Heresy! I prefer TMY over Tri-x ...

R

Roger Vadim

Well-known
Local time
7:35 PM
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
305
Location
Berlin, Germany
View My Gallery
Yesterday night I spend some time in the darkroom and I was absolutely blown away by the new T-max 400-2, developed in Calbe A49 1:2 for 16 minutes.

I think I will say goodbye to my old friend Tri-x for a while. TMY is so smooth and with an almost "vintage" touch to it. Developing in A49 lacks a bit in "bite", so maybe I'll try a developer which is a bit sharper. any suggestions??

Everybody says the "new" T-grain films lack in tonality: But this T-max is smooth as butter. Tri-x is alright, but the tonality seems to be eaten away by the grain.

Sorry, no scans: purely analog at the moment - no scanner at home😉
Just wanted to share this experience.

cheers
 
I'm glad someone gets pleasure from any T-max. I just never could. It is like Agfa film. I just never could get it to work for me. Many love those films. I'm just not one of them. Hopefully you can post some of your results with both to compare.
 
Ha, funny, the other film I'm in love with at the moment is Agfa APX 100, dev in Rodinal 1:50 - great tonality and sharp... a bit old world touch here...

i'll see if I can make some scans soon...
 
To me, Tri-X's great strength is that it is so versatile, rather than it being better than other films at particular things. I happen to love Delta 100 for the way it looks, but it can't do what Tri-X can do in terms of pushing, pulling, and generally being treated badly and still producing good negs.
 
TriX is like your dog, always happy. TMY-2 is great too though, I do it in Rodinal. Exposed correctly and develop right you can avoid highlight blow outs which is to me its biggest problem:

3975247806_f3a24fbe35.jpg
 
charjohncarter said:
TriX is like your dog, always happy. TMY-2 is great too though, I do it in Rodinal. Exposed correctly and develop right you can avoid highlight blow outs which is to me its biggest problem:

3975247806_f3a24fbe35.jpg
Click to expand...

Now that's just beautifully done! I keep promising myself to try Rodinal, but haven't yet. Seeing that makes me more interested than ever.
 
I was pleasantly surprised with the next Tmax 400. I never really cared for the old emulsion.

I also like Ilford Pan F and Ilford FP4, but I quit using HP5, because I just don't like it.
 
Grain and endless highlights is exactly the strength of traditional emulsions. When blown up to 16x20, I'd rather see round bullet holes than a bunch of sticks 😀, so I stick with Tri-X. Although, tastes are different. I just hope both films stay around for many years.
 
ZeissFan said:
I was pleasantly surprised with the next Tmax 400. I never really cared for the old emulsion.

I also like Ilford Pan F and Ilford FP4, but I quit using HP5, because I just don't like it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I heard a 'pod interview' with a Kodak engineer, and he said no tonality change in the new emulsion. I have to say I could never get along with Tmax400 (old), now I really like it. By the way, the engineer said the only change was to make it finer grain. Sorry, something else happened, at least you and I think so.
 
I'll have to try the new TMY. Other people seem to like it too. The solution to grain in Tri-X (which I love, but doesn't always work for all subjects) is to shoot medium format. The first negs I got out of my Bessa II w/ Heliar w/ Tri-X shocked me. Ultra smooth. But I have been wanting to try a more vintage look w/ some uncoated lenses and the TMY is worth investigating.

This little lady in the neighborhood fascinated me. There was a big dog headed over to eat me so I had to work fast, & the composition isn't what I would have preferred, but it demonstrates the smoothness of 120 Tri-X. Scanned on my old clunker Epson 2450 flatbed.

3977928343_d6721854bd_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I really love the new T-Max 400 too. Used to burn a lot of HP5+ but I like having less grain in my pics. Tried a roll a couple of years back and it became my main film ever since. I recently did some Delta 100 and found that it doesn't have any advantage in terms of grain. Tonality and printability seems not as good as T-Max 400 too but it could be my limited experience working with Delta-100.

But a lot of "old-timers" seems to have a great aversion to T-Max 400. I have so many people pointing out that my film is crap at the community darkroom I frequent. But none had shot a roll or two. Film snobs I guess. That also brings back memories of people telling me XP2 is crap. "Real man shoots Tri-X!", they proclaim.
 
T-Max uber alles

T-Max uber alles

I have used T Max since 20 years, in the 3 sensibilities.

Tri-X is for small format photographers who do not like watching the thermometer when developping.
 
I too like TMY-2 a lot, though I am now out of it and only have TX in 35mm and 4x5. But I want to get back to TMY-2 and really fine tune my EI and processing. And I really want to try it in 4x5 ... Should be really sweet.
 
3976390596_b965b7e1cb_o.jpg


this is with the new 400-2 as well, the first time a 35mm film scan has made me go WOW. large view it is a beautiful thing, much nicer than anything I got from Delta 400 or HP5+
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom