I started out shooting Tri-X exclusively. Bought 100 feet of it one year and went crazy. Last year I got really into the Tmax 400. In December I bought a 100ft of that. I enjoy the T-grain of the Tmax and and how well it performs w portraits, but I also use it on the streets and appreciate all the details it retains. So I have an appreciation for both films, but I’m lean towards Tmax 400 these days. Fun video!
Nice photos.👍 Tmax is my favorite b&w film. Beautiful tonal separation and grain. I develop it in Rodinal 1+50 for 15 minutes. Blown highlights in b&w negative film is a development and/or scanning issue. You’ve probably heard the old advice: meter for the shadows, develop for the highlights... More important than what stock you pick is to just stick with one, and learn how to develop it to get the look you want. That takes time and experimentation that most people don’t bother with.
@@ribsy yeah, I realize you’re running a RUclips channel and you need to make new content, totally understand. It was more for the “tmax has blown highlights” or “I shot a roll of tmax once, and I prefer ____” commenters.
Blown highlights are hardly ever (unless we've been overexposing more than three or so stops, which is pretty hard to do, even for a novice) a film-side issue. I've never come across a b&w film that had so little latitude that you had to be careful about development "blowing highlights" - that's utter nonsense. T-grained films like TMY have a straight-line density curve in the highlights - so you almost always have to apply an artificial "roll-off" with burning in or split grade printing. People don't know this and think the film (or the scan of the film) doesn't have highlight detail - it has plenty - and start with this "It's because the t-grain films are fussy about exposure and development" nonsense.
@@emotown1 yep. Unfortunately the myth of tmax “blowing the highlights” is endlessly repeated on the internet. Very few people are doing a deep dive into their own development and don’t realize where the real problem is in their whole workflow.
@@joeltunnah Absolutely. These myths get going because a lot of people have trouble with relativism and are given to thinking in binary terms. It is true that the t-grain films are not quite as forgiving as classic emulsions, but that is only a relative statement. Like saying a Porsche is not quite as fast as a Ferrari. We don't infer therefore that a Porshe would be suitable for your granny to bumble around in! Ha! Anyway, nice chatting. I'll not pester you further.
bro, when I was in vocational school for photography back in the late 90's the school which was sponsored by kodak used to bulk load our rolls with tmax 400. I love this film! if anything it's nostalgic for me but i love how Sharp it is.
I own and operate a film processing lab. Tmax 400 handles highlights just fine. What many people don’t realize is that TMAX 400 doesn’t start to shoulder over in the highlights until significantly higher density than most other films. If you don’t know that, it can be a challenge to print as the highlights are very high contrast and much higher density than most other films. The best way to deal with it is to make a test strip of the highlights with a grade 00 (not 0, but 00) filter until the highlights are where you want them, then use a grade 5 filter to punch your shadows and blacks in to taste. Once you know that, it’s not hard to deal with, but just know, it doesn’t have the same characteristic curve as most other films and doesn’t shoulder over the highlights until significantly later than what you’d expect. This also means you can expose the daylights out of it and not end up with low contrast muddy highlights.
@@joeltunnah I think all Ilford films have weird highlights, or "whites" if you want to call them that - kind of milky, chalky or muddy looking, depending on which film. Not such crisp whites as the Kodak stuff. Certainly in 35mm format.
The one thing about film and darkroom is it separated the pros from amateurs. Today, people fire off two dozen pix on a cell phone and they eventually will get something ok. In the film days, you had to know how to shoot and you had to be a pro in the darkroom.
I cut my teeth on Tri-x and plus-x developed in D76 1:1 back in the 1970s. I still shoot a fair amount of Tri-x but I love T-max 400 (and 100). If I want a bit of grittiness to the grain I'll soup it in a mixture of Xtol 1:4 plus Rodinal. I use a PMK Pyro frequently, which masks the grain quite a bit, and the masking effect of the stain really helps prevent the highlights from getting blocked up. For pushing to 1600, I like Xtol 1:1
That lady in the fur coat. Great shot. I've hardly used tmax400. Delta400 yes. Tri-x 400 is a beast for street. Gritty and punchy in Rodinal. If you like gritty street prints. Nice prints mate.
It really depends on the film format you are using. On medium film format it's not that bad anymore and on 4x5 practically not gritty at all. It also depends on which film developer you are using. That makes that film offering a versatility I have not seen on other films. That's why it is my favorite film by far.
Highlights are all about how it's developed and to a lesser extent scanned/printed. You might read in the instructions that tmax is very responsive to changes in development. Thats newspeak for either its versatile or fussy about developing.
When I got into photography, specifically the newspaper business, we used Tri-X developed in D-76. I always hated it. Then Tmax 100, 400 and 3200 came out. I was overjoyed with the results. My favorite thing was to use Tmax 3200, pull it two stops, then add fill flash during high school basketball games. I then developed it in Tmax developer at 76 degrees for 7 min or so. Results were astoundingly beautiful. Thanks for posting this video.
This is the most legit comment on a thread that I’ve ever seen. I’m in the newspaper business wishing I could develop for press time, instead A1 feature photo is usually from an iPhone.
T-max is a nice film to use! I got 50 rolls of expired previous generation 35mm t-max 400 and that was a nice experience to shoot, learn how to compensate for its age, and getting nice and bright negatives! To be honest, I don't want to compare t-max and tri-x! They are both great to use so why complicate things! Keep up the good work!
I just started shooting film again back in April of this year (2024). I grew up with film but with point and shoot cameras. We usually bought the cheapest film was at the store. I never used black and white film back then. I don't think i had ever heard of most of the film stock that's still around. It was usually some type of Kodak or Fujii film. I didn't even know what ISO was or which one to choose. Now I'm trying many different types of film to see what I like. So far I really like Tmax. I prefer 100 if it's bright enough outside or if I'm shooting wide open. I have shot Tmax 400 once. I like it for the most part. I've had mixed results with FP4 125. I don't like HP5 but I think both times I shot it I forgot to change the ISO on my camera. I need to try it one more time. I also need to do a comparison between Ilfosol 3 and HC-110 with different stock. I've also tried delta 200. It was ok. I was told by a very experienced film photographer that Tmax was better with a yellow filter for the sky. An orange filter may work even better. Delta doesn't really need a filter because it's panchromatic. I have a roll of Rollei 400s retro somewhere I want to try. If I can find it. I like portra 400 also. I like Tmax because of the grain. I've been shooting digital for over 7 years. Tmax looks closer to my digital black and white photos.
Love how you are covering these different films and their characteristics even for digital guys like me. I like my Fuji X-T5 and the film simulations for my "film" love.
I really love TMax personally (100ISO is what I love to shoot for landscapes when you can find it). I enjoy the fine grain from it. I also equally love TriX for different reasons. And both films are the two types that all the other manufacturers base their films off of as well...
Thank you for this. Just picked up my first(?) roll of Tmax 400. I used "something" b&w film back in the day in high school, but I'm getting back into film photography. This is a great video to alleviate my "fears" of getting good images. I think the point to this video is to meter carefully, especially your highlights.
I wonder if "shoot for the shadows and develop for the highlights" would help. I'm getting set to try a roll shooting at iso 250 to be sure the blacks are open then stop development 15% early to preserve the highlights. I'll comment on my results.
the thing i like about tmax is that it lets you enlarge your 35mm a lot more than hp5 or tri-x while keeping the images sharp. I love film grain too, but sometimes I don't want to have to shoot more expensive 120 film to get larger prints and tmax is really good for that.
Thanks again! As always, it’s a joy to watch your video and I pick up a lot. I never understood the controversy about this film. I shot several rolls 120 and was quite happy. More important to me is T vs Q. T for 135 (24 exp) for finer grain, Q for 120 for more « traditional » pictures. Just as with kids and good friends, they’re different, but you love them all. I usually end up with Ilford Delta, because it is more readily available here in Switzerland.😇😊
I just found your podcast and RUclips a little while ago so I am catching the new ones and then dropping back to catch some older programming. This video was pretty interesting since I have been shooting TriX and TMax400 for decades. I like them both for pretty much the reasons you lay down. I never really appreciated TMax400 until I started experimenting with my own development and keeping notes. I found the exact exposure and development that gives me what I want, even highlights. TriX for contrast and grain from a time when I printed it on Agfa Brovira #5. TMax400 for fine grain, cleaner, deeper blacks and contrast I can manipulate. I’d say if you don’t develop your own B&W you may have to experiment with exposure to get what you want. Botttm line I love them both.
Cutting development time a tad and reducing agitation would help with the highlights. I’ve only used it pushed and had no issues with highlights, and it pushes to 1600 in hc110 quickly which is nice.
When I started out in the mid 1980s my two films were TMAX 400 and Ektachrome 100. I loved them both. I was taking photography at uni at the time so was processing my own b&w. I always loved the clean look I got from TMAX. When I finally got around to trying Tri-X I've gotta say I was disappointed. I'm shooting mostly digital these days, but apart from the occasional roll of Pan F 50 my go-to film is still TMAX 400.
Damn, i love this. It's exatly what i want by a film in 2021. I tried illford hp5 and the pics was.... Just shitty. No mid tone sharpness at all. It perform well only on subject already contrasted. And a grain bigger than a golf ball. I was like "it can't be so shitty. It seem a picture from early 1920" and so i tried again but nothing, it's just the wrong film for me. From your prints i see reallt nice midtones and that "blended" grain you talk about... I love it. Tomorrow i'll go to buy some and then slam it in my leicaflex. How it perform if overexposed and then underdeveloped?
I had difficulty processing TMax. I have shot 200ft of bulk Tri-x successfully . Is there an antihalation layer on TMax? Earlier I was under the incorrect assumption that processing only with TMax Developer? I want to try TMax another shot.
Thanks, those are awesome photos and prints! I love Tri-x and Tmax for different reasons. Tri-X may be more grainy-looking but there's something magical about the look, I guess you'd call it the tone curve? And you can get such drastically different results depending on the wide range of exposure and development options with Tri-X. I think it's a lot easier to mess up Tmax. Maybe I just like Tri-x because I'm sloppy and it lets me get away with it. :) :p
I have been using 20 year expired Tmax 400 in my bulk loader. I have been shooting it at 800 and developing at 1600 and love it! I also love the quick processing times in Hc110!
I usually shoot Delta 400. I’ve shot Tri-X in the past, but was unsatisfied with the results. I’ve had my eye on T-Max 400 lately and plan on ordering a few rolls soon. Great video!
First of all... NICE SHIRT, MAN! I believe I never shot TMax 400, only the 100. For me it's a very capable film, lots of detail and resolution. But I'm old school, I really like grain that gas a personality. As good as these films are - and you made me wanna try the 400 - I'm not that into the 100. It lacks personality for my taste, I mean. But it has its moments, like some portraits, for examplie. In the end of the day the're all tools with their characteristics and functions. Another one of the T family that's on my list is the 3200. I've seen some images and found the grain very interesting! I've just subscribed, maybe you pick one before me ;) Great work, thanks for sharing you vision and dedicating your time to this. My best!
The results also depends on which film developer did you use. Although it is not recommended, but I have nearly equal natural grain results and no blowing of the highlights when I use a Kodak discontinued developer, Kodak DK-50, which is my primary use all around film developer, and it's way better than any other Kodak developers that are currently on the market.
From what I remember the original Tmax400 was difficult to process. You could only really use Tmax400 developer to get good consistent results.This could be why it got a bad press. The current version is much more versatile . My preference is Adox F39II which I dilute 1+14 20c 12.5 minutes. The results are usually stunning, with superb gradation, and sharpness. Regarding the highlights I mainly use a yellow filter to darken the sky, but can’t say I have any problems with highlights. My favourite all round film !!
I love tmax 400... I shot tmax 100 and 400 for two years during photography school with my last semester being strictly portraits. I love the shadows and mid tones. I've never really shot my tri-x ... Maybe that's something I should shoot and review. Great video 🙏✌️
I shoot all sorts of types. I do like Tmax 400 alot. I shot some pics of the Missions in San Antonio using an old kodak tourist and sunny 16 and got some unbelievable shots! I developed it in D-76 at box speed and the clarity was as if you could step into the picture. I scanned it at the max my epson would do in a tiff and when I enlarged the image in Gimp I could see individual grains of sand in the mortar and the grain of the wood. I love it for landscapes like that.
TMAX is my general working film. I love the sharpness and the "grain (or lack thereof)". I use Nick Carver's Precision Metering Method and have never had any problems when using TMAX in large format, 120 and 35mm. Even using average metering on my 35m, I don't have any issues with highlights. I don't care for Tri-x much as it has too much grain for me. Even when it was the only Kodak 400 ISO BW, I didn't use it. I opt'd for Panatomic X and a tripod. I used Tri-x only when I had no choice. I did use it quite a bit when photographing for lawyers and land developers to use the photos in court or for administrative hearings for land use requests. The grain was immaterial there but the speed was necessary. Even pushed it to 800 ISO where the grain and contrast just increased. However, lots of my journalist colleagues swore by Tri-X.
Kodak P3200 TMAX is my favorite black and white film to shoot. I like it for indoor and hand held stuff. Will need an ND filter to use during the day. It's got tons of character and very forgiving in dev. It's also not 3200 but a pushed 800 emulsion. Just all around a funky film.
Haven’t shot tax in a while but I remember really loving the way it would print from an enlarger on most paper. (Rc,Fiber, matte or glossy) another comment mentioned burning in the details and yeah I would be able to do a 20 second burn in blown out areas and recover a large amount of detail. Especially in 120 or 4x5 negative size. A do feel most films loose range when scanning though. Great video.
yea i agree! i don't think the highlights would be an issue at all in printing. but for scanning, it seems to be a bit limited during a quick and easy scan
Blown out highlights is usually due to too much development. Is there really no detail in the negatives or could you bring some back with some burning?
To avoid blowinig out the hightlight in your TMAX, just use filters on your lens. A yellow or orange should do the trick. Expose for lights and develop for shadows.
Tmax 400 does not "blow out" highlights. If highlights are not appearing on the print, it is a question of burning those details in, almost always. Burning in brighter tones is standard darkroom repertoire - with any film and regardless of how well you metered your exposure when taking the shot.
NO, NO AND NO......If your highlights are blown out your development time is too long. You really need to test your film for a personal exposure index. (what the film speed is according to what developer you use, how you agitate the chemistry, etc.) then you can test to determine how long you need to develop for to get the correct highlights. YOU DO NOT EXPOSE FOR HIGHLIGHTS AND DEVELOP FOR SHADOWS. It is the opposite. Filters and spot metering is not what solves blown highlights, you must test your film. Burning and dodging are ideally used for modifying the look and mood of a photograph, not for trying to rescue a poorly exposed and developed negative. optimal film speed and development must come first.
So far, I have only used pretty expired Tmax, which I was not too keen about. But your video definitely convinced me to give some fresh rolls a try! Also, those prints look fantastic, especially the woman in the fur coat.
I really like TMax most between it and Tri-X. I learned on TMax 400, so I think I was averse to it for a while, but they're very fine films I need to use a bit more.
Great photos - as expected. Love the details in the car and the style of the first portrait... very cool. As someone, who is only just starting to shoot B&W film, I have no opinion on this - except for one, the price. I have stocked up (and received some rolls with a camera) on several different B&W film brands - none of it Kodak though, because where I purchase my film, it's one of the most expensive choices. For now, I'll work my way through Ilford and Kentmere, JCH Street Pan, Foma, Agfa, Bergger Pancro and Rollei Retro and then in time perhaps have a go at Kodak (and Fuji and Lomo and Cinestill) too, but it's gonna be a while since I also shoot colour - and instant film.
Since its introduction the TMax was quite controversial. Kodak made some adjustments in the meanwhile. When first using that emulsion type in the early nineties, I found my negatives very flat looking, compared to other emulsions. In the meanwhile I discovered that adding contrast is easier than removing contrast. I continued to use my Plus-X and Tri-X emulsions (because I was used to). Finally Plus-X was discontinued. Recently I used TMax again (I was bored of digital photography) and I sticked to Tmax100 for portraiture. As with every emulsion, you have to experiment with it regarding developer type, developer times, agitation (different from Kodak and Ilford) exposure, etc... Start with the recommended exposure, developers, times, agitation from the manufacturer. After 10+ rolls you can have an impression how the film behaves and start experimenting... Every emulsion has a specific look and it has to work with your style. There is no miracle emulsion, stick with a couple of them and make the best out of them instead of jumping around.
Great shots, great prints - what did you dev it in? Can make a big difference... A friend of mine used to use it a lot - we shared a darkroom years ago so I saw a lot of her work. The HD curves don't show much shoulder, perhaps why the tmy (and tmx - curves look similar) have a rep for needing careful exposure handling to get the best out of them. But, meter carefully, dev carefully and you can get wonderful results.
I’m on the T-Max hate spectrum to be honest. It kinda does alright on the street as long as there are no trees in sight, but the way it reacts to greens is just not my cup of tea. I really think it’s more of a studio emulsion and it looks really nice for portraits, but I have no idea why people would shoot landscapes with it. I’ve shot like 10 rolls of T-Max 100 out in the woods recently, developed it in HC-110 and the greens are just so ... undefined? Everything just looks super flat. Like a digital BW conversion gone wrong 😂 I might still be able to coax something out of it in the darkroom, but it definitely won’t be straight forward. Btw, how much time did you spend in the darkroom that day? When I print I rarely get more than 2 or 3 prints because all the test strips take so much time.
totally understood. i haven't done landscapes with it yet. i spend about 3 hours in the darkroom. i'm no perfectionist so i get things done to where i am happy enough and then move on to the next haha
It almost feels like TMAX has a built in effect of a light yellow filter altering the tonality just a bit compared to Tri-x (producing lighter yellow and darker blue), closer to/mimicking how a human eye sees colors. Has anyone noticed that?
I've done 16x20 darkroom prints with 35mm t-grain films which look as good as tri-x or HP5 using 120. If you want to go big with 35mm it's a thumbs up for me
Great video dude! I’m looking to start shooting a little bit of black and white and this was very informational! Also are you shooting with the Jupiter 12 on your Canon? I have been looking for a wider lens for my Canon P but I’ve heard that there can be issues with the protruding rear element of the Jupiter 12
I love TMax. I love Tri-X. I think the highlight issue is that we are over developing our tmax negatives. Cut 20% off your Dev time and see what happens.
Developing T Max400 in D-23 1:1 is incredible .It suppresses highlight blowouts and provides excellent shadow detail.I agree too many people overdevelop T Max 400 .I expose at 250asa and reduce development by 20%
@@peterrlee100 I’m gonna have to give that a shot. I’ve been using Photographer’s Formulary BW-2. It’s a 2 part and they have formulas so you can mix to compensate for highlights and such.
Thanks for this review. I use Tmax400 for portraits , I like it , but I’m surprised because the scans of the lab are very grainy. I get hi res tiff 16bits from Naritsu, and when I zoom at 100% in Lightroom it’s very grainy … are your scans grainy as well ?
Another fantastic video don't you change the magenta and yellow on a colour enlarger to change the contrast? 100 magenta is grade 5 filter everything at 0 is grade 2 filter and then yellow to 100 is grade 0 or am I wrong here?
yea that correct. but when you change those knobs you are theoretically changing the blue and green in the image. we are saying the same thing ultimatley haha
Grain ... Back in the day (late 1960s - early 1970s) I shot Tri-X at ISO 1200 developed in Acufine. The 1200 rating was "standard" with Acufine; it was marketed as a "high acutance" developer. The grain was strictly salt & pepper, overwhelmed textures (like your Caddy grill), dominating the image if you printed 8x10 with moderate cropping from a 35mm neg. Great combination for street shooting after dark, for inside clubs, for a sort-of severe mood.
Back in the glorious ´90 we have Agfa APX 400 wich might have finer grain, and definetly have an a** kicking tonal grade; it was a joy to use that film!!! And now we have Rollei RPX 400 wich is a really fine film too, try to get a few rolls totalmente y absolutamente recomendada XD
I have no hate for Tmax, I found a 20 year expired roll from the 90s and it holds up amazing. My only issue is with Kodak products in general. They seem to determined to keep jacking up prices so nobody can afford their products. I switched to Ilford and film imported from the UK is like half the price. Kodak keeps talking about how they are doing better every year but if that is the case why are prices always going up? I can't remember the last time I saw a significant price increase from Ilford.
Nice review of the film. and I like the relaxed style of your channel in contrast to some of the hyperbole and nerveous presentation on others. I don't think that the film stock really matters than much. Of course there is difference between TriX and TMAX or HP5 and HP4 or Delta400, but that is not the real point. To me the point is to get to know a film. Buy a lot of it and then meticulously note how you shoot it and test it. Overexpose it. underexpose it, pull it in development, push it.... etc. That way you will know how it behaves in most of the situations and how you can achieve a certain result.
I’ve shot a lot of both. Cutting dev. Time can pull in the highlights a bit. When I rate TMY at 800 and run it in HC-110 at the “normal” time it looks a bit more like tri-x. If you need SPEED TMY pushes better. My TMY tends to lay flatter that most other films which makes for sharper scans. Great images and great video! Which Canon is that? I’ve been using a 7 for a while and like it better than my Leica. Cheers
A million years ago, in college (about 20 years before anybody heard of a 'digital' camera), our photography instructors always seemed to heavily steer us to use T-Max. I don't recall whether they gave a reason or if anyone ever asked, "Why T-Max?" I just know that I was never impressed with the results I got from it. I have read a lot of famous photographers write about how they just, "see the world in black & white." Perhaps my bad experiences with T-Max led me to, "see the world in color." Even when shooting digitally, I very, very rarely end up converting shots into b&w. Recently ordered some Tri-X and Ilford Delta 400 however, have not made the time to go out shooting. Loved the image of the older lady.
I been shooting Tri-X for over 40 years, but I'm switching over to T-Max 400. If you're a street shooter and you like the grainy/gritty look Tri-X yields then go for it. I'm leaning more toward the clean, crisp sharp look of T-Max. When it comes to art and photography, it all depends on the "look" you're going for.
Been shooting tmax400 for years. The sharpness and tonal range of this film is just phenomenal. Nowadays I'm more of a Tri-x/Hp5 shooter but for certain projects I would absolutely choose Tmax. Great video anyways!
Both Tri-X and Tmax are great films. I've definitively shot - and loved - more Tri-X. But Tmax 400 is a great choice if you want deep black (the second best in that regard, only outmatched by Fuji Across) and get clean results if you want to push it up to 3200. I've shot many concerts with it and I've never been desapointed. For that reason I've never tried the re-released Tmax3200 since it's more expansive. It also handles underexposure much better than Ilford Delta400 which gets muddy immediatly. But Delta has a sharper vibe (especially with medium format). So Tmax for the win for portraits ! As for the blown higlights with Tmax400... I see what people do complain about. It might come from the exposure - yes shooting skies in broad daylight is not where b&w films usually shine - but also from the kind of scanner you use. With a dslr scan you hardly have a problem - if exposed correctly - but I remember some scans I made with a high end Hasseblad Flextight that showed this issue in a more vivid way. But you can either recover them or care less if it's part of a contrasty situtation.
While tmax's sensitivity to blue light is less than tri-x -- skies are still notoriously tricky to expose with black and white. Try shooting with different filters to darken the sky -- my favorite is red, but yellow, orange, and green have their own effects as well.
I haven’t had problems with TMax 400. It works fine for me, but I think that if you get blowout, it could be because it’s a fast film and you’re shooting in lighting conditions that will blow out the lights.
I prefer TriX over all the 400 speed films. I'm not a TMax hater, I just prefer the shadows and grain of TriX. The grain is more obvious and I like the look of it with portraits. It's also brilliant with Rodinal in scenes with lots of metallic and/or chrome in it . TMax is sharper generally. You should really spot meter the scene and figure out what zone you want in your highlights and shadows. People that complain about the blown highlights are not carefully considering the scene by way of zone. It truly is a professional film that opens up a lot of possibilities as you discovered in your initial print tests. With careful metering and good optics, it is an excellent film. For landscapes, real estate, industrial, and architecture photography, it's hard to beat. For street, environmental portraits, portraits, and automotive photography, I prefer TriX. I mostly develop my TMax in Ilford Ilfotec DD-X. I develop most of my TriX in 510-Pyro these days. Automotive in Rodinal. For years I developed 320-400 in D76 and 640-1600 in HC110.
When neopan 400 was discontinued and my supply ran out I tried tmax, Trix and hp5 as a replacement. I preferred what I got with Tri X. Grainy, sure. Tmax was ok but I don't remember why I didn't try it more. Maybe cost. Hp5 I've never liked.
I love Kodak and have been shooting their films since I was 15 on my first slr. Illford I never liked their tonal spread, I’m more of rich blacks and contrast guy. That being said I do keep a bulk tin of delta 400 for those harsh nyc days shooting from the ferry and have captured a beautiful range that my Pentax k1ii would have blown out.
Hey Ribsy. The film has a huge dynamic range but there’s a technique to it. Visualize a ruler with 10 lines on it. The trick is to meter the darkest shadow that you want to have texture and map that to 3 on the scale. So your actual exposure will be two stops above that value. Now meter the sky where you want to have texture. If the sky is 5 stops above that shadow, you should be good to go. If it’s say 8 stops above (11 on the scale). Tmax 400 should still be able to capture it, but you’ll have to burn it in a little in post. The other thing you can do is sacrifice that shadow and move the whole scale by doing +2 or so development but that will require you to do some testing of the film.
HP5 is a “traditional” grain film, so it’s got more obvious grain if developed the same way as the tmax. But you can develop the HP5 in a solvent developer to make it smoother, or the tmax in a non-solvent developer to make it grainer. Same for contrast.
Depends what I’m shooting, but I’ve used and love both Tri-X and TMax. I’ve found that TMax scans better, but that might be my terrible stock Epson holders since Tri-X tends to curl more. As far as highlight loss, just adjust dev time and agitation.
When shooting film I mainly shoot B&W. I like both TMax and TriX but prefer TMax because of the sharpness and the high contrast like the print you show at timestamp 9:00. I don't care for middle gray B&W images like you show at timestamp 6:00. Give me deep shadows and detailed highlights any day.
ALL films have pros and cons. Each has its own personallity. I keep notes of what they are and use what film will give me specific results.
Yea agreed! That’s the fun of shooting film
I’m going to start doing the same thing because I’m noticing the difference already.
I appreciate the effort you are putting into furthering the film photography community. In case you haven't heard that today.
thanks! i appreciate your comment. i really like this community
I started out shooting Tri-X exclusively. Bought 100 feet of it one year and went crazy. Last year I got really into the Tmax 400. In December I bought a 100ft of that. I enjoy the T-grain of the Tmax and and how well it performs w portraits, but I also use it on the streets and appreciate all the details it retains. So I have an appreciation for both films, but I’m lean towards Tmax 400 these days.
Fun video!
Interesting! I have a feeling I will really like trix- looking forward to using it
Nice photos.👍 Tmax is my favorite b&w film. Beautiful tonal separation and grain. I develop it in Rodinal 1+50 for 15 minutes.
Blown highlights in b&w negative film is a development and/or scanning issue. You’ve probably heard the old advice: meter for the shadows, develop for the highlights...
More important than what stock you pick is to just stick with one, and learn how to develop it to get the look you want. That takes time and experimentation that most people don’t bother with.
Thanks! Yea I def understand your advice. But I can’t help it - I like messing around too much lol
@@ribsy yeah, I realize you’re running a RUclips channel and you need to make new content, totally understand. It was more for the “tmax has blown highlights” or “I shot a roll of tmax once, and I prefer ____” commenters.
Blown highlights are hardly ever (unless we've been overexposing more than three or so stops, which is pretty hard to do, even for a novice) a film-side issue. I've never come across a b&w film that had so little latitude that you had to be careful about development "blowing highlights" - that's utter nonsense. T-grained films like TMY have a straight-line density curve in the highlights - so you almost always have to apply an artificial "roll-off" with burning in or split grade printing. People don't know this and think the film (or the scan of the film) doesn't have highlight detail - it has plenty - and start with this "It's because the t-grain films are fussy about exposure and development" nonsense.
@@emotown1 yep. Unfortunately the myth of tmax “blowing the highlights” is endlessly repeated on the internet. Very few people are doing a deep dive into their own development and don’t realize where the real problem is in their whole workflow.
@@joeltunnah Absolutely. These myths get going because a lot of people have trouble with relativism and are given to thinking in binary terms. It is true that the t-grain films are not quite as forgiving as classic emulsions, but that is only a relative statement. Like saying a Porsche is not quite as fast as a Ferrari. We don't infer therefore that a Porshe would be suitable for your granny to bumble around in! Ha! Anyway, nice chatting. I'll not pester you further.
bro, when I was in vocational school for photography back in the late 90's the school which was sponsored by kodak used to bulk load our rolls with tmax 400. I love this film! if anything it's nostalgic for me but i love how Sharp it is.
That’s amazing
I own and operate a film processing lab. Tmax 400 handles highlights just fine. What many people don’t realize is that TMAX 400 doesn’t start to shoulder over in the highlights until significantly higher density than most other films. If you don’t know that, it can be a challenge to print as the highlights are very high contrast and much higher density than most other films. The best way to deal with it is to make a test strip of the highlights with a grade 00 (not 0, but 00) filter until the highlights are where you want them, then use a grade 5 filter to punch your shadows and blacks in to taste. Once you know that, it’s not hard to deal with, but just know, it doesn’t have the same characteristic curve as most other films and doesn’t shoulder over the highlights until significantly later than what you’d expect. This also means you can expose the daylights out of it and not end up with low contrast muddy highlights.
interesting good call. i'll keep that in mind for next time - thanks!
Yep, which is exactly my criticism of fp4 for example, muddy highlights that never truly go white.
@@joeltunnah I think all Ilford films have weird highlights, or "whites" if you want to call them that - kind of milky, chalky or muddy looking, depending on which film. Not such crisp whites as the Kodak stuff. Certainly in 35mm format.
Brother, those prints are stunning! Really makes me wanna further my skills and get familiar with the darkroom! 👍🏾
thanks for watching! yea darkroom is great fun
The one thing about film and darkroom is it separated the pros from amateurs. Today, people fire off two dozen pix on a cell phone and they eventually will get something ok. In the film days, you had to know how to shoot and you had to be a pro in the darkroom.
@@R3user-p5q Very true
I cut my teeth on Tri-x and plus-x developed in D76 1:1 back in the 1970s. I still shoot a fair amount of Tri-x but I love T-max 400 (and 100). If I want a bit of grittiness to the grain I'll soup it in a mixture of Xtol 1:4 plus Rodinal. I use a PMK Pyro frequently, which masks the grain quite a bit, and the masking effect of the stain really helps prevent the highlights from getting blocked up. For pushing to 1600, I like Xtol 1:1
nice! tri x is so capable
Love contrast, love the shot at 10:20 . Wonderful prints..
thanks! yea i really like that tone as well
That lady in the fur coat. Great shot. I've hardly used tmax400. Delta400 yes. Tri-x 400 is a beast for street. Gritty and punchy in Rodinal. If you like gritty street prints. Nice prints mate.
Thanks mate! Yea - def gonna but tri-x to work on the streets. Got some rodinal on order too
@@ribsy Tri-X is as cheap as I've ever seen it on analogue wonderland, ordered 10 rolls myself!
Splendid vudeostream
It really depends on the film format you are using. On medium film format it's not that bad anymore and on 4x5 practically not gritty at all. It also depends on which film developer you are using. That makes that film offering a versatility I have not seen on other films. That's why it is my favorite film by far.
Highlights are all about how it's developed and to a lesser extent scanned/printed. You might read in the instructions that tmax is very responsive to changes in development. Thats newspeak for either its versatile or fussy about developing.
haha i feel you. i'll have to do some testing
When I got into photography, specifically the newspaper business, we used Tri-X developed in D-76. I always hated it. Then Tmax 100, 400 and 3200 came out. I was overjoyed with the results. My favorite thing was to use Tmax 3200, pull it two stops, then add fill flash during high school basketball games. I then developed it in Tmax developer at 76 degrees for 7 min or so. Results were astoundingly beautiful. Thanks for posting this video.
wow that sounds pretty cool. can i see a sample of those shots?
This is the most legit comment on a thread that I’ve ever seen. I’m in the newspaper business wishing I could develop for press time, instead A1 feature photo is usually from an iPhone.
T-max is a nice film to use!
I got 50 rolls of expired previous generation 35mm t-max 400 and that was a nice experience to shoot, learn how to compensate for its age, and getting nice and bright negatives!
To be honest, I don't want to compare t-max and tri-x! They are both great to use so why complicate things!
Keep up the good work!
haha thanks for thoughts! no need to complicate
I just started shooting film again back in April of this year (2024). I grew up with film but with point and shoot cameras. We usually bought the cheapest film was at the store. I never used black and white film back then. I don't think i had ever heard of most of the film stock that's still around. It was usually some type of Kodak or Fujii film. I didn't even know what ISO was or which one to choose. Now I'm trying many different types of film to see what I like. So far I really like Tmax. I prefer 100 if it's bright enough outside or if I'm shooting wide open. I have shot Tmax 400 once. I like it for the most part. I've had mixed results with FP4 125. I don't like HP5 but I think both times I shot it I forgot to change the ISO on my camera. I need to try it one more time. I also need to do a comparison between Ilfosol 3 and HC-110 with different stock. I've also tried delta 200. It was ok. I was told by a very experienced film photographer that Tmax was better with a yellow filter for the sky. An orange filter may work even better. Delta doesn't really need a filter because it's panchromatic. I have a roll of Rollei 400s retro somewhere I want to try. If I can find it. I like portra 400 also. I like Tmax because of the grain. I've been shooting digital for over 7 years. Tmax looks closer to my digital black and white photos.
Love how you are covering these different films and their characteristics even for digital guys like me. I like my Fuji X-T5 and the film simulations for my "film" love.
thanks!
I really love TMax personally (100ISO is what I love to shoot for landscapes when you can find it). I enjoy the fine grain from it. I also equally love TriX for different reasons. And both films are the two types that all the other manufacturers base their films off of as well...
haven't tried tmax 100 yet. one day!
Great video, great photos! Enjoyed this format much better than an exposure test style review
Thanks! Yea def 😀
Thank you for this. Just picked up my first(?) roll of Tmax 400. I used "something" b&w film back in the day in high school, but I'm getting back into film photography. This is a great video to alleviate my "fears" of getting good images.
I think the point to this video is to meter carefully, especially your highlights.
Yea you will be fine!
Bro I love TMax400. And just shot some 100 last week. And I do notice the highlights blown a bit too.
yea its interesting. im gonna have to do an exposure test and see
I wonder if "shoot for the shadows and develop for the highlights" would help. I'm getting set to try a roll shooting at iso 250 to be sure the blacks are open then stop development 15% early to preserve the highlights. I'll comment on my results.
thats a good idea!
the thing i like about tmax is that it lets you enlarge your 35mm a lot more than hp5 or tri-x while keeping the images sharp. I love film grain too, but sometimes I don't want to have to shoot more expensive 120 film to get larger prints and tmax is really good for that.
Thanks again! As always, it’s a joy to watch your video and I pick up a lot. I never understood the controversy about this film. I shot several rolls 120 and was quite happy. More important to me is T vs Q. T for 135 (24 exp) for finer grain, Q for 120 for more « traditional » pictures. Just as with kids and good friends, they’re different, but you love them all.
I usually end up with Ilford Delta, because it is more readily available here in Switzerland.😇😊
availably is key! the best is always what you have 😊
I just found your podcast and RUclips a little while ago so I am catching the new ones and then dropping back to catch some older programming. This video was pretty interesting since I have been shooting TriX and TMax400 for decades. I like them both for pretty much the reasons you lay down. I never really appreciated TMax400 until I started experimenting with my own development and keeping notes. I found the exact exposure and development that gives me what I want, even highlights. TriX for contrast and grain from a time when I printed it on Agfa Brovira #5. TMax400 for fine grain, cleaner, deeper blacks and contrast I can manipulate. I’d say if you don’t develop your own B&W you may have to experiment with exposure to get what you want. Botttm line I love them both.
thanks for watching and listening!
Cutting development time a tad and reducing agitation would help with the highlights. I’ve only used it pushed and had no issues with highlights, and it pushes to 1600 in hc110 quickly which is nice.
cool! ill have to adjust my dev process a bit next time
When I started out in the mid 1980s my two films were TMAX 400 and Ektachrome 100. I loved them both. I was taking photography at uni at the time so was processing my own b&w. I always loved the clean look I got from TMAX. When I finally got around to trying Tri-X I've gotta say I was disappointed. I'm shooting mostly digital these days, but apart from the occasional roll of Pan F 50 my go-to film is still TMAX 400.
Gotcha. Yea makes sense! To each his own 😀
Damn, i love this. It's exatly what i want by a film in 2021. I tried illford hp5 and the pics was.... Just shitty. No mid tone sharpness at all. It perform well only on subject already contrasted. And a grain bigger than a golf ball. I was like "it can't be so shitty. It seem a picture from early 1920" and so i tried again but nothing, it's just the wrong film for me. From your prints i see reallt nice midtones and that "blended" grain you talk about... I love it. Tomorrow i'll go to buy some and then slam it in my leicaflex. How it perform if overexposed and then underdeveloped?
yea i think it you want a really polished look - this is a great option
Miss the leicaflex. First love.
I had difficulty processing TMax. I have shot 200ft of bulk Tri-x successfully . Is there an antihalation layer on TMax? Earlier I was under the incorrect assumption that processing only with TMax Developer? I want to try TMax another shot.
no clue on the anti-halation, sorry 😅
Thanks, those are awesome photos and prints! I love Tri-x and Tmax for different reasons. Tri-X may be more grainy-looking but there's something magical about the look, I guess you'd call it the tone curve? And you can get such drastically different results depending on the wide range of exposure and development options with Tri-X. I think it's a lot easier to mess up Tmax. Maybe I just like Tri-x because I'm sloppy and it lets me get away with it. :) :p
haha i feel you. i'm not as caring either so looking forward to the help from tri-x
I have been using 20 year expired Tmax 400 in my bulk loader. I have been shooting it at 800 and developing at 1600 and love it! I also love the quick processing times in Hc110!
interesting. that probably yields a very unique look
Beautiful prints! Tmax is cool but if you love grain and texture tri-x is the way to go
Yea for sure! That’s what I hear - gonna give trix a go soon
that depends on the print size, tmax 400 is a better film than trix. it has higher sensitivity and latitude.
TMAX is my go to bnw. Been using a red filter for landscapes and it saves the sky. Love tmax.
yea good point! i need to try it
I usually shoot Delta 400. I’ve shot Tri-X in the past, but was unsatisfied with the results. I’ve had my eye on T-Max 400 lately and plan on ordering a few rolls soon. Great video!
thanks for watching!
I noticed the same with the highlights! I enjoy the look though, super clean and soft 🙌🏼
Yea the cleans shots are fresh
First of all... NICE SHIRT, MAN!
I believe I never shot TMax 400, only the 100. For me it's a very capable film, lots of detail and resolution. But I'm old school, I really like grain that gas a personality. As good as these films are - and you made me wanna try the 400 - I'm not that into the 100. It lacks personality for my taste, I mean. But it has its moments, like some portraits, for examplie. In the end of the day the're all tools with their characteristics and functions.
Another one of the T family that's on my list is the 3200. I've seen some images and found the grain very interesting! I've just subscribed, maybe you pick one before me ;)
Great work, thanks for sharing you vision and dedicating your time to this. My best!
Haha thanks 😊
The results also depends on which film developer did you use. Although it is not recommended, but I have nearly equal natural grain results and no blowing of the highlights when I use a Kodak discontinued developer, Kodak DK-50, which is my primary use all around film developer, and it's way better than any other Kodak developers that are currently on the market.
From what I remember the original Tmax400 was difficult to process. You could only really use Tmax400 developer to get good consistent results.This could be why it got a bad press. The current version is much more versatile . My preference is Adox F39II which I dilute 1+14 20c 12.5 minutes. The results are usually stunning, with superb gradation, and sharpness. Regarding the highlights I mainly use a yellow filter to darken the sky, but can’t say I have any problems with highlights. My favourite all round film !!
nice! i will def consider a yellow filter. haven't messed with any filters yet
I love tmax 400... I shot tmax 100 and 400 for two years during photography school with my last semester being strictly portraits. I love the shadows and mid tones. I've never really shot my tri-x ... Maybe that's something I should shoot and review. Great video 🙏✌️
thanks for watchingl yea gonna try tri-x soon
I shoot all sorts of types. I do like Tmax 400 alot. I shot some pics of the Missions in San Antonio using an old kodak tourist and sunny 16 and got some unbelievable shots! I developed it in D-76 at box speed and the clarity was as if you could step into the picture. I scanned it at the max my epson would do in a tiff and when I enlarged the image in Gimp I could see individual grains of sand in the mortar and the grain of the wood. I love it for landscapes like that.
Yea tmax is great
TMAX is my general working film. I love the sharpness and the "grain (or lack thereof)". I use Nick Carver's Precision Metering Method and have never had any problems when using TMAX in large format, 120 and 35mm. Even using average metering on my 35m, I don't have any issues with highlights. I don't care for Tri-x much as it has too much grain for me. Even when it was the only Kodak 400 ISO BW, I didn't use it. I opt'd for Panatomic X and a tripod. I used Tri-x only when I had no choice. I did use it quite a bit when photographing for lawyers and land developers to use the photos in court or for administrative hearings for land use requests. The grain was immaterial there but the speed was necessary. Even pushed it to 800 ISO where the grain and contrast just increased. However, lots of my journalist colleagues swore by Tri-X.
yea tmax is a great film for professionals
Kodak P3200 TMAX is my favorite black and white film to shoot. I like it for indoor and hand held stuff. Will need an ND filter to use during the day. It's got tons of character and very forgiving in dev. It's also not 3200 but a pushed 800 emulsion. Just all around a funky film.
yea agreed. p3200 has such a look!
Haven’t shot tax in a while but I remember really loving the way it would print from an enlarger on most paper. (Rc,Fiber, matte or glossy) another comment mentioned burning in the details and yeah I would be able to do a 20 second burn in blown out areas and recover a large amount of detail. Especially in 120 or 4x5 negative size. A do feel most films loose range when scanning though.
Great video.
yea i agree! i don't think the highlights would be an issue at all in printing. but for scanning, it seems to be a bit limited during a quick and easy scan
Blown out highlights is usually due to too much development. Is there really no detail in the negatives or could you bring some back with some burning?
im sure in the darkroom it would have been fine. but the scans weren't too receptive to the highlights
To avoid blowinig out the hightlight in your TMAX, just use filters on your lens. A yellow or orange should do the trick. Expose for lights and develop for shadows.
Yup
Filters and spot metering will serve you well with this. Having said that, you will LOVE Tri X. But each film has their time and place.
Tmax 400 does not "blow out" highlights. If highlights are not appearing on the print, it is a question of burning those details in, almost always. Burning in brighter tones is standard darkroom repertoire - with any film and regardless of how well you metered your exposure when taking the shot.
NO, NO AND NO......If your highlights are blown out your development time is too long. You really need to test your film for a personal exposure index. (what the film speed is according to what developer you use, how you agitate the chemistry, etc.) then you can test to determine how long you need to develop for to get the correct highlights. YOU DO NOT EXPOSE FOR HIGHLIGHTS AND DEVELOP FOR SHADOWS. It is the opposite. Filters and spot metering is not what solves blown highlights, you must test your film. Burning and dodging are ideally used for modifying the look and mood of a photograph, not for trying to rescue a poorly exposed and developed negative. optimal film speed and development must come first.
So far, I have only used pretty expired Tmax, which I was not too keen about. But your video definitely convinced me to give some fresh rolls a try! Also, those prints look fantastic, especially the woman in the fur coat.
yea def give some fresh rolls a try. think you will like it a lot for street photography
I really like TMax most between it and Tri-X. I learned on TMax 400, so I think I was averse to it for a while, but they're very fine films I need to use a bit more.
yea agreed! they truly are pro level
Ilford Neopan 400 was my favourite 400 speed B&W film, sadly no longer produce. Have you tried Bergger Pancro 400 film yet ?
I did try pancro. Didn’t mind the results. Just remember a super curly negative haha
@@ribsy I have not had issues with my Bergger Negatives curling. Did you try it in 120 or 35mm?
Please, what developer do you use with this film? And how?. Thanks.
i use hc100 witht eh B dilution
Great photos - as expected. Love the details in the car and the style of the first portrait... very cool.
As someone, who is only just starting to shoot B&W film, I have no opinion on this - except for one, the price. I have stocked up (and received some rolls with a camera) on several different B&W film brands - none of it Kodak though, because where I purchase my film, it's one of the most expensive choices.
For now, I'll work my way through Ilford and Kentmere, JCH Street Pan, Foma, Agfa, Bergger Pancro and Rollei Retro and then in time perhaps have a go at Kodak (and Fuji and Lomo and Cinestill) too, but it's gonna be a while since I also shoot colour - and instant film.
good point! one must always consider price. this def aint cheap
That printed really well. So clean.
Yea! I really liked the clean look for a change. Really subtle but present grain
For landscape, you should try Adox CMS 20 ii.
yea i need to check it out!
Since its introduction the TMax was quite controversial. Kodak made some adjustments in the meanwhile.
When first using that emulsion type in the early nineties, I found my negatives very flat looking, compared to other emulsions.
In the meanwhile I discovered that adding contrast is easier than removing contrast.
I continued to use my Plus-X and Tri-X emulsions (because I was used to). Finally Plus-X was discontinued.
Recently I used TMax again (I was bored of digital photography) and I sticked to Tmax100 for portraiture.
As with every emulsion, you have to experiment with it regarding developer type, developer times, agitation (different from Kodak and Ilford) exposure, etc...
Start with the recommended exposure, developers, times, agitation from the manufacturer. After 10+ rolls you can have an impression how the film behaves and start experimenting...
Every emulsion has a specific look and it has to work with your style.
There is no miracle emulsion, stick with a couple of them and make the best out of them instead of jumping around.
haha true! you can def always add contrast and make things look better
It’s my favourite film stock to shoot with in black and white
i can see why! i like it
8:57 was a beautiful shot and great contrast !
thanks! really appreciate it
I love this channel!! Well done!
thanks for watching! i appreciate it 😊
Great shots, great prints - what did you dev it in? Can make a big difference... A friend of mine used to use it a lot - we shared a darkroom years ago so I saw a lot of her work. The HD curves don't show much shoulder, perhaps why the tmy (and tmx - curves look similar) have a rep for needing careful exposure handling to get the best out of them. But, meter carefully, dev carefully and you can get wonderful results.
i dev'd in microphen - def need to be a bit more particular about metering
I’m on the T-Max hate spectrum to be honest. It kinda does alright on the street as long as there are no trees in sight, but the way it reacts to greens is just not my cup of tea. I really think it’s more of a studio emulsion and it looks really nice for portraits, but I have no idea why people would shoot landscapes with it. I’ve shot like 10 rolls of T-Max 100 out in the woods recently, developed it in HC-110 and the greens are just so ... undefined? Everything just looks super flat. Like a digital BW conversion gone wrong 😂 I might still be able to coax something out of it in the darkroom, but it definitely won’t be straight forward.
Btw, how much time did you spend in the darkroom that day? When I print I rarely get more than 2 or 3 prints because all the test strips take so much time.
totally understood. i haven't done landscapes with it yet.
i spend about 3 hours in the darkroom. i'm no perfectionist so i get things done to where i am happy enough and then move on to the next haha
Thanks! Interesting. Whats that Camera on the desk?
its the canon 7! with the jupiter 35mm
@@ribsy ty!
It almost feels like TMAX has a built in effect of a light yellow filter altering the tonality just a bit compared to Tri-x (producing lighter yellow and darker blue), closer to/mimicking how a human eye sees colors. Has anyone noticed that?
It’s tough cuz I can’t see in black and white! 🤣 jk
Hey Ribs, what lenses are you using on that Canon? I have a VL and love it.
i use a jupiter 35mm 2.8 - its mostly great, but i don't like the stopless aperture ring
I've done 16x20 darkroom prints with 35mm t-grain films which look as good as tri-x or HP5 using 120. If you want to go big with 35mm it's a thumbs up for me
oh wow thats cool. yea, i need to get some bigger paper haha
Great video dude! I’m looking to start shooting a little bit of black and white and this was very informational! Also are you shooting with the Jupiter 12 on your Canon? I have been looking for a wider lens for my Canon P but I’ve heard that there can be issues with the protruding rear element of the Jupiter 12
yea i have the 35mm jupiter lens. the rear element does protrude so you have to be gentle with it. but i have had zero issues
Killer prints man. I personally like both Tmax and Tri-x. When I want class, I go Tmax. When I want gritty, I go Tri-x.
haha fair enough! simple 😊
When you say "t-grain" has more silver use, what does that mean exactly ?
its a more efficient use of the silver content. im no scientist tho 😅
Great video and nice shirt! Cheers from Brazil!
hello!
I love TMax. I love Tri-X. I think the highlight issue is that we are over developing our tmax negatives. Cut 20% off your Dev time and see what happens.
yea id be curious to try that. or perhaps use the dedicated tmax developer
Developing T Max400 in D-23 1:1 is incredible .It suppresses highlight blowouts and provides excellent shadow detail.I agree too many people overdevelop T Max 400 .I expose at 250asa and reduce development by 20%
@@peterrlee100 I’m gonna have to give that a shot. I’ve been using Photographer’s Formulary BW-2. It’s a 2 part and they have formulas so you can mix to compensate for highlights and such.
Thanks for this review. I use Tmax400 for portraits , I like it , but I’m surprised because the scans of the lab are very grainy. I get hi res tiff 16bits from Naritsu, and when I zoom at 100% in Lightroom it’s very grainy … are your scans grainy as well ?
Na I wouldn’t consider it grainy. Maybe depends on the developer
Another fantastic video don't you change the magenta and yellow on a colour enlarger to change the contrast? 100 magenta is grade 5 filter everything at 0 is grade 2 filter and then yellow to 100 is grade 0 or am I wrong here?
yea that correct. but when you change those knobs you are theoretically changing the blue and green in the image. we are saying the same thing ultimatley haha
Try using a light yellow or orange filter to bring out the details in the sky.
Good point!
Thank you, very organic impression on the Tmax
thanks for watching
Grain ... Back in the day (late 1960s - early 1970s) I shot Tri-X at ISO 1200 developed in Acufine. The 1200 rating was "standard" with Acufine; it was marketed as a "high acutance" developer. The grain was strictly salt & pepper, overwhelmed textures (like your Caddy grill), dominating the image if you printed 8x10 with moderate cropping from a 35mm neg. Great combination for street shooting after dark, for inside clubs, for a sort-of severe mood.
interesting. i think i would really like that look. im def not afraid of some good grain! haha
Great prints! Keep it up! 👍🏻
thanks! much appreciated
Back in the glorious ´90 we have Agfa APX 400 wich might have finer grain, and definetly have an a** kicking tonal grade; it was a joy to use that film!!! And now we have Rollei RPX 400 wich is a really fine film too, try to get a few rolls totalmente y absolutamente recomendada XD
sweet. im gonna have to try and get some
What lens do you have on your canon?
its a jupiter 35mm 2.8
I love TMax 400. I bought it in bulk when I was in Photography School.
thats smart! i need to do that too
I have no hate for Tmax, I found a 20 year expired roll from the 90s and it holds up amazing. My only issue is with Kodak products in general. They seem to determined to keep jacking up prices so nobody can afford their products. I switched to Ilford and film imported from the UK is like half the price. Kodak keeps talking about how they are doing better every year but if that is the case why are prices always going up? I can't remember the last time I saw a significant price increase from Ilford.
yea im looking forward to prices stabilizing
Very nice captures and prints! Need to get me some tmax 400. I tend to shoot more Tri-X. Just followed you on Instagram.
thanks! gonna have to try tri-x
Nice review of the film. and I like the relaxed style of your channel in contrast to some of the hyperbole and nerveous presentation on others.
I don't think that the film stock really matters than much. Of course there is difference between TriX and TMAX or HP5 and HP4 or Delta400, but that is not the real point. To me the point is to get to know a film. Buy a lot of it and then meticulously note how you shoot it and test it. Overexpose it. underexpose it, pull it in development, push it.... etc. That way you will know how it behaves in most of the situations and how you can achieve a certain result.
Thanks for watching!
You need to be keeping a yellow filter on when shooting Tmax. Well any B&W really or maybe an orange for Tmax.
What did you develop it with?
i used microphen
@@ribsy cool! I'll have to try some! I shot TMAX 100 recently and used DD-X. It came out nice.
Love your review, like usual. You are good,. Canada
thank you!
I’ve shot a lot of both. Cutting dev. Time can pull in the highlights a bit. When I rate TMY at 800 and run it in HC-110 at the “normal” time it looks a bit more like tri-x. If you need SPEED TMY pushes better. My TMY tends to lay flatter that most other films which makes for sharper scans.
Great images and great video! Which Canon is that? I’ve been using a 7 for a while and like it better than my Leica.
Cheers
Yea it’s a canon 7! Only reason I haven’t bought a Leica 😂
A million years ago, in college (about 20 years before anybody heard of a 'digital' camera), our photography instructors always seemed to heavily steer us to use T-Max. I don't recall whether they gave a reason or if anyone ever asked, "Why T-Max?" I just know that I was never impressed with the results I got from it.
I have read a lot of famous photographers write about how they just, "see the world in black & white." Perhaps my bad experiences with T-Max led me to, "see the world in color." Even when shooting digitally, I very, very rarely end up converting shots into b&w. Recently ordered some Tri-X and Ilford Delta 400 however, have not made the time to go out shooting.
Loved the image of the older lady.
thanks for watching. i am actually really enjoying BW and feel that im gonna shoot alot more of it, especially for street photography and portraits
I been shooting Tri-X for over 40 years, but I'm switching over to T-Max 400. If you're a street shooter and you like the grainy/gritty look Tri-X yields then go for it. I'm leaning more toward the clean, crisp sharp look of T-Max. When it comes to art and photography, it all depends on the "look" you're going for.
good call! i think i will like tri-x alot for the gritty look
Been shooting tmax400 for years. The sharpness and tonal range of this film is just phenomenal. Nowadays I'm more of a Tri-x/Hp5 shooter but for certain projects I would absolutely choose Tmax. Great video anyways!
yea i like it alot! amazing for printing
Both Tri-X and Tmax are great films. I've definitively shot - and loved - more Tri-X. But Tmax 400 is a great choice if you want deep black (the second best in that regard, only outmatched by Fuji Across) and get clean results if you want to push it up to 3200. I've shot many concerts with it and I've never been desapointed. For that reason I've never tried the re-released Tmax3200 since it's more expansive. It also handles underexposure much better than Ilford Delta400 which gets muddy immediatly. But Delta has a sharper vibe (especially with medium format). So Tmax for the win for portraits ! As for the blown higlights with Tmax400... I see what people do complain about. It might come from the exposure - yes shooting skies in broad daylight is not where b&w films usually shine - but also from the kind of scanner you use. With a dslr scan you hardly have a problem - if exposed correctly - but I remember some scans I made with a high end Hasseblad Flextight that showed this issue in a more vivid way. But you can either recover them or care less if it's part of a contrasty situtation.
yeaa! im really happy with tmax so far
While tmax's sensitivity to blue light is less than tri-x -- skies are still notoriously tricky to expose with black and white. Try shooting with different filters to darken the sky -- my favorite is red, but yellow, orange, and green have their own effects as well.
yea good point!
I haven’t had problems with TMax 400. It works fine for me, but I think that if you get blowout, it could be because it’s a fast film and you’re shooting in lighting conditions that will blow out the lights.
Yea I gotta tmax give that another try. I have a feeling I’ll like it more nowadays
I prefer TriX over all the 400 speed films. I'm not a TMax hater, I just prefer the shadows and grain of TriX. The grain is more obvious and I like the look of it with portraits. It's also brilliant with Rodinal in scenes with lots of metallic and/or chrome in it .
TMax is sharper generally. You should really spot meter the scene and figure out what zone you want in your highlights and shadows. People that complain about the blown highlights are not carefully considering the scene by way of zone. It truly is a professional film that opens up a lot of possibilities as you discovered in your initial print tests. With careful metering and good optics, it is an excellent film. For landscapes, real estate, industrial, and architecture photography, it's hard to beat. For street, environmental portraits, portraits, and automotive photography, I prefer TriX.
I mostly develop my TMax in Ilford Ilfotec DD-X. I develop most of my TriX in 510-Pyro these days. Automotive in Rodinal. For years I developed 320-400 in D76 and 640-1600 in HC110.
makes sense!
When neopan 400 was discontinued and my supply ran out I tried tmax, Trix and hp5 as a replacement. I preferred what I got with Tri X. Grainy, sure. Tmax was ok but I don't remember why I didn't try it more. Maybe cost. Hp5 I've never liked.
yea im looking forward to tri-x
Tks for the video. Love the jersey 🇧🇷
Yeaaaa!
Back in the day I used Kodak plus x at 125 ASA in addition to trying Tri-x check out Tmax100 just my 2 cents
nice! never heard of plus x
I love Kodak and have been shooting their films since I was 15 on my first slr. Illford I never liked their tonal spread, I’m more of rich blacks and contrast guy. That being said I do keep a bulk tin of delta 400 for those harsh nyc days shooting from the ferry and have captured a beautiful range that my Pentax k1ii would have blown out.
Yea bulk film tin is always a good idea
Hey Ribsy. The film has a huge dynamic range but there’s a technique to it. Visualize a ruler with 10 lines on it. The trick is to meter the darkest shadow that you want to have texture and map that to 3 on the scale. So your actual exposure will be two stops above that value. Now meter the sky where you want to have texture. If the sky is 5 stops above that shadow, you should be good to go. If it’s say 8 stops above (11 on the scale). Tmax 400 should still be able to capture it, but you’ll have to burn it in a little in post. The other thing you can do is sacrifice that shadow and move the whole scale by doing +2 or so development but that will require you to do some testing of the film.
That’s a lot of thinking! I move too fast for that 😂
@@ribsy Don’t you know the secrets of the Kung fu masters? In order to move fast, you first have to move slow. 😂😂
😂
How does it compare with hp5?
HP5 is a “traditional” grain film, so it’s got more obvious grain if developed the same way as the tmax. But you can develop the HP5 in a solvent developer to make it smoother, or the tmax in a non-solvent developer to make it grainer. Same for contrast.
what joel said! 😊
Depends what I’m shooting, but I’ve used and love both Tri-X and TMax. I’ve found that TMax scans better, but that might be my terrible stock Epson holders since Tri-X tends to curl more. As far as highlight loss, just adjust dev time and agitation.
yea gonna have to mess with the dev time!
Developed with xtol? I think xtol can blow the highlights a bit. I love tmax 400, never tried it with Ddx but think that’s gonna be my next roll
na i used microphen. next time ill see if i can use the dedicated developer
@@ribsy ah interesting. Also the place next to that car does great ribs.... when it’s open!
For having details in the sky, good to use red filter upon the lens ;)
yup
These prints look great.
Amazing prints good sir. Delta 400 will give you the same detail with better tonality and highlight retention highly underrated
yea im excited to try delta 400. hear lots of things about it
When shooting film I mainly shoot B&W. I like both TMax and TriX but prefer TMax because of the sharpness and the high contrast like the print you show at timestamp 9:00. I don't care for middle gray B&W images like you show at timestamp 6:00. Give me deep shadows and detailed highlights any day.
ahh gotcha