Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The greater thickness of 120 T-Max films is a great advantage, at least for me. With Tri-X and Plus-X I tend to get those little half-moon crimps in negatives, even when I'm being very careful not to create them. I think they are either sui generis or just plain magic. At any rate, they sometimes show up in a print as a dark crescent and are very annoying. Not with T-Max! The thickness of T-Max makes them impossible, and I very much appreciate that. I have used T-Max developer for many years. By being careful not to overdevelop, I've avoided the highlights problem, although, for some reason, I get blocked highlights with 35mm T-Max 400 under the same circumstances. Bob On Jan 10, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Slobodan Dimitrov wrote: > Tmax is notorious for blocking highlights. It's almost impossible > to do a time exposure with it to get a "foggy" water effect. Even > Sexton prints that I've seen, done from Tmax films, seem to have a > problem with highlights. > Now if you look at Caponigro's work with older emulsions, well, > there's just no comparison! > On the other hand, when Tmax first came out, that emulsion was also > different. It was so clean, with such a great mid range, that 120 > looked like it was shoot with 4x5. Of course, it was processed with > Tmax chemistry. The film itself was also much thicker. I had to > have my SL66 back re-adjusted to that. > sd > > On Jan 10, 2009, at 8:13 AM, Dante Stella wrote: > >> Thanks. I never used large tank times until I saw in a recent >> Kodak leaflet (with the new TMY) that large meant 1/2 gallon and >> up. I usually batch 8 rolls of 135 or 5 of 120, which is 2.5L in >> the tank. I usually use small-tank times with inversions for 30 >> seconds, then 4 turns every minute (so essentially the large tank >> inversion). >> >> I just ran another load this morning, this time original TMY - >> definitely comes out heavier. Same time, same temp, and this was >> the *second* time the D-76 was being used. >> >> It's interesting that you have shadow problems in CA - when I was >> in the desert outside LA shooting a few years ago and very >> recently in Mexico City, the biggest problem was not shadow >> separation but highlights - you could shoot with filters or >> without, pushing or not, and still get poor cloud/sky separation. >> I don't know if light meters go crazy at altitude or whether the >> human eye is better capable of separating those tones than film is >> (my surmise was that the blue light was off the chart and it was >> shouldering out in the highlights). It's a bizarre issue that I >> never seem to have in places that are relatively close to sea level. >> >> D >> >> On Jan 10, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Slobodan Dimitrov wrote: >> >>> Wrong list to ask about real film issues. >>> They've gone over to the chip side. >>> >>> I think the "thinness" is a possible adjustment for scanning. >>> I've seen a source for this, but can't recall where. I tended to >>> print on 3 or 3? on the old stuff, and still print about there >>> with the new stuff. >>> What do you call a large tank? >>> An 8 35mm reel tank, or 4 reel 120, is not considered a large >>> tank, even though one is using ? gal of chemistry. >>> I find that I still have to pull my processing, as I shoot 400 at >>> 200, due to the high contrast in So Cal. >>> But Shooting Neopan 400 at 200, and 1600 at 800, still requires >>> full processing time, if not longer depending on the situation. >>> >>> sd >>> >>> >>> On Jan 10, 2009, at 6:22 AM, Dante Stella wrote: >>> >>>> Three questions for people who have used this film... >>>> >>>> 1. Should negatives look essentially like old TMY negatives, >>>> i.e., a little thin? >>>> >>>> 2. Has Kodak abandoned the distinction between 120 and 35mm >>>> development times? I seem to recall this being an issue in the >>>> past, but looking at the latest Kodak developing time charts, >>>> that distinction has disappeared (could this be related to the >>>> "new" versions of TX and TMY)? >>>> >>>> 3. Does anyone have a large-tank starting time for D-76 1:1 at >>>> any temperature? Kodak doesn't have any recommendations. It's >>>> not as if 1:1 is going to lead to any abnormally short >>>> development time. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Dante >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________ >>>> Dante Stella >>>> http://www.dantestella.com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>> information >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information