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 thickness also makes for them not coming out with it in 220 which for me means much less of a chance of me shooting it. A thin film? A result of development. Does everybody uniformly under develop T max 100? That doesn't ring a reality bell with me. In general its not great to over develop tab grain films. A little bit less great than over developing regular films. Tmax 100 or TMY I prefer the non acronymious version of the word I'm sure is a stupendous film. They said it replaced Panatomic X which was an ISO 32 film and my signature film. In no way was that true. And its not so great with Xtol. I got nice results with it with Rodinal and D76 1:1 way way back when it first came out. Mark William Rabiner > From: Robert Meier <robertmeier@usjet.net> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:55:21 -0600 (CST) > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] New TMY > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information