Kodak TMax 100 Black and White Film Review | All About Film

[@JM-tt4hp]

Your videos are GOLD! I truly value your hard work and selfless time to the film community.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@richardsimms251]

There is so much to learn in these individual film videos !

[@Larpy1933]

I’m hugely grateful that you’ve done all this work for us. Good luck, SIR!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@thomaspopple2291]

I really appreciate the time and effort you put into these videos. When looking at your examples I noticed that there are often light leaks and or uneven development on many of the shots. Especially on 4x5 near the edges and mostly on the stand developed images. Honestly, and not trying to be critical, but it makes me question the results. You often stress the importance of good developing and then put up examples that show developing issues. Also, when you put up the developing notes, you could put them up a bit longer. Never get to read the whole thing before it disappears. Always have to rewind and pause which makes me have to put my coffee down. Hahaha. Though I may have pointed out a few things, over all I think you do an amazing job of informing and helping keep film alive. Thank you.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! And good points, feedback, and observations. So a big part of the image quality variation stems from two things, one is how long these take to make and two is that I feel its important to show my mistakes as well as my successes so others can see real results and also learn from where I've goofed. This video has photos from as far back as 2014 in it, back when I didn't know how to replace camera light seals and my developing and digitizing were WAY sloppier. So for instance, if you see the shot at 10:16, which is, for me, the best shot in the whole video, that was taken in August 2021 with a Bronica S2A that I repaired myself to calibrate focus and replace the light seals. By comparison, the shot at 10:54 was taken sometime before September 2016 (which is when Hannah, the dog in the photo, died). I think that shot was from 2014. Same chemistry, much different results owing to developing and digitizing skill. I also want everyone who watches these to see that all photographers mess up and I want everyone who through-watches to see photos that they look at and say 'I can do better than that,' 'I can take a photo that good,' and 'I hope someday I can take a photo that good,' all in the same video. For this one and Delta 100 I gave thought to cutting every photo I took more than three years ago, which would have gotten rid of most of the problematic images in here, but also about 10-16 of the developer combinations. Ultimately, I decided not to because I don't want to hide my mistakes and learning curve from anyone. I think it's an important part of teaching to let people see I've made my mistakes, too, and that a big part of why I focus on process and technique for these things is because it has cost me money and I've had bad results. I need to own that or I'm not doing anyone any favors. It probably would help if I had a means of indicating when I took each photo, but at some point the data I'd have to transcribe would be too burdensome. And you are spot-on with the 4X5 observation. This was the first film I really used on 4X5 back when I had an Anniversary Graphic I had repaired myself (new bellows, shutter timing adjustment) and it was never quite perfect, and the Dallmeyer Pentac that I used a lot for those is VERY soft. When the Delta 100 video goes live in April it shows that my 4X5 has gotten better but that I'm still struggling with 8X10 developing. (That owes to recycling my old Nikkor 4X5 reel and replacing it with two B&W King reels and tanks which are way better at even developing.) I was stunned how much of a learning curve 4X5 was from roll film, and then taking up 8X10 it was like I had never done anything in the dark room all over again. There is some VERY uneven development on some of the huge sheets for that video. And good call on the data screens. The Delta 100 video is already uploaded so that'll still have the five-second screens, but I can make then ten going forward, which at least is time enough to pause. And thank you again!

[@thomaspopple2291]

@@DavidHancock We watch these videos and think we have an idea of the time and effort it takes to produce them. I thought I did. I was wrong. Thank you for explaining. If I were to show my first tries at developing roll or sheet film they would me much worse than yours. Thanks again. Really get a lot from your channel.

[@wanderpup]

Thank you for putting the music play list in the description. I'd been Shazamming with haphazard success because i'm loving the music selection

[@DavidHancock]

Absolutely. The artists deserve credit for their work, too. All my music comes from Epidemic Sounds if you're looking to find the source.

[@jimpurcell]

Very helpful! Thanks. Your legwork saves us lots of time!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@MrRom92DAW]

Tmax 100+Xtol is maybe my favorite combination. Unfortunately I don’t shoot nearly enough film to make mixing/using Xtol at home a feasible option. Nor a scanning solution that can take advantage of such great negatives

[@HalidesAndHollowness]

Thank you for all the time, effort and money you have to be spending to make these. First time I ever understood characteristic curves and spectral sensitivities was through your videos! I would be so happy to see one of these videos on Ilford Delta 400.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! Delta 400 will happen, but it's not on the short list. Next up is Delta 100 (I'm working on the script this week) and then a couple of others, then almost for certain ShangHai 100 and Portra 800.

[@shelliecarlson7015]

I bought, I think, 17 rolls of expired 100TMAX in 35mm, a while back and fell in love with it. Now I have lots. In both 35mm and 120. Great video and photos. Thanks.

[@DavidHancock]

Nice stockpile and thank you!

[@ikorin]

Monday morning… coffee and amazing content. Thank you, David!!!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Igor!

[@josephhagins4631]

Yes! Great video. This is exactly why I’ve been shooting Tmax100 for the past 18 years.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@marcosviniciod1830]

Thankful! Lots of totally useful information and some great photos! Bravo!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@jw48335]

Fantastic work sir! I hadn't seen the latest sheet with 200lp/mm. I think I'll test that out - I've been itching for an excuse to rent a Sigma 105mm and an Art 40mm, and those two lenses exceed that film spec. Cheers!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@SplicesAndCelluloid]

I've been blown away with my TMax 100 results. Scans come out on point, with amazing detail and downright beautiful images. This film really shines in the darkroom though. Enlarging from 35mm to 8x10 yields still invisible grain, even under a focuser. I don't have any bigger paper to print onto, but I can imagine there's an incredible amount of enlarging capability there.

[@DavidHancock]

It's incredible for enlarging. I blew up a 35mm to 11X14 some years ago and it looked fine. I can't even imagine what 4X5 can enlarge to. I want to get this in 8X10 just to make contact prints some day.

[@SplicesAndCelluloid]

​@@DavidHancock I can't imagine how much detail large format TMax 100 can store, but I'm sure it's just plain insane. 8x10 contact print would be bonkers.

[@KeithHodgkinson]

Great work which is in depth and well conveyed.Time consuming I'm sure.The joy here is the large amount of fine images displayed.Thank you.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@Red-Ox-Films]

I'm surprised to find no Kodak X-tol developer on a list. In my testing, X-tol unlocked T-max to the most dynamic range and to the finest grain ever. I could not achieve the same with D-76, except when paired with Ultrafine Extreme 400. Other than that, excellent work as always!

[@DavidHancock]

I haven't used a lot of XTOL yet. I do have some to mix up for the next batches of films. The problem has always been that I use distilled water jugs for the water and the mixed stock solution storage. I just bought a five-liter jug so that I can use XTOL in the future. It is a big gap when it isn't there.

[@mrca2004]

Or learn to photo for shadows then develop for highlights. eg. shoot this at 80 iso to ensure detail in the shadows then cut development 15% to protect highlights. The resulting scan will allow you room to pull down shadows that have information and brighten highlights that have detail as well.

[@DavidHancock]

Good tip! Thank you.

[@terrywbreedlove]

Started shooting Tmax 100 when it first arrived on store shelves about 1988 or so i think. We had our second daughter the year before and bought a Minolta x700 to capture her and her sis playing and needed some film :). My most favorite landscape and still life B&W film by far. TRI-X 400 contrast and grain competing in a different way for portraits and street.

[@DavidHancock]

Definitely yes, very different from Tri-X. I think that the new TMax is also a much better product than the original, IIRC.

[@ikorin]

David, How do you feel about xtol developer for tmax 100?

[@DavidHancock]

I'm not sure because I didn't get to use it. I do tend to think that modern Kodak chemistry will work well with modern Kodak film, as a general statement.

[@wietseveen3615]

Will there be an video about agfa apx 100? The films is intresting and with this great video format I’m super interested in what the film is all about.

[@DavidHancock]

Unfortunately no because it's discontinued. I think my old Silvermax video is as close as I'll get to APX 100.

[@wietseveen3615]

@@DavidHancock what… thats so sad… need to buy some bulk rolls then know they are still somewhere in stock

[@DavidHancock]

@@wietseveen3615 I goofed. I forgot that APX was re-released. I was thinking of the APX that way discontinued in 2006. The modern APX 100 stock is apparently rebadged Kentmere, according to the Internet. If so, I'll eventually review Kentmere 100, yes.

[@wietseveen3615]

@@DavidHancock about Black an White photography. There is a technique I heard form a friend that they brought only B&W film to the north pole. But still made color photos with the use of color filters. I like te sound of that but maybe its a nice subject for a video? Like to know more about it and your way of teaching is allways so good. Can go on the internet and find it myself but when color seems to get moge expensive its maybe an nice option to cover de basics and the how to’s ?

[@DavidHancock]

I've tried that technique. It's hard to do. Basically, it's a type of color separation where they take three photos, one each with an RGB filter, and then process the negatives normally but print using a three-color process with each negative being a different color (I forget if it's the same or opposite of the filter color. I think there is also a fourth negative for black tones in the images. It's very hard to do well.

[@RickScheibner]

David, I think you had some similar results when using color filters with the Kentmere 400. Was it the same batch of filters?

[@DavidHancock]

Yes. I ordered a new set but they perform pretty much the same way. So I need to do dinner A-B testing with those and my orange and yellow B+W filters.

[@DavidHancock]

Also, the next video will have samples taken with the replacement filter and the results are modestly better.

[@andrewsmithphoto]

Have you ever used Ultrafine extreme? I feel the 100 speed is extremely underrated.

[@DavidHancock]

I have, both 100 and 400, and it's great. I believe that it's been discontinued and replaced with Finesse, however.

[@gavinjenkins899]

How do you not have a super XP2 400 video? It's an insanely good black and white film if you haven't tried it or not much. I don't have technical measuring tools, but it seems to have about 3-4 stops more latitude than any other B&W film I've shot and has a 100 (or less) ISO sized grain at 400. Only when actually processed in C41, the dye cloud gives it most of these abilities. It's OK in B&W chemistry, just sort of a more expensive/weird Delta 400, though, C41 is what it's about.

[@DavidHancock]

Good question and I will someday. XP2 is a great film. The big hurdles with this series' videos are time and cost. For instance, my recent Astrum FN-64 video was the cheapest All About Film I've made -- ten rolls ($150-ish) and developer for them (probably about $15 on the high side) and then the time to take, develop, scan, and edit the film means that it took me about 14 months to make that that video. This one for TMax 100 took multiple years and I would wild-guess around $750 in film and developer. My Portra 400 video that comes out tomorrow also took years and, as a rough estimate, about $1,000 in film and around another $1,200-1,500 in lab fees plus another few hundred in shipping costs to send the negatives to and from the lab. And then the time needed to take all the shots and scan and edit. When each of these go live, they represent an investment of between, typically, $500 and $2,000 on my part plus the time to take and handle all the images. If I applied my salary on an hourly rate to the time I spend on these (not a fair thing to do, but for argument sake) then these videos would cost about as much as used car. They're the number one draw for views and subscribers on this channel, but none of them will ever recoup the resources needed to create them. If I could make one of these a month, I would do that in a heartbeat, and I would schedule everything else on the channel around their releases, but I just don't have the time and money for that. One of the main goals with these videos is to use the films in as many different seasons and with different lighting as possible, and also with different subjects, to show how they perform across different settings and developers. I don't want to be one of the KZbinrs who grabs one or maybe two rolls of film, shoots it all in one day, and then makes broad proclamations about whether it's good or not. XP2 is a film I get asked to do often, but it's a LONG way off because I'm trying to split up my annual All About Film video releases among different film makers. For instance, this year I still have Kentmere 100, ProImage 100, SX-70 Color, Tri-X320, RPX25, and Astrum 200 (this year is Kodak-heavy so that I can focus on other makers next year.) Next year I'm planning Adox CHS II 100, Foma 320, Harman Direct Positive Paper, Delta 400, Ilford Ortho 80, TMax 400, Fanotme 8, and then a general video on paper negatives. Getting enough photos for all of this and next years' photos done is just going to be a huge task as it is and I picked the 2024 and 2025 lineups based on which videos were furthest along. XP2 is currently on the docket to be part of the Class of 2026, which is a long way off, I know, but probably as early as feasible for me without making some serious compromises on the quality of these videos.

[@gavinjenkins899]

@@DavidHancock Oh wow thank you for the extremely detailed response. If it helps, your videos here are way more useful than Ansel Adams's books were in helping understand and handle different film stocks. Looking forward to all the new ones covered.

[@dubstepvibe9234]

can you please explain the Fujifilm Neopan Across II (/ilford lol)?

[@DavidHancock]

What do you mean? Like how Ilford is apparently making Across II?

[@dubstepvibe9234]

@@DavidHancock I would love to hear your take as you do the other films and test it with different developers 😅 really appreciate the work you do!

[@DavidHancock]

@@dubstepvibe9234 Thank you and it's in the works, but still a while away.

[@Jerry10939]

It’s one of my favorite films to use.

[@DavidHancock]

It's a great stock.

[@ivaa7777JAWA]

Great video

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@PillayAllRounders]

Hi from South African vloggers 🇿🇦 😀 ❤️ 🌍 ...

[@DavidHancock]

Hello!

[@VariTimo]

Why would anyone choose this film over Fuji Acros II for any artistic work?

[@DavidHancock]

It's a different aesthetic. Across has a much different look than TMax.

[@brycepinson8641]

In addition to David's reply, is that Acros II is not available in sheet sizes.

[@charleseliason4694]

Personal and artistic preferences, personal style, artistic vision, all reasons to choose whichever medium or media one may wish to follow.

[@zabtej1645]

Try printing it, it's horrible (if you're printing casually in small size). The curve looks like when you go into lightroom and fuck it up really bad. The very bottom of the curve makes for a very unnatural feel in the image. It's really sharp, but at the same time you struggle to see what's on the image. It doesn't add up. In studio it must be awesome but for general use this is a horrible film. And for scanning, well you can save it, if you want.

[@DavidHancock]

I had mixed results printing this to paper. It depended on the paper, the age of the chemistry, and if I was using any filtration on the light. TMax, like many film stocks to be fair, works better or worse in a traditional darkroom setup with different materials.

[@zabtej1645]

@@DavidHancock Yes, totally, if you specialise and or print large, this film can print awesome. I think it is best for very controlled exposures where you place every value intentionally.

[@Jerry10939]

I prefer old school printing, not digital.

[@DavidHancock]

Yeah, film to prints can yield so much more image detail and tone. There's something very relaxing about the process and science of printing.

[@Notmy00000]

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍