akremer
Established
I don't shoot much B&W - I almost always use Portra 400NC + 1/3 stop.
Just got a bunch of TMAX 400 and I'm not sure how to rate it. I've read that this film is actually closer to 800 - fact or fiction?
Without a push are you guys rating it at box or 800?
If you're pushing to 1600 are you pushing 1 or 2 stops?
Share some wisdom and help me understand this film.
Just got a bunch of TMAX 400 and I'm not sure how to rate it. I've read that this film is actually closer to 800 - fact or fiction?
Without a push are you guys rating it at box or 800?
If you're pushing to 1600 are you pushing 1 or 2 stops?
Share some wisdom and help me understand this film.
dfoo
Well-known
It depends on the light, but in general in bright daylight I shoot at ISO 200 and develop rotary in XTOL 1+2 for 12.5 minutes. In lower contrast conditions I'll shoot at ISO 400 and develop for 13.5 minutes.
browncycle
Readyville, TN
I shoot Tri-X almost exclusively and meter it at 400 and process at 400. if any pushing or pulling is needed I'll opt for TMAX 400. It's latitude looks better to me. But for everyday shooting I like the grain of the Tri-X at 400. Tmax at 400 looks too smooth.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Kodak recommends the same development times for 2TMY (TMAX400, gen. 2) at EI400 and 800, and both Kodak's densitometry [Kodak 2TMY data sheet PDF] and other published densitometry indicates a true 400+ speed for the emulsion.
Of course, your rating depends on (1) how you personally meter; (2) how you develop; (3) what you'll do with the negatives. See here for a more detailed view.
For me, metering reflectively with an M6 with recently-verified shutter speeds, XTOL 1:1 and EI400 work well, and if I underexpose by a stop I usually still get a usable neg. This is consistent with the above-linked Kodak PDF, which states that "no increase in development is needed for a 1-stop push."
As a side note, I strongly suspect that many photographers who use handheld meters see a lower effective speed for all materials across the board not because film manufacturers over-rate their films, but rather because lens manufacturers don't provide T-stops for lenses intended for still photography. Cinematographers, of course, work to more stringent exposure standards, so they get lenses with labeled T-stops.
TTL metering compensates for the rather typical 1/4-1/2 stop difference between labeled f/ stops and actual light transmission. Handheld meters don't compensate for this difference. Anyway, that's my suspicion.
Edited to add: Oh, one other thing. The sensitivity curve of 2TMY is more red-shifted than the original TMY. I often use a yellow-orange filter (B+W 040), and I find that I'm using a filter factor closer to 3 than the nominal factor 4 that's recommended by B+W.
Of course, your rating depends on (1) how you personally meter; (2) how you develop; (3) what you'll do with the negatives. See here for a more detailed view.
For me, metering reflectively with an M6 with recently-verified shutter speeds, XTOL 1:1 and EI400 work well, and if I underexpose by a stop I usually still get a usable neg. This is consistent with the above-linked Kodak PDF, which states that "no increase in development is needed for a 1-stop push."
As a side note, I strongly suspect that many photographers who use handheld meters see a lower effective speed for all materials across the board not because film manufacturers over-rate their films, but rather because lens manufacturers don't provide T-stops for lenses intended for still photography. Cinematographers, of course, work to more stringent exposure standards, so they get lenses with labeled T-stops.
TTL metering compensates for the rather typical 1/4-1/2 stop difference between labeled f/ stops and actual light transmission. Handheld meters don't compensate for this difference. Anyway, that's my suspicion.
Edited to add: Oh, one other thing. The sensitivity curve of 2TMY is more red-shifted than the original TMY. I often use a yellow-orange filter (B+W 040), and I find that I'm using a filter factor closer to 3 than the nominal factor 4 that's recommended by B+W.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
You can rate it as you rate any other 400 B&W film, and test a few development times as commonly done with all films...
Compared to my usual Tri-X in Rodinal: TMY-2 -in Rodinal too- is a bit faster, but not too much... I just rate it as Tri-X and found its optimal times for direct sun and for overcast or shadows... Its tone is very clean and more separated in the shadows and midtones... The grain is surprisingly small even in Rodinal: like an ISO100 film: that's why I don't use it often... (I like grain for street shooting...) Its tone when pushed to 1600 is (to me) superior to that of Tri-X... A lot more shadow detail and overall tonal range quality... Tri-X metered incident at 1600, in Rodinal, is my limit, and there's contrast... TMY-2 in Rodinal pushed to 1600 shows a more normal contrast: the difference there is evident. It can be shot at 3200... Although I have never done it, I guess TMY-2 would be my choice for low light MF shooting if I needed very small grain and great tone...
Cheers,
Juan
cnphoto
Well-known
I have shot TMax400 at EI3200 and developed in XTOL stock, getting relatively fine grained and usale negatives. Though a bit thin, and I wouldn't do it often. I normally shoot at EI1600 in low light and again, develop in XTOL stock (using a replenisher cycle).
Bingley
Mentor
I just shot a roll of TMax 400 at iso 200. Will develop it in Rodinal 1:50 for 12 mins. @ 20C. I was shooting outdoors mainly, in fairly bright sun.
dfoo
Well-known
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mnewhook/4697891488/
TMAX 400 at around 6400 ISO, Rodinal 1+100 stand developed for 30 minutes.
TMAX 400 at around 6400 ISO, Rodinal 1+100 stand developed for 30 minutes.
Last edited:
glchua
Established
I rate it at 400, 7.5 min in 1+4 DDX at 20 degrees C. Incident meter whenever possible.
Tim Gray
Well-known
The couple rolls I've shot of it have been very nice. I rate it at 400 just like my Tri-X. If I think of it, sometimes I rate it at 320 just for a little extra cushion - an extra 1/3 of a stop of exposure never killed anyone.
RE: the incident meter thing. Google around for 'incident meter 18% gray kodak' for some interesting reading. The short version is that most reflective (including camera) meters are calibrated for 12-14% gray, not 18% gray like most gray cards. So meter on 'middle' gray and open up 1/3-1/2 a stop. Which apparently is what the directions for Kodak gray cards say. If I remember correctly, incident meters are usually calibrated for the same 12-14%.
http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm
RE: the incident meter thing. Google around for 'incident meter 18% gray kodak' for some interesting reading. The short version is that most reflective (including camera) meters are calibrated for 12-14% gray, not 18% gray like most gray cards. So meter on 'middle' gray and open up 1/3-1/2 a stop. Which apparently is what the directions for Kodak gray cards say. If I remember correctly, incident meters are usually calibrated for the same 12-14%.
http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm