new T Max 400

From what I've seen on the web -- and perhaps this is not a good way to judge -- the new T-Max 400 looks like what I would describe as a 'technical' film compared to HP5, for example. It's very sharp and grain-free for the speed but lacking in 'soul' -- a bit like comparing the 35mm 'Cron IV with the ASPH version.
 
lawrence, I guess I agree with you. It seems to me that I have to work pretty hard to get what I want out of Tmax, and I seem to get it pretty easily from TriX. On some podcast, whatever that is, I heard a Kodak exec say that the grain is the only thing new in the 'new' Tmax400. E.I. tonality remains the same. I use it a lot because the digitalization of my negatives is very easy with Tmax. I think it was and still is really a studio film, in others words, works best with controlled lighting. I will still use it; but 'soul' is a problem.
 
Hate to break it to you guys, but ALL films are highly technical products and none of them have souls. 99% of those who don't like Tmax aren't careful darkroom workers, and extreme care in processing and exposure is mandatory for good results with these films.

I can take nearly any film and get the same or very similar tonality by proper choice of developer and post processing after scanning.
 
I'll break it to you, Tmax is, as you say, a film that requires careful darkroom work (and exposure work). You know I like it, but it is, well let us say, not as forgiving as say TriX. It took me 2 to 3 times as long to get everything the way I wanted it with Tmax100, and I gave up on Tmax400. I gave up on the 400 because I was worn out by Tmax100. When the 'new' Tmax400 came out I gave it another try, now I have it and will continue to use it. The HD curve on Tmax films is linear and you have to have everything right; very little room for error. The 'soul' of TriX is that it is a comfortable old shoe of a film to use.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
ALL films are highly technical products and none of them have souls.
Click to expand...
I think that depends on how one defines 'soul'. Personally I like 'soul film' just as I like 'soul music'. If you're nice to me I'll let you know which ones have it and which don't...

Chriscrawfordphoto said:
99% of those who don't like Tmax aren't careful darkroom workers, and extreme care in processing and exposure is mandatory for good results with these films.
Click to expand...
I guess I just happen to fall into that 1%...
 
Alright, people, challenge time:

Which photo was shot on Tmax 400, and which on Ilford HP5? Since Tmax has no 'soul' (why do people roll their eyes at artists?), it should be easy to pick.

anna5.jpg


mack-june08-1.jpg
 
dfoo said:
Chris, surely you know its more a feel thing!
Click to expand...

No, I don't. Someone who knows what he's doing can make ANY film work well. Seriously. Look at my site. I've tried EVERYTHING at least once before settling into materials that I decided to stick with. There's Kodak Tmax 100, Tmax 400, Tmax 3200, Fuji Acros, Tri-X, Plus-X, FP-4, HP-5, Efke 100, Foma 100 and 400, and Forte 200 all represented by at least a few photos each. There are also a number of digital black and white images too.

I get people writing me every day telling me how beautiful my work is, and often they call out specific pieces they like. There's no one film or two films that are represented among the favorites. IT IS ABOUT THE IMAGE. You can get it with any film if you have tested it to find the correct EI and Dev. Time for the developer you like. Really. There's no magic bullet, no secret film, no soul in the materials. If YOU do not have a soul, then your photos will not. YOU make the image, not the materials.

That is the secret. when you finally realize that, you'll be an ARTIST. That is what separates the gearheads from the artists (and the professional photographers in fields other than fine art...they know the materials are just tools and that the photographer makes the image that makes the client get out his checkbook).
 
I like TMY-2 a lot better than the original version, which always gave me muddy shadows. I develop it in T-Max at Kodak's recommended times, including the vigorous agitation they recommend (5 shakes in 5 seconds, every 30 seconds). It looks good in 35mm, but is especially nice for medium format portraits shot with controlled lighting.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Alright, people, challenge time:

Which photo was shot on Tmax 400, and which on Ilford HP5? Since Tmax has no 'soul' (why do people roll their eyes at artists?), it should be easy to pick.
Click to expand...

Any two films can be scanned and manipulated until they
can't be told apart. That demonstrates nothing about the
differences between the films.

You can scan film and make it look like a painting if you want
to. Does that mean film and paint are the same?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom