Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Chris, You said that "T-Max 100 is well known for producing less than sharp looking prints." That's a very general statement which I think is untrue. I read your follow up comments. Shouldn't spend too much time on the matter? What better to spend time on that film choices! As far as magazine reviews, I don't trust them to be all that objective. Terms like "slightly unsharp edges"...compared to what. Could be magspeak for "vendor doesn't purchase enough advertising space" or "I can't find anything else wrong with this film, but I've got to think of something." Who knows, maybe they tried a high solvent developer for kicks. For several years I used the Delta films, D100/D400. Great films, both. When Ilford came out with the new and improved D400, or 400 Delta, or whatever, I was confused by the change in developing times so I moved back to what I'd shot years ago, TMX/TMY. Ironically, the only reason I moved away from the Kodak films was that I kept reading bad things about TMY. During my Delta phase, every time I made prints from old TMY negs I realized that it had performed pretty darn well. And my TMX prints always displayed stunning acutance. I personally find the Kodak films to be slightly faster than the Ilford films. Plus the only developer I use anymore for 35mm is XTOL. Anchell & Troop state that "for tabular films, XTOL is the solvent developer of choice." But they also state that "XTOL is effectively a nonsolvent developer, but because of its careful buffering, grain is still fine." IOW, fine grain plus acutance. Unsharpness is not a problem with any of the modern 100 speed films. They'll all react differently in different developers, so when someone complains about lack acutance I want to know more. Especially when a subjective view conflicts with a lot of objective data. "Well known" to me implies fact or truth, commonly accepted knowledge. I still don't buy that it's well know that TMX results in less than sharp looking prints. But I do appreciate your response. DaveR BTW, I always try and use the slowest films possible, not because of grain or accutance, but because I like shooting a wide apertures. At 09:43 AM 4/13/2003 +0100, you wrote: >Dave, > >as I said before, one should not spend too much time on this matter, but I >feel obliged to reply. > >My statement below is based on my looking at prints that I have made. Part >of the judgement >is no doubt subjective. And perhaps the way I work makes my prints from >TMX come out less sharp than my prints from Delta 100 negatives. Perhaps >it works the other way round for you. Therefore I have tried to find some >third party opinions that substantiate my statement. > >I only buy one magazine dealing with the technical side of >photography, (the French) Réponses Photo. The October 2002 had a test of >the seven most popular 35 mm b+w films. The following are all the negative >parts of the technical summaries (i. e. excluding comments like >'expensive' or 'not widely available'- Acros: slow; APX: does not handle >overexposure well; TMX: slightly unsharp edges; Forte: grainy. > >I am also on the Pure Silver list. I quote a comment from some of the most >knowledgeable list members (hope he does not mind being quoted). >RSuzuki@mit.edu says: TMX .... very high resolving power, yet it looks >unsharp in some popular developers, even if diluted. > >I can't find the reference right now, but I recall Richard Knoppow saying >on the Pure Silver list that the fine grain of TMX prevents the prints >from looking sharp. > >My personal feeling is that they are all correct in their statements. But >I admit that b+w films are an emotional choice. This probably influences >my (our?)judgement. Blocked highlights do not. I have a very accurate >thermometer, a stop watch and a densiometer, so (for most of the time) >exposure and development do not cause blocked highlights > >Chris > >>Chris >> >>At 03:04 PM 4/12/2003 +0100, you wrote: >>>T-Max 100 is well known for producing less than sharp looking prints. >> >>My jaw just about hit the floor in disbelief when I read this. It flies >>completely in the face of my personal experience, and those of many other >>photographers. Some people don't like TMAX, because if not developed >>properly highlights can block up in a hurry (this is more of a problem >>with TMax400). But when it comes to sharp prints, nothing I know beats >>T-Max100` >> >>Please substantiate your comment. >> >>DaveR >> >>-- >>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > >-- >Christer Almqvist >D 20255 Hamburg and / or >F 50590 Regnéville sur Mer > >please look at my NEW b+w pictures >at: http://www.almqvist.net/chris/dozen/ > >old pictures still at: http://www.almqvist.net/chris/new >-- >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html