T-Max CN vs. XP-2, again

[Micheal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear People,

I am new to this forum although I have occasionally posted on the camera forum. I realize this question has been hashed out a million times on this forum, but what have people found the actual differences to be? I asked this question on the camera forum on a film thread & didn't get any resposes. When T-Max CN was first introduced it appeared thin to me. It now appears that kodak has made an adjustment & their film appears denser than the past. This may be my imagination but I have had studets using it since it came out.

My real question is what physical differences are observed between the two films - shadow density, "smoothness of characteristic curve in reality", acutance, dye deposit size, etc, etc.

I have been shooting XP-2 @ ISO 300 with good results at both high magnification digitaly 35"x22" & also printing 8"x5.3" on silver based FB paper providing an excellnt tonal range.

I am really curious as to the findings. Thanks

 

Sincerely,

Michael

 

http://www.stardustgrafik.com

[Confusion Circle]

I use both Tri-X (sorry, I've never used T-Max) & XP2 on a regular basis. I shoot both @ 200 ISO with a red or yellow filter and they are quite similar with XP2 having slightly smoother tonality.

[Mikalgrass@mac.com]

Confusion Circle

 

You shoot at 200 and develop the film as if it was shot at 200 or do you develop the film normally, as if you shot it at 400? Just curious. Thanks. Mikal

[John Maio]

Confusion Circle

 

You shoot at 200 and develop the film as if it was shot at 200 or do you develop the film normally, as if you shot it at 400? Just curious. Thanks. Mikal

 

Wish someone would answer this. I just got some XP2 Super to try. Since a mini-lab will develop it, I have to believe they will process it as though it was ISO 400 unless I tell them different.

[NickR]

Shoot at 200 and process normally, or, shoot at 400 but meter for the shadows, same difference.

[haris]

Since TmaxCN is C-41 process film, it is developed like any other colour negative film, that is in any lab. No matter if that film is b/w, it is made to be processed in chemicals which are used for colour negative films, that is in C-41 process. In fact that is reason for this film to be made, to be processed it in any custom lab. Same for XP2.

 

I didn't use XP2, but TmaxCN (original version, not those two other versions), I used it with ISO 200, 400 and 800 on same role and got usable (more or less for 800) frames. My other finding is that film is for contrast lightning, that is for flash light or for very bright (harsh sunny) days. I had low contrast negatives when used it in overcast days and under tungsten lights. But, my shooting and mettering technique could be reason, not film.

 

I prefer "real" b/w films, but this film has one advantage over "normal" b/w film. That is very low grain on high ISO (400). That is main reason for using it in my case. Before I got studio lights I used construction halogen 500W lights. Under those lights I only manage to have f2,8 or f4 on ISO100 films. Since I needed atleast f8 and didn't wanted grain, I couldn't use "real" ISO 400 film (like Tmax400, TriX400 or HP5), so I used TmaxCN.

 

So, you can not "cheat" with developing this film, on whatever ISO you shoot it, you must develop it same way, that is lab will develop it in theire developing machine for colour negative films. What you can do is pay attention on mettering, like Nick already said.