpness. TMY was the finest-grained of the 400
speed films but it had the least desirable tonality. Shadows always
look weak and flat, and highlight always look too harsh. When
development is adjusted to compensate for the excessive contrast in
the highlights, the shadows look even worse. (*as well as Paterson
FX-39)
HP5 Plus and Delta 400 were very similar in graininess, with better
latitude to be had in the HP5 Plus. I don't see any purpose for Delta
400. Neither was better than Neopan 400, which has a better green
response. Neopan 100 Acros, like Neopan 400, has better green
response. As a line of films, The Fuji films are clearly best all
around, pending trials of the new TMY. I am interested to see whether
the improved film will have a different curve. I don't really know
what to expect.
For what it's worth, Neopan Acros 100 is almost as fine-grained as
Ilford Pan-F with far better latitude and longer developing times,
making for much easier development.
The films as I see them:
Fine-grain films:
Tie:
1) Ilford Pan-F (speed 40) Finest-grained by a whisker
1) Fuji Neopan 100 Acros (speed 64) Almost as fine-grained as Pan-F,
but 1/2 stop faster, better green sensitivity
2) Ilford Delta 100 (speed 80) Almost as fine-grained as Neopan Acros
100
3) Ilford FP-4 (speed 125) Almost as fine-grained as Delta 100
4) Kodak Plus-X Pan (speed 125?) Not tested
????Kodak T-Max 100 (not tested) Reputed to be as fine-grained as
Ilford Delta 100 and Fuji Neopan 100 Acros
Fast films:
1) Fuji Neopan 400 (speed 320) Better grain pattern than Tri-X, better
highlight contrast
2) Kodak Tri-X Pan (speed 320)
Tie
3) Ilford Delta 400 (speed 250-320) Grain similar to HP5, inferior to
Fuji, poorer green sensitivity, poorer latitude than other ISO-400
films, including HP5 Plus. I see no point to this film at all.
3) Ilford HP5 Plus (speed 320) Grain similar to Tri-X, inferior to
Fuji, poorer green sensitivity
4) Kodak T-Max 400 (speed 250-320) Finest-grained of all ISO 400
films, but useless outdoors because of bizarre H&D curve, in which
shadows are too flat and highlights too contrasty. A terrible film
overall for outdoor work.
Very fast films:
1) Fuji Neopan 1600 (speed 500-650) Grain slightly larger than Tri-X,
about 1 stop faster than ISO 400 films
2) Kodak T-Max 3200 (speed 650-800) Significantly grainier than Fuji
Neopan 1600, 1/2 stop more speed
3) Ilford Delta 3200 (speed 800-1200) Significantly grainier than
Kodak T-Max 3200, 1/2 stop more speed; ugly 'popcorn' grain. I see no
use for this material.
So, my gadget bag is filled with Neopan 400, some Neopan 1600, and
some Neopan 100 Acros. I occasionally use HP5 Plus. I'm sick of the
look of Tri-X Pan after 40 years, and I can't stand TMY, so no Kodak
film for me.
If you really want some nice B&W images, especially when there are
large areas of foliage, get out and try some of the Neopans. The
foliage is rendered noticeably lighter by the Fuji films.
|
