Don't know about that, Jim. I used TMax for the first time this summer--not
extensively, just a few rolls, as the cost of development and turnaround
time over in Spain was horrendous--and shot it like I'd shoot Tri-X. The
old rule of thumb there has always been to expose for your shadows and let
the highlights take care of themselves. So far, that seems to work as
expected--when held up next to other shots using Tri-X, admittedly with
small prints, the results are similar.
If anything, and again, based on limited use of this emulsion, I'd say TMax
represents an improvement over Tri-X. On balance. I like the look of TMax.
How forgiving it is in the dark room I don't know, but the work I got back
looks sharp, well balanced, good shadow detail without falling off of the
highlights, etc. The two speeds I've used are 100 and 3200, and while
there's more grain with the latter, as you'd expect, I find it quite
acceptable considering what the photographer receives in exchange: the
ability to shoot more difficult subjects in low-light situations. I'm
anxious to see the effect of 3200 grain on close-up work, especially faces,
and when the image is blown up. If and when I get the negatives scanned
I'll share.
I took a couple of interesting color shots of a theatre marquee in London
with Supra 800. I admit to being somewhat inebriated at the time and
dodging the rain on top of that; also, it was pitch dark, with only the
marquee lights to expose. One of my shots missed the final letter on the
theatre name (The Palace) somehow, no doubt due to wine "sway." <g> They're
scanned and I'll put them up eventually on a dedicated site. At the moment
my computer system is about half fried--my HD grinds unmercifully whenever
I try to use Explorer, and Scandisk cannot (will not--thank you, Bill) get
past cluster 404606, so it might be a while.
The reason I mention these latter pictures is for the purpose of
illustrating how graininess is not (in my opinion) always objectionable.
It's noticeable in both pictures, but so what? Grain can actually add to
the romance of a piece, at least to my eye and especially with B&W studies.
Anyway, that's all from the perspective of an old working photojournalist,
someone who walks around and uses his camera mostly out of hand and often
at night. You need speed for that work, and with speed comes more grain.
How that "degrades" one's work I don't understand. The fact is that without
faster emulsions there's be no such pictures in the first place!
Each emulsion has it place and proper use. There is not such thing as a
"best" emulsion, only logical selections given the work before you.
And it's not like I'm some speed freak when it comes to film, either. I
shot a lot of Konica 50 and Kodak Gold 100 on vacation, but I reserved
these films for when the sun was high, or for work atop my tripod.
Tris
NO! :)
If you are serious about the B&W shoot some fall 'shades' & textures with
it. Experiment with
filtration. I am sue you will get some good results.
I have never tried the T-Max, but its sounds from your description like
one would want to treat it
more like a slide film that a conventional B&W. In otherwords expose for
the highlights NOT the
shadows. How does the shadow detail hold up when underexposed?
Jim Couch
Ken N wrote:
> I have had a love/hate relationship with TMAX 100. My biggest
> problem has ALWAYS been burning out the highlights.
> Over-exposing this film is NOT a good thing. Nowhere near the
> forgiveness of Plus-X, Pan-F or Tri-X.
> Just like it is important to take a farm field out of production
> once in a while, it is important to radically change directions
> and put the Velvia away. I need to relearn some things and
> improve my compositions. This "forced" change will be good for
> me. But can I wait until AFTER the fall colors?
>
|