Richard Knoppow wrote:
> My experience the T-Max 400 is quite different from UC's:
> I find the tone rendition good for both indoor and outdoor
> use and have often shot outdoor ****traits with it.
Same here, with the following qualification: TMY works best
under relatively even lighting with just a bit of sparkle.
Open shade or hazy sunlight. While this is true of outdoor
****traiture in general, it's especially true of TMY.
> I've generally found Kodak's published film curves to be
> pretty accurate. Tone rendition from the films tends to
> confirm the curves. T-Max has a quite short toe and a very
> long and quite straight mid ****tion so its shadow contrast
> should be fairly high. My photos on it tend to show this.
I was fortunate enough to have a stack of H+D curves for
T-Max films in Xtol sent to me by Kodak way back when. I've
not seen them in a publication since, though I have not searched
exhaustively. I was not surprised to find that TMY has a very
straight curve and medium-length toe ; it jived with me experience
with the film quite well. TMX has a similar toe but a bit of a
shoulder, something I'd also noticed.
Michael is certainly correct that TMY will give dense highlights
under contrasty light, that's certainly true. I don't know what
to make of his observation that TMY presents low shadow contrast;
that's contrary to my experience, but is perhaps due to developer
choice.
So, if you're shooting outdoors under unpredictable light where
you might have to deal with direct sunlight/contrasty light, TMY
might not be the easiest film to print afterwards.
Dana
|
