Tmax 100 versus APX 100

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Matthew McGrattan, Mar 29, 2005.

  1. I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50
    asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100.

    Would people recommend Tmax 100 or Agfa APX at the same speed?

    I'll probably be using Rodinal initially but I'm open to other
    developer suggestions.

    Any other 100 asa brand that people like -- some of the smaller ones
    like Foma, Efke or Maco?

    Matt
     
    Matthew McGrattan, Mar 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Matthew McGrattan

    UC Guest

    1) I would NOT use Rodinal. D-76 1:1 is just fine

    2) Ilford FP4 Plus or Delta 100 are probably easier to work with
     
    UC, Mar 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. You did say what size film you will be using.

    When I was shooting mostly 35mm, I was using mostly Tri-X, and found
    Rodinal too grainy for my taste. For a film like that, I found D-76d and
    HC-110 (dilution B) to be about the best.

    When the TMax films came out, I tried a lot of different developers (but
    not Rodinal), and found that TMax-RS developer was the best for that,
    but that D-76d was good too. My preference at the moment is XTol
    developer 1+1 for it.

    I never used APX 100, so I would not know about that. But I like TMax
    100 and TMax 400 a lot because of their very straight D/H curves,
    especially wnen developped in XTol 1+1. Some people do not like straight
    D/H curves because you must be more careful to give proper exposure.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Mar 29, 2005
    #3
  4. I'll largely be using 35mm although I do shoot 120. However, 120 I
    usually have processed by a lab rather than doing it myself.

    Matt
     
    Matthew McGrattan, Mar 29, 2005
    #4
  5. Matthew McGrattan

    Jan T Guest

    This might be just a matter of taste - degustibus et coloribus, you
    know... - but I don't like TMX. It seems to me that it's mathematically
    straight curve (although this is a techical exploit of Kodak!) makes my
    prints look flat, especially in skin tones. APX is old technology film, more
    grain, less sharp, but charming, say impressive for landscape and
    portraiture. I develop in D-76 1+1 wich is, as stated in other replies, a
    good combo... again: to my taste. BTW, I use it in 35mm.

    Jan



    "Matthew McGrattan" <> schreef in bericht
    | I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50
    | asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100.
    |
    | Would people recommend Tmax 100 or Agfa APX at the same speed?
    |
    | I'll probably be using Rodinal initially but I'm open to other
    | developer suggestions.
    |
    | Any other 100 asa brand that people like -- some of the smaller ones
    | like Foma, Efke or Maco?
    |
    | Matt
    |
     
    Jan T, Mar 29, 2005
    #5
  6. Just develop to a higher contrast to increase contrast in the skin
    tones. Be sure you expose correctly because underexposure will quickly
    lose you shadow detail. Unfortunately there is no escaping calibrating
    your exposure and development to match your enlarging system and paper.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Mar 29, 2005
    #6
  7. Matthew McGrattan

    jjs Guest

    Under what circumstances do you photograph and what outcomes do you want?

    Tm films are super fine-grain but have a completely different character than
    APX 100. I shoot a lot of APX 100 on 120 (6x6, 6x9 and 6x12) and use
    strictly Rodinal 1:50 to 1:200. The grain is apparent, but enhances acutance
    quite nicely. Tmax, on the other hand, does not respond well to alternative
    dilutions, temperatures and times - IMHO.
     
    jjs, Mar 29, 2005
    #7
  8. I just shoot for myself mostly. Walking around shots -- buildings,
    people, whatever. The occasional portrait of family or friends.

    I quite like the look I get from, say Pan-F+, but I would like an
    extra stop or two of speed as I find that on dull days I can't really
    shoot Pan-F+ handheld (especially with a filter on the camera).

    I use 6x6 a fair bit in a TLR but the stuff I develop myself -- which
    is a relatively new thing for me -- is 35mm.

    So the film recommendation would mostly be for a film used in a 35mm
    camera -- both a rangefinder and an old SLR.

    I quite like the 'classic' look so the APX sounds attractive.

    Matt
     
    Matthew McGrattan, Mar 29, 2005
    #8
  9. Matthew McGrattan

    UC Guest

    The AGFA emulsions are rather grainy compared to the competition.

    FP4 Plus is decidely better.
     
    UC, Mar 29, 2005
    #9
  10. Matthew McGrattan

    jjs Guest

    Of course I cannot see what a dull day is to you, but if the light is flat
    and the sky is not in the picture, consider rating the film a half stop
    faster and extend development. It might work out for you. You probably won't
    need a filter, either. But like I said, I can't see the case at hand. (I'm
    imaging the work I did in Oxford, England. A lot of stone structures,
    people, bright overcast.) Keep in mind that with objects close to infinity,
    shooting just one or two stops down from wide-open usually achieves better
    outcomes than stopping further. Handheld 35mm becomes more possible.
    For APX100 in 35mm I would look to D76 1 instead of Rodinal.
     
    jjs, Mar 29, 2005
    #10
  11. Matthew McGrattan

    Peter Irwin Guest

    I like both films. I use Tmax-100 for 6x6 when I want really
    fine grain. Until I tried Xtol 1:1, I wasn't very happy with
    the low apparent sharpness despite the obviously high resolution and
    fine grain.

    APX 100 does not have particularly fine grain for its speed.
    I've bought quite a bit of it because it is cheaper than its competitors
    in Canadian stores.
    I'd strongly suggest Xtol for TMX.
    Maco PO-100 is amazing stuff. It is orthochromatic (insensitive to red)
    and very fine grained. You have to be extra-careful with the temperature
    of your wash water because it will reticulate. The back coating seems
    more sensitive to warm washing water than the emulsion side.

    Lucky SHD-100 is also worth a try. It is surprisingly fine grained
    for a communist film. It also comes in really good quality re-usable
    cartridges.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, Mar 29, 2005
    #11
  12. yeah, I'm shooting in Oxford so it's the sort of thing you are
    thinking off. Bright overcast, with occasional dark and rainy.

    This sort of thing:

    http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/table_tennis.jpg

    or

    http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/logic_lane.jpg

    or

    http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/cornfield_radley.jpg

    These are all using faster (400) or slower (50) films.

    I quite often have a red or orange filter on the camera so with iso 50
    film that can mean an effective speed of as little as iso 12.5 --
    which is hand holdable when the light is good but when it's dull I
    have to open the camera right up.

    So, a 100 iso film OR a 400 under-rated a bit to 200 or 320 is what
    I'm looking for.

    Matt
     
    Matthew McGrattan, Mar 29, 2005
    #12
  13. Matthew McGrattan

    Tom Phillips Guest

    APX 100 is a nice film, but 35mm will be a bit too grainy
    IMO if developed in Rodinal. I use TMX in Rodinal but only
    in 4x5. Of course if grain is the effect you want then
    rodinal with APX is the combination to use. But for either
    TMX or APX 35mm I'd probably use D76 or even Microdol-X.

    The difference between TMX and APX is APX is a traditional
    b&w film with a definite shoulder. TMX simply has no
    shoulder. I used to prefer APX when it came in ISO 25
    but it isn't available in 4x5 anymore.
     
    Tom Phillips, Mar 29, 2005
    #13
  14. Matthew McGrattan

    Neal Guest

    Neal, Mar 29, 2005
    #14
  15. Matthew McGrattan

    jjs Guest

    What a strange coincidence!
    Contrasty condition. I'd rate APX in Rodinal at 50 (incident) in that case.
    Similar - the sky is blasting bright - typical bright overcast. You can't
    filter that sky into the scene.
    FWIW, those filters do nothing whatsoever for the sky when it is heavily
    overcast - because there is no blue area to filter out. And red filters tend
    to increase overall contrast.
    :) Try going to a milder filter or none for bright overcast.
    I like the selective focus. Works very nicely.

    Have a pint at the Turf Tavern for me, eh?
     
    jjs, Mar 29, 2005
    #15
  16. Matthew McGrattan

    jjs Guest

    Nobody shoots to the shoulder. Toe, maybe, but not the shoulder. Chances are
    your exposures are in the straighter part of the curve anyway.
     
    jjs, Mar 29, 2005
    #16
  17. Matthew McGrattan, Mar 29, 2005
    #17
  18. Matthew McGrattan

    Tom Phillips Guest


    How would you know, troll?

    You've never even drawn a film curve, let
    let alone seen an APX shoulder...
     
    Tom Phillips, Mar 29, 2005
    #18
  19. Ad hominem? You want ad hominem?

    Apparently to T.P. all who disagree with him are "trolls", except for his
    butt-**** partner Gregory Blank.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Mar 29, 2005
    #19
  20. Matthew McGrattan

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Stafford is a troll; he's constantly trolling for
    flames. You OTOH are only a foul mouthed crossposter
    who unfortunately can't express himself except in
    pitiable obscene fit's of rage and insecurity.

    If either you or stafford have ever drawn (or even seen)
    an APX shoulder, I'll killfile Gregory :)
     
    Tom Phillips, Mar 29, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.