Filmwasters
Which Board? => Main Forum => Topic started by: gothamtomato on February 23, 2018, 09:55:48 PM
-
I looked down the list of posts and didn't see anyone had posted this news https://www.facebook.com/kodakprofessional/?hc_ref=ARTxHiBAc1pWyEwnG4Eu6LSA_LSprQ2CHX9JcdcSLgmhRVtjfpDV3NBWQYqNMr2Ibb4&fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/kodakprofessional/?hc_ref=ARTxHiBAc1pWyEwnG4Eu6LSA_LSprQ2CHX9JcdcSLgmhRVtjfpDV3NBWQYqNMr2Ibb4&fref=nf)
Pretty exciting!!! 8)
-
That's because for some reason it's being discussed here
http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8989.msg128428#msg128428 (http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8989.msg128428#msg128428)
But I agree, it's really exciting :)
-
It can be pushed to ISO 25000. My camera only goes up to 6400... :D
-
I always loved P3200...rated at 3200, processed for 6400. Grain...is good!
-
It has been a long time but I vaguely remember reading an article in one of the popular photo magazines, back in the day, about how little actual difference there was between TMAX 400 and TMAX 3200. It seemed to the author that the emulsions—when processed with TMAX Developer—behaved essentially the same way at speeds lower than 6400 and there were only very subtle differences above 6400.
Sorry not to be able to cite the source. I think the journal was Modern Photography and the article came out when TMAX 3200 film was fairly new.
-
It can be pushed to ISO 25000. My camera only goes up to 6400... :D
I've actually seen a picture in the Kodak documentation that was taken at a whopping EI 50,000.
And while the tonal range wasn't the best, it still was surprisingly good.
-
... how little actual difference there was between TMAX 400 and TMAX 3200. It seemed to the author that the emulsions ... behaved essentially the same way at speeds lower than 6400.
I can't follow this report. I used quite a lot of TMax 400 and some 3200. The grain structure is totally different imo. The grain of the 400 is almost invisible where the 3200 shows an impressive grain which is hardly to be overlooked. Assumed that the 3200 is not violated in an ultra fine grain dev.
I'm very glad that this great film will be available again. Grain is one of the reasons why I still waste film.
Sample of the TMax P3200 @1600 in Promicrol (Champion) 1+19:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4629/38660539480_5bec8fbc98_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21Uintw)TMax 3200 comes back !!! (https://flic.kr/p/21Uintw) by Imagesfrugales (https://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesfrugales/), on Flickr
-
It has been a long time but I vaguely remember reading an article in one of the popular photo magazines, back in the day, about how little actual difference there was between TMAX 400 and TMAX 3200. It seemed to the author that the emulsions—when processed with TMAX Developer—behaved essentially the same way at speeds lower than 6400 and there were only very subtle differences above 6400.
Sorry not to be able to cite the source. I think the journal was Modern Photography and the article came out when TMAX 3200 film was fairly new.
I've always suspected (with absolutely no evidence to support it) that all the 3200ISO films (Kodak & Ilford) are actually just the 400 films with a really long toe. I seem to remember shooting Delta 3200 @400 and it coming out very much like Delta 400, but I may just have dreamed that ;D
-
TMZ is supposed to be an 800 ISO film with fairly low contrast and big grain to capture the most light.
Ilford Delta 3200 is said to be a bit more sensitive, though there comes a point where you can compensate for so much in development that in the end it doesn't really matter much.
-
I noticed that there have been very few citations of Youtube videos on this site. I hope that I am not violating some unstated rule by suggesting this video of a very enthusiastic review of TMZ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sXod9hlFOw&t=1s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sXod9hlFOw&t=1s) I noted that the video praised the unique grain of TMZ, echoing Reinhold's and other's comments.
I can see a roll or two of TMZ in my not-too-distant future...
-
Mike Johnston of The Online Photographer posted a history and usage summary for this film. It's an interesting read from someone who was apparently a beta tester for the emulsion when it was first coming to market. See https://tinyurl.com/y9dfrc92 (https://tinyurl.com/y9dfrc92)
-
Pretty interesting and right on with my experience of the film... though I never had a chance to test it with multiple enlargers.
-
It has been a long time but I vaguely remember reading an article in one of the popular photo magazines, back in the day, about how little actual difference there was between TMAX 400 and TMAX 3200. It seemed to the author that the emulsions—when processed with TMAX Developer—behaved essentially the same way at speeds lower than 6400 and there were only very subtle differences above 6400.
Sorry not to be able to cite the source. I think the journal was Modern Photography and the article came out when TMAX 3200 film was fairly new.
I've always suspected (with absolutely no evidence to support it) that all the 3200ISO films (Kodak & Ilford) are actually just the 400 films with a really long toe. I seem to remember shooting Delta 3200 @400 and it coming out very much like Delta 400, but I may just have dreamed that ;D
Kodak states that P3200 is a low contrast film that depending upon developer is really an 800 or 1000 iso film designed to be pushed to 3200 with fairly normal contrast. Ilford Delta 3200 is an iso 1250 film
-
Mike Johnston of The Online Photographer posted a history and usage summary for this film. It's an interesting read from someone who was apparently a beta tester for the emulsion when it was first coming to market. See https://tinyurl.com/y9dfrc92 (https://tinyurl.com/y9dfrc92)
I would disagre completely when he says dont shoot it at ei 3200. Pure nonsense. I have processed probably a good 200 to 250 rolls lf this...at both 3200 and 6400 iso. The results are good...if you appreciate grain.
-
btw, anyone shot the old Royal-X pan? Seems like a fun film
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4113/5174063808_01ab479be6_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/8TdqUG)_MG_0140 (https://flic.kr/p/8TdqUG) by Clay Williams (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ultraclay/), on Flickr
ISO 1250.
another box photo from a later(?) iteration https://www.flickr.com/photos/48999929@N03/20181829189/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48999929@N03/20181829189/)
-
I would disagre completely when he says dont shoot it at ei 3200. Pure nonsense. I have processed probably a good 200 to 250 rolls lf this...at both 3200 and 6400 iso. The results are good...if you appreciate grain.
It was an odd recommendation, especially when another bullet point started "Beware other peoples' developer recommendations...". Just like developer recommendations, exposure recommendations are based on personal opinion, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
-
Kodak Alaris has posted the data sheet for TMAX 3200.
http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/F4001.pdf (http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/F4001.pdf)
-
It has been a long time but I vaguely remember reading an article in one of the popular photo magazines, back in the day, about how little actual difference there was between TMAX 400 and TMAX 3200. It seemed to the author that the emulsions—when processed with TMAX Developer—behaved essentially the same way at speeds lower than 6400 and there were only very subtle differences above 6400.
Sorry not to be able to cite the source. I think the journal was Modern Photography and the article came out when TMAX 3200 film was fairly new.
I don't know who wrote that, but it's totally untrue. The grain in TMAX 3200 is completely different, and it is the great graininess that is the attraction. TMAX 3200 was always my favorite for still life with shallow depth of field.
-
I must say that the grain structure on any high speed emulsion will always be different than the structure of a lower speed film that has been pushed. The contrast range possible will also be greater.
I know the time I tried it I did a bit of stage photography and was quite pleased with the results, especially since the only lens I had at the time was a 70-210mm zoom.
-
btw, anyone shot the old Royal-X pan? Seems like a fun film
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4113/5174063808_01ab479be6_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/8TdqUG)_MG_0140 (https://flic.kr/p/8TdqUG) by Clay Williams (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ultraclay/), on Flickr
ISO 1250.
another box photo from a later(?) iteration https://www.flickr.com/photos/48999929@N03/20181829189/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/48999929@N03/20181829189/)
Wonder how that compared to 2475 Recording Film. I loved that stuff. Rated at 5000 in D76...GRAINY goodness.
-
That was a fast film. I remember reading that it was a staple of all good photojournalist's bag.
-
Just ordered some :-)))
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme/kodak-t-max-p-3200-kleinbildfilm-tmz.html (https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme/kodak-t-max-p-3200-kleinbildfilm-tmz.html)
-
Got a roll on order to try out, and got a roll of Ilford Delta 3200 to compare.
That said, this year I want to shoot more colour, but I'm holding off because I'm hoping Ektachrome is going to be available Real Soon Now!
-
Ordered a couple of rolls today! ;D