Testing the Exposure Limits of Kodak TMAX 400
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ค. 2024
- Another instalment in the film exposure test series, this time with Kodak TMAX 400 in 120 format.
Film developed and scanned by Carmencita Film Lab: carmencitafilmlab.com
►*DISCLAIMER*
Some of the links below are affiliate links, where I earn a small commission if you click on the link and purchase an item. The money I earn helps me make this type of content consistently.
GEAR USED IN THIS VIDEO(*these are affiliate links):
Pentax 67ii: ebay.us/GaK9Kp
Pentax 67 105 f2.4: ebay.us/m5PTvK
Kodak TMAX 400: ebay.us/vaO32Z
My '35mm Film Photography Course' on Skillshare (FREE with this link): skl.sh/2JrGhFs
Videos on this channel are filmed using the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6K: bhpho.to/2SWPBqO
And the Fuji X-T4: bhpho.to/3n91yYk
My go-to for music (FREE Trial with this link): bit.ly/35aQELa
►GEAR(*these are affiliate links):
My go-to medium format camera: ebay.us/GaK9Kp
My FAVOURITE medium format lens: ebay.us/m5PTvK
My favourite 35mm film camera: ebay.us/82WyVI
My favourite 35mm film lens: ebay.us/u0V817
The BEST medium format travel camera: ebay.us/FVcfWk
The film scanner that I use for my work: ebay.us/RwKM4c
Best entry-level film scanner: ebay.us/Qp3ZEz
The film camera that started it all for me: ebay.us/qewXkD
My go-to light meter: ebay.us/QIFXF0
My favourite film stock: ebay.us/orbudp
My favourite 645 medium format film camera: ebay.us/ydY4HK
Awesome strap for large cameras: ebay.us/pY8mV2
Rope style strap for smaller cameras (cheap but great!): amzn.to/33hrRDO
Camera I use to film my videos: bhpho.to/3gY9yak
Camera that I use for vlogging: bhpho.to/3n91yYk
The gear I use for TH-cam: bit.ly/3j5vd1L
My favourite film cameras: bit.ly/3hm6MN6
Essential film photography accessories: bit.ly/34o3Uvt
→Instagram: bit.ly/2GuYV21
→Website: kmcdougall.com
→Podcast:
..................................
DISCLAIMER
Some of the links above are affiliate links, where I earn a small commission if you click on the link and purchase an item. The money I earn helps me make this type of content consistently.
![คุณอาเรียโต๊ะข้างๆ พูดรัสเซียหวานใส่ซะหัวใจจะวาย ตอนที่ 2 [ซับไทย] 【Ani-One Thailand】](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kbbfYakMY8k/mqdefault.jpg)
TMax 100 is no different. Was messing around on my last shot and overexposed 7 stops for fun. Turned out fine. Incredible amount of latitude and even lower grain. Chef’s kiss.
It’s definitely impressive. Really enjoying this film so far. Gotta grab some 100 and try it out!
Tmax 100 is my favorite film stock. Those deep blacks, and creamy smooth whites and highlights pulled me in. And then the film stock +/- 3 stops it doesn't matter, handles it all so well. Not to mention I personally think the tonal range rendering is better than Tri-X, even though I know people don't agree with that. (aka Platon haha)
Hi I am still to over exposed film. I shot my friends portraits with tmax 100 and Extar 100 today. I normally push films for my abstract. How about portraits? How much can I push 100 film none and colour? Tri max push to 800 and extar push to 400 is ok?
It would be interesting to see the negatives or a contact sheet. It's hard to understand what a scanner is doing behind the scenes.
Three stop under is a pretty severe underexposure, the shadows should sit pretty close to the film toe, however small it may be, they should be quite compressed.
Exactly - these tests are great but it’s impossible to tell how they actually look without being able to download the files. Plus seeing the negs on a light table beside each other would help to show relative to each other what is going on.
TMAX 400 is probably the technically best 400 film. I especially like the look of TMAX 400 in XTOL 1+1.
Yep, and super convenient workflow too.
Pull dev out to two stops requires no adjustments. Push out to three stops increases dev time by a couple of minutes as I recall.
TMY2 and Xtol are made for each other.
love these videos testing the exposure limits of films. hopefully, Begger pancro 400 is on the list next.
my favorite too! especially in 120
Great to know the limits of flexibility of B&W and how easy it is to still recover a normal picture from these extreme ranges. Also, it is nice to know you can kick up the shutter speed in a pinch and still rely on getting a good image.
I know TMax 400 isn't the most popular, but personally I appreciate it's latitude.
Keep up the work, loving the vids from the uk.
Cheers Sam!
One of my favourite films actually :).
Amazing! I’m almost done with my first roll.
Great job on this review kyle, in my review of this film I was also perplexed as to why so many people dislike T-Maxx because I never had exposure or scanning issues. I actually think this film is mandatory for 35 mm if you want to get the most detail. For medium format it looked almost exactly like digital for me though so it's important to factor that in for your needs
Thanks! Yeah, everyone will have their own preferences when it comes to these bw stocks. I’m loving TMAX so far and feel like it had just the right amount of character for me.
Tbh I like 3 stops under with the edits the most. It was the most contrasty and punchy and it suits this photo amazingly :)
Thanks for the great information!
Cheers.
I used the Kodak TMAX400 120 film for many years, I shot it at 200 ASA/ISO and developed it in a thin solution for a long time with very few and very gently agitations, in that way the film had more grey tones and had still very good contrast, in modern words, larger dynamic range. I guess you can do the same with a Ilford Delta 400 film. Of paper I used Ilford Multigrade. Made great images from my 6x6 Hasselblad !
This exposure limit series is very helpful to guide me through choosing film stocks!
Please make a video where you shoot 35mm, I'm rather curious
Great tests! Also great latitude for scanning. Do keep in mind that all tmax stocks are not forgiving in the darkroom if they’re not exposed properly. It’s also tricky to have great results. That is why I feel that it’s just better to scan and print digitally to get great results easily from tmax.
Good to know. Thanks, Rodrigo!
@@KyleMcDougall You're welcome Kyle! Keep up with your videos and work, they're pretty good. Take care
Would be really cool to see a test like this done to a cheaper stock like Fomapan 200
I love this series, a test for ilford delta 400 would be cool to see against the hp5
Cheers. Glad you’re enjoying it. I’ll keep delta 400 in mind for the future.
Interesting - makes me think that when I can’t shoot at the shutter speed I want to (due to shake), I can just underexpose by 1 or even 2 stops and get a better result than trying to hold it steady and getting shake.
These are very helpful videos.
I’m actually quite surprised at how little subtle changes in exposure make with all the negative films you are testing, b/w and color.
You'll probably find with your own development you can get away with a lot more "off" exposures were B&W if you do compensating development. Ansel Adams was a big fan of setting his shadow one stop higher than normal for shadow placement and then using compensating development w/ HC110.
The extreme side of the being stand development. I recently did stand dev testing with rodinal and was shocked how much shadow detail there was. Almost like a super natural looking HDR shot
Yep. I used to push and pull develop as a matter of course with TMY2 (and Xtol 1:1). The goal was to fit scene dynamic range to the desired density excursion of the developed negative. That really gave lots of tonal resolution to play with in post.
Never got around to do full stand development though. That was a bit esoteric even for me.
Thanks
I'd love to see you doing this with Delta 400 in 35mm :) I'm currently buying HP5 in bulk but would be interested in using a more modern film.
I’ll definitely keep Delta in mind for a future vid.
@@KyleMcDougall Great 👍🏻 But I guess not in 35mm, right? Btw I was quite with your findings regarding TMax 400. I always thought it wasn’t that flexible.
It is really an underated film that still suffers for the reputation it earned when Kodak realesed it in the 80's for not being as easy to handle compare to Tri-X. From what I've heard it was said to be not that flexible both during the shoot, development time/temperature and with an enlarger. Nowadays Ilford Delta 400 might bring a sharper feel to the picture but, as you showed, Tmax400 can handle underexposure in ways Delta 400 would never consider. Tmax400 is my go-to choice when I need to push a film up to 3200 iso and want a clean result, exposed properly you'll get slightly less grain than a Tri-X and nice shadow areas !
Yeah, so far I’m enjoying TMAX more than Tri-X. Both great films but I prefer the first one.
Have you given a shot at Tri-X 400? It's my go-to for black & white, looks very similar to Tmax, but to me is very much a middle-ground between Tmax and HP5
Just shot a few rolls of it and definitely enjoyed it. Not sure if I like it more than TMAX yet. Need to work with both a bit more.
Thanks for this video and the entire series on black and white film stock. Quick question: are you over and under exposing by simply pushing or pulling the stock? Or, are you adjusting other things?
I also wonder how you meter. Do you have a video on your method to meter light?
Hey John, the under and over exposure is by simply adjusting the shutter speed. No pushing or pulling. Metering all depends on the scene. For a simple scene like this, the internal center weighted meter on the Pentax was used, and I also checked with a Sekonic L-558R.
@@KyleMcDougall thanks for the reply!
Bro. I very much appreciate your film latitude tests. I can not right now afford many films to test like this. This info is super handy for choosing film on a limited budget. Cheers
Nice video sir! I have a question! When I over my whole roll for 1 stop. Should I use less time when developing it or just use normal time and use lightroom(or anything) to minus 1 stop exposure？
Just develop as normal. At one stop over, the compensation will be made by your scanning software.
@@KyleMcDougall Thank you!
T-Max 100/400 for sharp & punchy, but give Ilford FP4 a try for that classic creamy b&w look.
Can you test delta 400? I shot it a few times and I really like the grain style of it but I shot some tmax 400 recently and liked it a lot too.
For sure. I'll keep it in mind for the future.
This is great. I wonder how Tmax 400 compares to Delta400, same style of film but a lot cheaper. Delta 400 is my favourite black and white but this looks really good as well.
I’d be curious as well. Have only shot one roll of Delta!
What developer did the lab use to develop your Tmax 400 film? I hazard to say that, unlike C-41 color negative, black and white films will respond differently to over and underexposure if a different developer is used. While I've heard that Tmax developer really makes the Tmax films sing, I've had spectacular results at home developing with HC-110. Using Rodinal to develop Tmax film resulted in a super sharp image, but with more grain. I'd think you'd want to know how the lab processes your B&W since results can vary greatly with different developer.
He literally says in the video which lab was used.
@@mrottomaddox the lab used to develop film is not the same as which chemical developer was used to develop the film.
Developer was mentioned in the video as well. It was XTOL.
Try Xtol with this film. You should see better results than HC-110. TMY2 and Xtol were made for each other.
I understand that HC-110 is inexpensive and convenient. However, there’s really no free lunch.
The trick with a Xtol workflow is get the large mylar one gallon coffee bladder from your local Starbucks. That’ll let you mix in bulk, draw out just the right amount when needed. Push down on the bladder to evacuate air as you draw down to keep the remainder from oxidizing.
@@RobertLeeAtYT Thanks for the info. However, I use both Rodinal and HC-110 specifically because they fit my workflow. I don't shoot or develop enough black and white film to justify mixing up larger volumes of developers. I like using HC-110 and Rodinal as one-shot developers because the concentrate is shelf stable for years.
If you darkroom print EI 800 looks identical on fiber paper, compared to Ei 400. It’s also cheaper than Tri x
I’m a little confused why the underexposed images have their histograms moved to the right and their darkest values are actually lighter than the less underexposed ones? What is the scanner doing there? Seems like it’s assigning the brightest areas it finds (darkest on the negative) to pure white in the output file? Naively I would assume black (transparent on the negative) would have zero brightness in the resulting file. Doesn’t seem to be what the process ends up with. Any thoughts?
Kodak acts like you get a free push with tmax400 (shoot at 800 and it's the exact same) I've never personally attempted that on purpose, but looks like this confirms it.
Lets a try to adox cms 20 ii...
I do not get the hate that exists for this film, it leaves room to mess up, has nice subtle grain, doesn't require too much faffing around in edit. I guess its cardinal sin is that it isn't HP5 or Tri-X
so did the lab push / pull while developing or they developed it as 400?
developed as 400
I actually find that Tmax 400 gets a bad rap. I love the punch and contrast, great blacks. I use it for street shots all the time!
Yeah, I'm really enjoying. As mentioned, my current favourite.
@@KyleMcDougall Same here brother!
overexposed Tmax 400 +6 over
*in jeremy clarksons voice*
“OH NO,
ANYWAY”
😂
😂
Would love to see TMAX 3200
Where abouts did you shoot looks like Kent uk
This was near Reading.
@@KyleMcDougall oh bloody hell looks like Kent 🤣🤣🤣 stunning photography kyle
Man, I never knew that TMax 400 could take such abuse. I'm assuming that no adjustments were made in development?
Hey Alex, nope, no adjustments during development. I was impressed as well.
What about TX400?
I shoot an entire roll of it at 200 ISO, shall I develop it at 400 or 200?
Have anyone ever tried?
Is that an Evo 4 I spy?
Haha, seriously, good eye!
Who gives Kyle a thumbs down? 🤨
People who like to push their BW film .
@@KBRC81 🤦🏼♂️
@@sharonleibel 😆
Not sure I get this test. Are all the negs from the same roll? So it’s not that you rated the roll different than it’s nominal ISO speed, but you actually took pictures overexposing and underexposing? If that’s the case, and the lab developed the roll for an ISO speed of 400. Then the results could actually loo even better if one exposes the whole role for certain ISO and compensates in the development....
Compensating in development adjusts contrast in the same way that was done here in lightroom. I doubt there would be that much difference.
Yeah, you got it. The film was developed at box speed.
I have NO interests in your scans. I make bayrta enlargements mostly on Ilford GRADED papers. This BS about "exposure latitude" is just that, BS! For any given subject, lighting and contrast situation, there is ONE CORRECT exposure, ONE CORRECT Development time, and ONE CORRECT Print contrast. This is called THE ZONE SYSTEM! It works. Real-life says if you miss the PERFECT exposure by about 1/3rd of a stop, it USUALLY will yield a PRINTABLE negative, IF the lighting contrast isn't too high. The "spray and pray" attitude that has over-taken 21st Century image makers is very disturbing to me, especially if they are using film. I learned in the 1950's with a 4x5 press camera and film emulsions with NO latitude, and I was expected to take out four sheets of film and come back with three (or more) saleable images-no excuses. The customer DIDN'T CARE "WHY"! Today I sell 99.5% 4x5 and 8x10 color transparencies with NO exposure or color correction possible of products. I'm "retired", nearly 70 and could gross 8 figures if I wanted to work 90 hours a week, after 4 strokes where I've had to teach myself to walk, feed myself, talk, etc. I process EVERYTHING I sell in-house.