lawrence
Veteran
Over the last few years I've used quite a lot of TX (Tri-X) and TMY2 (Tmax 400) but it's very hard to decide which to standardise on and I'm curious about what others have found. If you've tried these two films and have a preference it would be good to know which it is and why.
--s
Well-known
For me it´s not one or the other, I keep on using both emulsions.
The grainy, contrasty TX gives the classic b/w- look, while TMY is incredibly sharp and almost grainless and lifts image quality near mf- level.
It depends on the subject which emulsion to choose.
Cheers,
smp.
The grainy, contrasty TX gives the classic b/w- look, while TMY is incredibly sharp and almost grainless and lifts image quality near mf- level.
It depends on the subject which emulsion to choose.
Cheers,
smp.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Tmax400 has finer grain, a larger tonal scale (more steps between extreme dark and extreme bright areas) and has a better color sensibility (it is less sensible for yellow light; yellow is represented by a darker grey). This gives pictures a more saturated tonality. TriX has a more graphic effect.
Coosing between them is really a question of taste, not of quality. I prefer Tmax400.
Erik.
Coosing between them is really a question of taste, not of quality. I prefer Tmax400.
Erik.
kxl
Social Documentary
TMY2 is less tolerant of exposure and development variances that TX, but more tolerant compared to its predecessor, TMY. So, if I have any kind of pseudo control over what I'm shooting and if I'm feeling particularly disciplined in my shooting (which is not always the case), I prefer TMY2; otherwise, I'll take the wider tolerance of TX.
KM-25
Well-known
I liked TX for some time but found it often too soft edged in 35mm in what I was looking for. TMY2 is my favorite black and white film, amazing in any format. I guess in terms of character, I let the image and my method of making it dictate that.
But TMY2....man, the edge effect of that fine grain is surgically sharp, incredible stuff.
But TMY2....man, the edge effect of that fine grain is surgically sharp, incredible stuff.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
I don't quite understanding wanting to 'standardize' on one emulsion between two very different emulsions. Why limit your materials. I can understand 'standardizing' one of the emulsions for projects that might require that particular emulsion in order to emphasize a specific interpretation of those images. It's kind of like building furniture; a woodworker might use oak for specific applications and maple for another. They are different materials for different applications; both functionally and for appearance.
Why not just use both and 'standardize' on neither. Use TMY2 when it's needed and TX when it's needed. And don't forget that people have been 'trained' (culturally over time) to read images in a certain way. Heavy grain and contrast has certain connotations in an image, and the same goes for finer grain and smoother tonal transitions. And large prints are 'read' differently than smaller prints. Remember that a viewer starts at the surface of the image and goes from there. All images are heavily coded and the author needs to be aware of those codes, hence the use of different materials with different characteristics (e.g., a small grainy Robert Frank image is read differently than a large grain-free Ansel Adams image and not just because of the subject matter.) Materials have meaning.
Why not just use both and 'standardize' on neither. Use TMY2 when it's needed and TX when it's needed. And don't forget that people have been 'trained' (culturally over time) to read images in a certain way. Heavy grain and contrast has certain connotations in an image, and the same goes for finer grain and smoother tonal transitions. And large prints are 'read' differently than smaller prints. Remember that a viewer starts at the surface of the image and goes from there. All images are heavily coded and the author needs to be aware of those codes, hence the use of different materials with different characteristics (e.g., a small grainy Robert Frank image is read differently than a large grain-free Ansel Adams image and not just because of the subject matter.) Materials have meaning.
jazzwave
Well-known
agreed with above opinions
For me, I choose TMax due to less grain and more control contrast.
Sometime if I want more grain, I add in PS...
~ron~
For me, I choose TMax due to less grain and more control contrast.
Sometime if I want more grain, I add in PS...
~ron~
Corran
Well-known
Sometimes I think I'm the only person who really just doesn't like TMY.
CMur12
Veteran
f16sunshine
Moderator
Oh you're definetly not alone. I just happen to not be with you.
TMY2 is my number one with HP5 as a near number2 (HP5 has taken over for trip-x in my case).
What don't you like?
Oh... Murray beat me to the question.
Last edited:
Oren Grad
Well-known
It's TX for me - not even a close call. I've been using it for more than 30 years because both its characteristic curve, with a long, gentle shoulder, and its forgiving handling both in the field and in the darkroom - not unrelated to the curve - are exactly what I want.
I should say, I'm not after the grainy/contrasty thing that some people cite as a reason for using TX. I'm not looking for grit and "punch" (though if a picture happens to come out that way, so be it). Quite the contrary - with generous exposure, conservative development, and printing at relatively low contrast, TX delivers a lovely, long, quiet, subtle, tonal scale, with information all the way from deepest shadows into the highlights. If I must make a tradeoff, I'll gladly accept reduced tonal separation in the highlights in return for full information in the shadows.
I don't care about the grain. It's lovely, not particularly pronounced when the film isn't overdeveloped, and is just part of the rendering. When I want grainless I use large format and contact print.
The flip side of this is that for my taste, the long straight-line response, reduced blue sensitivity and increased sensitivity to development changes of TMY compared to TX are bugs, not features.
I should say, I'm not after the grainy/contrasty thing that some people cite as a reason for using TX. I'm not looking for grit and "punch" (though if a picture happens to come out that way, so be it). Quite the contrary - with generous exposure, conservative development, and printing at relatively low contrast, TX delivers a lovely, long, quiet, subtle, tonal scale, with information all the way from deepest shadows into the highlights. If I must make a tradeoff, I'll gladly accept reduced tonal separation in the highlights in return for full information in the shadows.
I don't care about the grain. It's lovely, not particularly pronounced when the film isn't overdeveloped, and is just part of the rendering. When I want grainless I use large format and contact print.
The flip side of this is that for my taste, the long straight-line response, reduced blue sensitivity and increased sensitivity to development changes of TMY compared to TX are bugs, not features.
Bingley
Veteran
For me, TX is a more versatile film. I shoot anywhere between 250 and 800 and get good results. Its more noticable grain is part of its charm. I prefer it for street phtotgraphy.
But for landscape photos, I prefer TMY2 for its finer grain. I've found I can push the speed a bit - to 500 in Diafine - but that's about it. TMax 100 is even better for landscape; that's a wonderful film if you don't the extra speed.
But for landscape photos, I prefer TMY2 for its finer grain. I've found I can push the speed a bit - to 500 in Diafine - but that's about it. TMax 100 is even better for landscape; that's a wonderful film if you don't the extra speed.
Corran
Well-known
Oh you're definetly not alone. I just happen to not be with you.
TMY2 is my number one with HP5 as a near number2 (HP5 has taken over for trip-x in my case).
What don't you like?
Oh... Murray beat me to the question.
I just haven't liked the tonality in any developer I've tried except Pyrocat, but I don't really like Pyrocat either because it gave me inconsistent results (which admittedly may be my fault, but that's the only developer I've had issue with). At its best TMY to me seemed very flat and boring, without a lot of "pop" to the image. It also barely hit 200 or 250 ISO in Pyrocat so not a lot of gain over a 100-speed film (especially if I use T-Max 100 in Acufine, which I get a speed of 125-160 with).
I'm probably being unduly harsh to it, but that was just my feeling. Now I also used to dislike HP5+ until I used it with SPUR HRX, which has been just amazing. I need to try TMY with FX-39, another developer I've been trying. I have some 8x10 TMY...
I'm very critical with b&w emulsions and developers which is why I've done so much testing and fooling with various developers, emulsions, techniques, etc. It usually boils down to, does the image look "grey" or does it look "silver." I want that silver look. TMY was always "grey."
Edit: The one image I shot with TMY, developed in Pyrocat, that I liked was THIS.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Use both, they are both great and are good for different scenes.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yes, the film and developer combination is more useful than the film alone. Could we hear from everyone about the developers they use with both films?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
My favorite for Tri-X is D-76 1+1. Tmax 1+7 is a good general purpose developer for Tri-X is you don't want to deal with powdered chemicals. Rodinal is nice for when you want a gritty look.
Tmax 400 TMY-2 is a film that just seems to work great in every developer I have used for it. Tmax 1+7, D-76 1+1, and PMK are my favorites.
Skiff
Well-known
+ 1.
TMY-2 has significant higher resolution, better sharpness and finer grain.
You can make much bigger enlargements from it compared to Tri-X.
And a charactristic curve that records more stops because of its linear character.
But Tri-X has that grainy look which simply looks quite nice with some subjects.
Horses for courses.
That is one of the big advantages of using film: We can always change our "sensor" immediately, and then we get a completely different look.
Excellent, isn't it
?
Last edited:
lawrence
Veteran
When I take off for relatively remote locations I like to minimise the amount of gear that I take with me, including film. When I'm in the field in these locations it's actually quite difficult to switch instantly from one type of film to another, depending on the subject matter, so I like to take a single film type that will cover the majority of work that I'm going to do. Of course I don't expect this approach to appeal to everyone but it's the way I work and it's why I asked the question.
lawrence
Veteran
Thanks, that's the sort of information I was looking for and confirms my own feelings about TX, which as a general purpose film I'm starting to prefer to TMY2. I do think TMY2 is a pretty amazing but am considering using it more for particular purposes than as my 'go to' film. One thing I have noticed about TMY2 is that is that the highlights can be quite 'hot'. The result of this is that mid-tones can become rather depressed whereas with TX the mid-tones get more emphasis, due no doubt to the shoulder that you mention. Of course it's possible I'm over developing TMY2 but it's pretty much in line with Kodak's recommendations and I'd rather go for a film that gives me what I want in the first place.
lawrence
Veteran
Agreed. I recently took TMX and TMY2 to Cambodia and loved the look of TMX for photographing the ancient temples. It's not as bitingly sharp as Delta 100 or Acros but it has a certain something that's great for architecture/landscapes. I used TMY2 as my 'general purpose' film but will probably take TX in preference next time.