Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tmax technology involves smaller, more uniform silver crystals: Agfa APX400 grain looks huge compared to Tmax 400's! Tmax 100 grain is extremely fine, to the extent that I have a hard time seeing it through a magnifier. Unless I'm looking to deliberately manipulate the contrast, I generally expose and rotary-process Tmax 100 and 400 per Kodak's datasheet J109 and get good tonality (I would certainly not characterize these films as being inherently contrasty, but if it's strong contrast you want, try push-processing Tmax 100 to 400), but getting the prints to really sparkle has taken printing practice and helpful hints along the way! The 120 and 4x5 Tmax films have slightly different processing requirements but I've had good consistent results across the board. Jeff Segawa NO ARCHIVe On 2001..07 20:34:57 -0700 Douglas Cooper wrote: > > Could someone please explain to me the difference between the old > fashioned > emulsions, and Tmax-like technology? I assumed (wrongly, I guess), that > Tmax was a dye-based emulsion, which yielded unsharpness when pushed, but > not grain. > > I haven't had good luck with the slow-speed Tmax films -- ridiculously > high > contrast -- but members of the Large Format list have pointed out that > this > can be solved through proper rating and processing. Still, I've always > preferred Tri-X. Neopan 1600 is, I take it, the same kind of thing as > Tri-X? (This is what happens when you're an autodidact; I never got > those > intensive technical courses that you have to take at photography school.) > > Douglas Cooper > www.dysmedia.com > > > > > > Plus it has excellent tonality as > > it's an old-fashioned thick emulsion. Grain is very sharp and not at > all > > objectionable. > >