Film Thoughts: TX v TMY2

Rob-F said:
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?
Click to expand...

I've been developing both films in Xtol 1+1. The best developer I used for the original TMY was Paterson FX-39, however I haven't tried this developer (now available as Adox FX-39) with TMY2. The good features were great sharpness and taming of the highlights and now it's available again I'll try it the next time I use TMY2.
 
Skiff said:
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 :)?
Click to expand...

Yes and many thanks for your response and for all the others.
 
lawrence said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with standardizing on a particular film. For instance, I standardized on ACROS 100 and XP2 Super a long time ago. I means I have two emulsions ... one slow and one fast ... that I now know very well and get what I want from regardless of the situations.

I keep other films around for occasional experimentation and fun.

Regards the TMY2 vs TX ... TX gives the look I am very familiar with from the early days of my photography (1960s-1970s) and is a pretty forgiving film in terms of latitude and processing so I enjoy shooting it now and then when I'm in the mood for that kind of aesthetic.

TMY2 is a modern film with tighter grain, better detailing, etc. It's a little more finicky on development and exposure technique, pushes better, and produces results which, when scanned, are more editable. I tend to prefer the look of XP2 Super, but TMY2 is similar and I can process it more easily at home.

Which to pick between them to standardize on ...? I don't know, that depends on what you prefer.

G
 
VertovSvilova said:
I don't quite understanding wanting to 'standardize' on one emulsion between two very different emulsions.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in carrying a palette of different materials and fussing about which to use to make a given picture. I prefer to settle on a film that I like, internalize the way it renders the world so that I don't ever have to think about it, and then concentrate on seeing.

About developers: D-76 1+1 has been my standard for TX, though I'm now testing Ilford DD-X with the hope of saving all the time I've been spending mixing D-76 from powder. As far as results, I've been happy with Xtol 1+1, too.
 
My developer team is tmax dev and rodinal.

Tmax dev mixed at 1:4 and souped at 20c for less grain and a clean look.
Rodinal mixed at different ratios (1:25-1:100) and temperatures depending on the desired grain.
I like grain to an almost abstract level at times. Rodinal with HP5 or Tri-x delivers.

Southworth run by Adnan W, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
lawrence said:
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.
Click to expand...

That certainly is a good summary of the differences, at least the ones that effect me most. For darkroom printing it can be a big deal; probably not so much for scanning. I darkroom print and really like TMY when it works with the light.

I tend a lot toward two situations where TX (or HP5) works much better for me, available light situations with bright areas, and sunlight. Darkroom materials really thrive in quiet light situations, but I like sunshine (noisy light?) so persist with it in spite of the challenges. The available light situations are simply something I fall into with subject matter I'm interested in; the midtone contrast, with highlight compression, has always been helpful for me there. A curve in Photoshop might easily change all that.

So, I like both, but TX is an all purpose film for my use, TMY is not. Lately I've been moving toward HP5 simply due to the huge price difference on 100' rolls here. It is different than TX, but still fills the same all purpose niche for my needs.
 
Hi Lawrence, to introduce another angle, do you want to push occasionally?
I once did a comparison for EI 1600, and while TMY2 is finer-grained than TX at EI 400 in Xtol 1+1, the opposite was true for EI 1600 in Xtol stock.
 
kossi008 said:
Hi Lawrence, to introduce another angle, do you want to push occasionally?
I once did a comparison for EI 1600, and while TMY2 is finer-grained than TX at EI 400 in Xtol 1+1, the opposite was true for EI 1600 in Xtol stock.
Click to expand...

I've always liked the way that Tri-X pushes so that doesn't really surprise me. A few years go I got seduced by the greater sharpness and finer grain of TMY2 when shot at box speed but once my stock of that is finished I'll be ordering TX again ;)
 
Joeys61 said:
Tri x & Rodinal hand and glove a perfect fit
Click to expand...
Many years ago I used Tri-X in Rodinal in medium format and found it was a stellar combination, particularly with flash. Haven't tried the newer TX in Rodinal yet but definitely plan to give it a go.
 
Interesting thread, I'm a Delta 400 user working with hybrid workow and asking myself if the mentioned differences are vid also when scanning these two films. Any experience anyone? Thanks in advance
robert
 
I quit using the original T-Max because it always seemed to lack midrange contrast. When I tried to increase the contrast by increasing development, I got blocked highlights. I noticed that the Kodak ads at the time always used subjects that had inherently high contrast. I did get some shots that had nice tonality, though.

Maybe it's time to try the new version.
 
Rob-F said:
I quit using the original T-Max because it always seemed to lack midrange contrast. When I tired to increase the contrast by increasing development, I got blocked highlights. I noticed that the Kodak ads at the time always used subjects that had inherently high contrast. I did get some shots that had nice tonality, though.

Maybe it's time to try the new version.
Click to expand...

My guess is you'll find the same thing. Sometimes the tonality of TMY2 is perfect for a particular subject but it doesn't work for me as often as TX.
 
I've not shot a lot with either ~ 60 m of each, but I'd choose Tri-X for the following reasons;
1. It looks more like film. If I wanted the sharp edge look from TM-Y I'd shoot digital.
2. It's more forgiving in my experience.
3. It takes less washing. I know its a minor thing, but it's nice having the film washed in half the time.
4. I think it looks better.

All that being said, Kodak is now 2 x the price of Ilford here, and I'm currently half way through 30 m of Delta 400. I'll be going for HP5+ next, then if I prefer it to D400 I'll stick to it. I found I prefer FP4+ to TMX as a 100 film.

I think standardizing makes sense. 1 developer, 1 process, less to remember, less to think about.

Cheers,
Michael
 
robert blu said:
Interesting thread, I'm a Delta 400 user working with hybrid workow and asking myself if the mentioned differences are vid also when scanning these two films. Any experience anyone? Thanks in advance
robert
Click to expand...

I find them more or less the same in terms of scanning ease and output (as in not a factor to warrant changing) following Chris Crawfords VueScan method.

Cheers,
Michael
 
lawrence said:
One thing I have noticed about TMY2 is that is that the highlights can be quite 'hot'.
Click to expand...

Then the problem is in your development.
Adapt developing time and / or agitation method.
Also helpful:
Using a semi-compensating or compensating developer. They limit the density of the highlights.

It is quite easy to get a perfect characteristic curve with TMY-2 with the right development technique.

Cheers, Jan
 
Between those two films: TMY-2 for me. After the last change/improvement of Tri-X, for me Ilford HP5plus is the last of the "big" films standing when it comes to "classic" high-speed BW look. Modern Tri-X has lost a good bit of its tooth (to my eyes), whereas the latest version of TMY simply got way less finicky, has awesome sharpness and smooth grain, is very capable in low-light-situations, dries flatter than Tri-X (for me) and does away with that Tri-X tint. What's not to like? :)

Greetings, Ljós
 
HHPhoto said:
Then the problem is in your development.
Adapt developing time and / or agitation method.
Also helpful:
Using a semi-compensating or compensating developer. They limit the density of the highlights.

It is quite easy to get a perfect characteristic curve with TMY-2 with the right development technique.

Cheers, Jan
Click to expand...

Yes of course, why didn't I think of that :bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom