On Oct 17, 9:32 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
Curve for TMX in D-76:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/sup****t/techPubs/f4016/f009_0438ac.gif
Curve for TMY in D-76:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/sup****t/techPubs/f4016/f002_0509ac.gif
Curve for Tri-X Pan in D-76:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/sup****t/techPubs/f4017/f009_0492ac.gif
Curve for Plus-X Pan in D-76:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/sup****t/techPubs/f4018/f009_0433ac.gif
|
