Author Topic: The Return of Kodak TMAX 3200!!! (Read 2908 times)

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

Pretty exciting!!!

Francois · « **Reply #1 on:** February 23, 2018, 10:31:50 PM »

That's because for some reason it's being discussed here
http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8989.msg128428#msg128428

But I agree, it's really exciting

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2018, 10:33:44 PM »

It can be pushed to ISO 25000. My camera only goes up to 6400...

Faintandfuzzy · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2018, 07:09:42 AM »

I always loved P3200...rated at 3200, processed for 6400. Grain...is good!

Blaxton · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2018, 12:25:13 PM »

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.

Francois · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2018, 02:23:38 PM »

Quote from: MiguelCampano on February 23, 2018, 10:33:44 PM

It can be pushed to ISO 25000. My camera only goes up to 6400...

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.

imagesfrugales · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2018, 07:35:06 AM »

Quote from: Blaxton on February 24, 2018, 12:25:13 PM

... 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:

TMax 3200 comes back !!! by Imagesfrugales, on Flickr

Indofunk · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2018, 08:55:49 PM »

Quote from: Blaxton on February 24, 2018, 12:25:13 PM

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

Francois · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2018, 09:39:22 PM »

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.

Blaxton · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2018, 09:58:17 PM »

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 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...

EarlJam · « **Reply #10 on:** February 28, 2018, 05:22:49 PM »

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

Francois · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2018, 09:02:36 PM »

Pretty interesting and right on with my experience of the film... though I never had a chance to test it with multiple enlargers.

Faintandfuzzy · « **Reply #12 on:** March 01, 2018, 03:35:56 AM »

Quote from: Indofunk on February 25, 2018, 08:55:49 PM

Quote from: Blaxton on February 24, 2018, 12:25:13 PM
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

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

Faintandfuzzy · « **Reply #13 on:** March 01, 2018, 03:40:56 AM »

Quote from: EarlJam on February 28, 2018, 05:22:49 PM

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

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.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #14 on:** March 01, 2018, 12:41:00 PM »

btw, anyone shot the old Royal-X pan? Seems like a fun film

_MG_0140 by Clay Williams, on Flickr

ISO 1250.
another box photo from a later(?) iteration https://www.flickr.com/photos/48999929@N03/20181829189/

Jeff Warden · « **Reply #15 on:** March 01, 2018, 06:51:23 PM »

Quote from: Faintandfuzzy on March 01, 2018, 03:40:56 AM

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.

EarlJam · « **Reply #16 on:** March 03, 2018, 02:29:06 PM »

Kodak Alaris has posted the data sheet for TMAX 3200.

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/F4001.pdf

gothamtomato · « **Reply #17 on:** March 08, 2018, 03:17:54 AM »

Quote from: Blaxton on February 24, 2018, 12:25:13 PM

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.

Francois · « **Reply #18 on:** March 08, 2018, 03:04:56 PM »

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.

Faintandfuzzy · « **Reply #19 on:** March 08, 2018, 11:23:13 PM »

Quote from: jojonas~ on March 01, 2018, 12:41:00 PM

btw, anyone shot the old Royal-X pan? Seems like a fun film

_MG_0140 by Clay Williams, on Flickr

ISO 1250.
another box photo from a later(?) iteration 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.

Francois · « **Reply #20 on:** March 09, 2018, 02:30:11 PM »

That was a fast film. I remember reading that it was a staple of all good photojournalist's bag.

imagesfrugales · « **Reply #21 on:** March 23, 2018, 10:03:28 PM »

Just ordered some :-)))
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme/kodak-t-max-p-3200-kleinbildfilm-tmz.html

AJShepherd · « **Reply #22 on:** March 24, 2018, 12:14:48 AM »

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!

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #23 on:** March 24, 2018, 01:50:00 AM »

Ordered a couple of rolls today!