On Oct 16, 8:18 pm, Dana Myers <dana.my...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
In contrasty light that shows texture, the highlight area tend to have
greater brightness and contrast (think of a white stucco building in
harsh light). Lens flare (present in every lens) will tend to degrade
contrast in the shadows (as it makes up a larger ****tion of the light
in the shadow area). So, films intended for outdoor use (which means
high-flare situations) will have less contrast in the highlight areas
and more in the shadows, as this provides a better (more even)
contrast from shadows to highlights. The white stucco does not 'need'
any boost in contrast (and perhaps could use a cut in contrast to keep
things under control); the shadows could indeed use a little more snap
because the sky is going to cause some flare in the shadows.
Kodak used to discuss this in their old film literature when they made
a larger variety of emulsions for ****traiture, commercial, and press
work. Each of these film types had curves suited to the flare
conditions and application.
TMY has relatively less contrast in the shadow areas, and more
contrast in the highlight areas, that Tri-X Pan (400). It is suited to
situations of LOW FLARE ONLY, where shadow contrast can be maintained.
It is a studio film above all. It is NOT well-suited as a general-
purpose film. Those who use diffusion enlargers and work mostly with
color negative film will have less problem with highlight contrast.
Those who use condensers will find Tri-X Pan a better film overall.
What the NEW TMY will look like is a mystery. I anticipate it will be
somewhat more like Tri-X, but only slightly so. That is, I predict the
curve will look more like that of TMX (T-Max 100) than of Tri-X Pan
(400) or Plus-X Pan (125) for 35mm.
|
