As someone who learned photography in the analog era, it's funny to see people complaining about a film not having enough grain. In 1986, when TMAX came out, nobody had any trouble finding enough grain in their images. The advancement of film technology up to that point (besides color, obviously) had been primarily towards two objectives: Increasing speed and limiting grain. TMAX at ISO100 came out with finer grain than ISO 32 Panatomic-X, and it seemed like a miracle!

Photographers in 1995: TMax is pretty good but we still need less grain and more smoothness and sharpness. Photographers in 2005: Digital BW is terrible because it has no grain and is too smooth and sharp.

I used T-max for all of my b&w photography zinc it came out in the 80’s. Before that I used Kodak Triex. And in the last 5years I have added ilford’s b&w films.

I am old school (very old school) where grain was the enemy. I have been shooting TMax for years knowing I can do anything I want in post processing starting from a high bar. I also shoot with a yellow, orange, or even a red filter to punch up the contrast where appropriate. However, I have recently switched to Ilford Delta films (also a T grain) for one reason...it lays flatter when scanning. Curling TMax drives me crazy!

@noahvonhatten

Жыл бұрын

I‘m with you on the curly TMAX. Ilford is among the best when it comes to flat film bases.

I have been shooting T-Max film's since Kodak interduced them. I never thought that the film was "flat" using an enlarger and verbal contrast fiber paper. I got all of the POP of contrast and life. The whole point is to get as information on the film as possible. Then in the dark room or light room fine tune that information. This what film photography an art.

@noahvonhatten

Жыл бұрын

You nailed it.

Aperture Dundee I love this film. Though I tend to use the 400 version more

Nicely done! I'd say you very much nailed that the reason a lot of people don't like this film is because they don't understand what it's meant for. Like digital raw images or Kodak Portra for color film, Tmax is a film that's meant to be edited and it gives you as much flexibility for controlling what your final image will look like, whether its in a photo editing software or the darkroom. I've always found it ironic that so many people love Portra, (which I've always found to look a little bland without some editing) but then will dislike Tmax, even though it's doing essentially the same thing but for black and white photography.

I bought a 100' roll of 100iso. Loaded a couple cassettes and I'm going to be shooting them soon. Weather has been absolutely awful in Seattle lately though so I need better light for the 100 ISO

TMax 100 is one of my favorites, next to PlusX, which isn’t made anymore. Agfa next and Ilford FP4 last. I was a photojournalist in the late 80s early 90s. I used it ad loved it.

I used a lot of T-Max in the 90s and was happy for the most party, but I go back to Ilford HP5+ or Fomapan (for price) mostly because of the character of the film ... they have a "feel" and I am cool with that!!! I will use T-Max100 in 120 for landscapes stuff though!!!

@noahvonhatten

Жыл бұрын

I've actaully just got some Fomapan in to try, I'm looking forward to it.

Excellent video, my friend. I started in photography in the early nineties so it was all film in my day. Most portrait photographers that I knew back then absolutely HATED grain and did everything that was possible to minimize and/or eliminate it from their prints. T-Max was my go-to film for portraits that required large prints and I loved the latitude it yielded. Today, grain isn’t as hated as I remember it being back in the day. Keep up the great work!

@benbunch4159

4 ай бұрын

I shoot a lot of half frame so I find myself going for fine grain in particular.

Now I want to try TMAX

if u want grain and contrast push it to 50k, works with the tmax400

Another excellent, informative video. I shoot TMax and love the smooth finished look you get. Its a personal preference I guess.

t max look grate , was using for years the tmax400 , for landscapes but i prefare the 125hp4 ilford for studio or portrait

Thx for the content, well done! TMax 100 and 400 have been my goto films in 120 for the past couple of years. But just recently ha switched to Ilford Delta mainly because of the high prices. And since the Ilford films are giving me basically the same results, I will stay with Ilford. That said, I think TMax films are great and I do not understand why people hate it. And I do not personally know ppl who do. Maybe that is because I live in a different photography info bubble than you do?

They don't look digital, but look a little flatter in darkroom prints - more 2 dimensional than 3. Very sharp, however.

All of the adjectives used here and elsewhere to describe T-Max files seem too boil down to "relatively low contrast". This would make it popular with those who obtain their positive images by scanning negatives and generating computer processed images. Portra could be similarly described in the area of color negative film. The low contrast negatives have a lot of dynamic rages to tolerate over exposure and respond to digital modification. However, this character can also counterproductive if you print your negatives in a traditional wet darkroom, as the printing paper available has a relatively limited range to accommodate contrast excesses (low or high) in B&W, and practically none in color. T-Max might not get a fair consideration because very few people shoot B&W to scan and digital print, largely because inkjet B&W, for want of a more classy description, sucks. My guess is that people who work hard to make a classic B&W print in the darkroom left the Kodak building about 25 years ago, and never looked back. (Like me.)

If only I could get t max for $10 a roll, currently $27 per roll

Outstanding! We were in Athens Greece in Sept 2018 and picked up a roll of TMAX 100 at the concession stand. It got us out of jail. All we had with us with us on that day was slide film. Your assessment is spot on.

Where do one see this hate? Maybe we're not hanging out in the same circles.

The claim that TMax looks „too digital“ is quite ridiculous in my opinion. Over the last two centuries people tried to make photographic film better and better and to reach the point, where an image on film looks as real as possible. Grain always was a necessary evil, not something photographers of days past cherished and wished to see in their images but something they had to live with and tried hard to minimize. then, in 1986, Kodak came out with a new technology that makes the BW film look like reality desaturated. Almost no perceivable grain, high sharpness. And pro photographers loved it. No need to shoot TriX and HP5 anymore, the new TMAX 400 delivered what was required and requested by photographers for many decades. Another 15 to 20 years later, digital photography, originally designed by Kodak (see DCS cameras), reaches a maturity level und people take images on their digital cameras that show no grain at all und all the sudden the film formerly beloved for its straight and clear look gets hate, for looking like digital. Tmax was around long before Joe Shmoe ever heard of digital, Tmax did for film, what was required for ages, more than a decade before a new technology could deliver a similar result. And now that is a bad thing? I get it, some people love their grain, they want to shoot images with grain to show people, that they used the fancy analog stuff. Or they actually do think it to be beautiful. I, too, like a nice print from a well exposed frame of Tri-X. But not because of the grain but despite the grain. A few months ago, when I walked in a mountain area with some caves while the sky was dark all the time, I really was happy, that I had TMax 400 in my Olympus OM-4 instead of Tri-X or HP5, because I managed to capture the structures of rock and leaves in a clarity that allowed me to do a lot of prints on 8x10 paper in my darkroom. I could have done the same with the older films, but all the fine detail would have turned out mushy.

Tmax 100 is my most favorite Black and White film and that's because of its fine grain. When I first get into black and white film, back then most of my pictures I shoot I rarely pixel peep on scan photo and I usually print out at 4x6 size, one day I look more thoroughly on one picture I have the lab scanned for me and I noticed the picture look grainy than expect, that picture had been shot on Ilford Delta 400, and at the time I wonder This thing has been advertised as having delta grain technology, I should look clean, why it's look so rough, isn't film supposed to always look superior to digital?, even my old 2MP digital camera look more clean than this, is it because the lab have the scan resolution too low?" then I order the lab to rescan that roll with higher resolution, still look grainy, change the shop for rescan, still look grainy. I shot many rolls of Tmax 400 and Delta 400 after that and try scanning in other more high end shop and it's still look too grainy to my liking, and eventually I bought Epson V700 to scan them myself, and their grain look a little bit more constipate but still not as clean as I expect. I later learn that developer chemical may have some effect on it so I bought Tmax developer to try and it didn't look that much better in term of grain (and look more washed out than having the lab do it as at the time I still don't know much tips or trick to develop film), later I tried DD-X and it's look better. I still attempt to find other developer that make finer grain on Tmax 400 and Delta 400 to this day. It's around 13 years since I have that question and it make me go down the rabbit hole on this topic, and that make me not like cheaper films which are even grainier and cannot really understand people who like them. However, both Tmax 400 and Delta 400 are the finest grain B&W film with ISO 400 available, everything else for me are worse off, so they are my picks for ISO 400 anyway. On the other hand, Tmax 100, Delta 100, and Neopan Acros 100, always have acceptable image quality for me through and through and look even better when using fine grain developer like DD-X Microphen or Perceptol, I always shoot black and white with these except sometime that I make shoot with Delta 400 and Tmax 400, I rarely shoot with cheaper grade film unless I want to save some money on film cost due to circumstance at the time such as when I just want to test my new camera whether it work properly or not or a test run for my new developer.