T-Max P3200 returns - but is it a smart move?

I think Kodak is very keen to get an idea of how deep the residual film market truly is. Suspect you can't/won't grasp the fact that Kodak killed E-6 materials because demand cratered. Relative to b&w film, E-6 products are pricier to make, have a shorter shelf life, and now, for many, require DIY or mail order processing unless they're lucky enough to have a local surviving E-6 lab.

Well, there must be four Fuji E-6 films still in production (two Velvia and two Provia), no doubt Kodak would steal some of the customers if they released their own E-6, which is also planned for god-knows-when. But I totally agree with your point. I personally wanted to try out some slides, but overall price of "home-developing" held me back. Black and white on the other hand is quite attractive.

Assuming it is the same as the old P3200...I always rated at 3200 and processed for 3200 in daylight. Obviously had high shutter speeds and aperature around f11 and f16 all the time...but I love the grain.

got pix? hahahaha you know the saying... no pix, it never happened.

so you say it still has heavy grain in daylight situations as well?

two Velvia and two Provia

I'm only aware of three- RVP50, RVP100, and RDPIII. As best as I can tell, Provia 400X is long out of production.

I'm only aware of three- RVP50, RVP100, and RDPIII. As best as I can tell, Provia 400X is long out of production.

I was only speaking according to Fujifilm's website, never dug deep enough into Slides anyway, so most probably you are right Sir, as usual.

There is one running E6 lab in Seattle, $11/roll mounted.

I suppose a little less might have been nice, but that might be what it takes to keep a lab running.

C41 is $7.50/roll.

Interesting, E6 120 is $7.50/roll unmounted, even though the film area is about the same.

When I was in college, I did my own E6, for both the challenge of doing it, and lower cost.

I might still do some C41, but I don't expect to do E6 again.

There is one running E6 lab in Seattle, $11/roll mounted.

 

I suppose a little less might have been nice, but that might be what it takes to keep a lab running.

 

C41 is $7.50/roll.

 

Interesting, E6 120 is $7.50/roll unmounted, even though the film area is about the same.

 

When I was in college, I did my own E6, for both the challenge of doing it, and lower cost.

 

I might still do some C41, but I don't expect to do E6 again.

Accordig to my calculations, home-processing of E-6 will cots me 5$ per roll, 2.5$ per roll for C-41 and next to nothing in case of D-76. Needless to say that E-6 is pricy in terms of everything and pardon me, but I see no point in it since I'll still have to scan them (I'm aware of 'pros' of slides. Unfortunately they don't outweight their 'cons' for me). C-41 is an automated and coherent process so no need of doing it at home. BW on the other hand is indeed better done at home, it's cheap, you have more control over final result and so on.

T-max 3200 is already listed on certain websites, a tad more expensive than Delta 3200, but I've always been more of a Kodak guy, a few cents won't matter. I hope 35 mm will have enough sales to make Kodak manufacture 120.

For some years, I did mostly slides.

Then for some years, I had slide film in one camera (mine), and print film in another (wifes).

The system was slides for scenery, and prints for people (family) pictures.

(My wife and I both had Nikon FMs before we met. I had black, she had chrome, so easy to

tell apart. Before buying my FM, I had my father's Canon VI in black, that he bought when

I was one year old, and for most of the pictures when I was growing up. That was the reason

I bought the black FM.)

Otherwise, competition against Delta 3200 might be a reason to bring TMZ back.

My wife and I both had Nikon FMs before we met.

Now that's a true 'other half'. Lucky you. My spouse despises all of my gear.

Otherwise, competition against Delta 3200 might be a reason to bring TMZ back.

What bothers me is a fact of Delta 3200 being rated ISO1200 and TMZ - ISO800. I wonder if it will attain results at least similar to Delta without being pushed... Either way we'll learn soon enough. I just keep hoping for 120.

I'm mixed on this film for 120.

On one hand, given the relatively slow speed of most 120 lenses(f/2.8 is pretty standard for a "normal" prime in 645 or 6x6, and often a half stop or better slower in 6x7) a high speed film certainly has its place.

On the other hand, I shoot medium format for technical image quality, and the fastest I regularly use Tri-X at 400. My other mainstay films are FP4+ at EI 125, and then for color I use Ektar 100, Provia 100F, and Velvia 50.

Even though 120 is more forgiving in terms of grain for equivalent print sizes, as I move up in format I get even more picky about grain. I would even use TXP 320 in 4x5 if it weren't for the fact that I love the tonality I get from it-FP4+ would probably be the only B&W I'd shoot.

Still, though, I can understand the appeal of a fast film in 120-especially if you are doing ambient light in dimly lit situations-and I guess there's enough demand for Ilford to keep Delta 3200 going.

At the same time, if I want to shoot film in low light I'm a lot more content with 35mm and just living with the grain. Back in the day, I'd shoot Fuji Superia 1600 on occasion-the grain was terrible, but I still thought it looked better than most DSLRs at 1600 that were on the market at that time. Of course, that's changed-my D800 looks great at 1600 and I don't hesitate to take to 6400 if the situation dictates it. 6400 will make a more than acceptable 8x10-it doesn't really start looking bad to me until 12,800 and is absolutely terrible at 25,600.

I'm mixed on this film for 120.

 

On one hand, given the relatively slow speed of most 120 lenses(f/2.8 is pretty standard for a "normal" prime in 645 or 6x6, and often a half stop or better slower in 6x7) a high speed film certainly has its place.

 

On the other hand, I shoot medium format for technical image quality, and the fastest I regularly use Tri-X at 400. My other mainstay films are FP4+ at EI 125, and then for color I use Ektar 100, Provia 100F, and Velvia 50.

 

Even though 120 is more forgiving in terms of grain for equivalent print sizes, as I move up in format I get even more picky about grain. I would even use TXP 320 in 4x5 if it weren't for the fact that I love the tonality I get from it-FP4+ would probably be the only B&W I'd shoot.

 

Still, though, I can understand the appeal of a fast film in 120-especially if you are doing ambient light in dimly lit situations-and I guess there's enough demand for Ilford to keep Delta 3200 going.

 

At the same time, if I want to shoot film in low light I'm a lot more content with 35mm and just living with the grain. Back in the day, I'd shoot Fuji Superia 1600 on occasion-the grain was terrible, but I still thought it looked better than most DSLRs at 1600 that were on the market at that time. Of course, that's changed-my D800 looks great at 1600 and I don't hesitate to take to 6400 if the situation dictates it. 6400 will make a more than acceptable 8x10-it doesn't really start looking bad to me until 12,800 and is absolutely terrible at 25,600.

To me as a non-professional, it's just testing out something new while having a benefit of less grain than it would appear on 35 mm neg.

 

What bothers me is a fact of Delta 3200 being rated ISO1200 and TMZ - ISO800. I wonder if it will attain results at least similar to Delta without being pushed... Either way we'll learn soon enough. I just keep hoping for 120.

Seems that is is ISO 1000 it T-Max developer, and then rounded to 800.

Delta 3200 might be 1100 rounded to 1200.

In any case, I suspect that there are enough differences not to worry about this one.

You could overlay the curves for the two films, and see how they compare.

Just using one number doesn't tell you all that much.

The middle section of the curve for Delta 3200

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/1872/product_id/682/

is much less straight than for TMZ. I suspect that the ISO rating doesn't capture

that part of the curve, such that it is a little better than ISO says.

Nearby store has Delta 3200 in 135-36 for $10.50/roll.

When they get TMZ, I could buy one of each, and try them out.

I haven't received a shipping notification from B&H. The last I checked, they said "end of March" but didn't give a date.

I'm pretty confident that this isn't vaporware(like Ektachrome) since I was able to buy and pay for it.

EDIT:

Freestyle shows it in stock and ready to ship. My B&H order says "processing" still...maybe they'll ship on Monday.

EDIT 2:

B&H now shows in stock also and "ready to ship on March 19." Hopefully they'll send mine then.

well anyone get their back orders yet? lets see those pix already?

I placed a preorder for Kodak P3200 with Cinestill's website on 2/23 and received it on 3/17. I was actually impressed that it arrived that quickly as I was informed that nothing would ship until late March/Mid April. I'll run a roll tonight when I get home from work and post some samples.

Spare us the pomposity. Kodak obviously understood that high-ISO shadow capture capability is what so many find attractive about digital. Ferrania simply didn't get it with P30. Slow and contrasty aren't the stuff of huge sales.

 

I think Kodak is very keen to get an idea of how deep the residual film market truly is. Suspect you can't/won't grasp the fact that Kodak killed E-6 materials because demand cratered. Relative to b&w film, E-6 products are pricier to make, have a shorter shelf life, and now, for many, require DIY or mail order processing unless they're lucky enough to have a local surviving E-6 lab.

This....all of it (especially the first part).

Remember that at the time TMZ was introduced Kodak had no dedicated high speed workflow other than pushing Tri-X via 3rd party developers (Acufine / Diafine), and Royal-X was painfully outdated (if you could find it). When TMZ was shot at it's true speed, which is around ISO 1000, it produced normal contrast and lush shadow detail, which is something Tri-X couldn't do even in Acufine. So, as a journalist at the time it was easier to meet printing guidelines for density requirements if you needed ~1600 speed with low contrast. It was briefly popular as a fashion film.

The problem was that TMZ has godzilla sized grain, absurdly low shelf life, expensive, sensitive to fog, and required TMAX developer for full shadow detail. In Acufine it looks really good up to 3200 or so. I was one of the few press guys who messed with it when it came out, and only for niche situations requiring high speed and low contrast. Tri-X (and then TMY 400) souped in Acufine or Diafine produces far finer grain (see the example in this thread).

Most people are going to buy it, then send it to a local lab, which is the same problem since the dawn of time with conventional B&W film. The lab will then almost certainly under develop it because most labs still running conventional film lines are running Ilford developers, and they are terribly mismatched for something like TMZ. Also realize TMZ is horrendously sensitive to ambient radiation and fog levels and degrades quickly near it's expiration date.

If Kodak wants to bring back something pictorially unique then Panatomic-X is my first choice followed by TechPan. Panatomic-X is easy to process (except in sheet form) and restores the classic silver heavy tone range with fine grain lost by TMX 100 and it's Acros clones. IMO, FP4 is a better film than Plus-X and still available.

This....all of it (especially the first part).

 

(snip)

 

If Kodak wants to bring back something pictorially unique then Panatomic-X is my first choice followed by TechPan. Panatomic-X is easy to process (except in sheet form) and restores the classic silver heavy tone range with fine grain lost by TMX 100 and it's Acros clones. IMO, FP4 is a better film than Plus-X and still available.

Panatomic-X lasts close to forever. TMZ doesn't. I have some "Develop before Dec 1961" Panatomic-X that I expect to work just fine.

I have some TMZ much more recent that I expect will be bad.

Very true about Panatomic-X. A few years ago I shot a roll that had an 1964 expiration date. Processed in HC110 dilution B for about five minutes and it didn't appear to have any significant fog. And, the ASA rating in the package was 40 rather than the later 32.

I see that B&H sold out of TMZ. It will be interesting to see how it does after the initial bloom.

The initial sell-out is a good sign, but I wonder how much of it is folks like me who either just wanted to give this film another chance or were curious about it.

If I like what I see when I get around to processing(hopefully this weekend) I'll buy more. If not, I won't get anymore.

I doubt my 5 roll order was that significant, but if the run was small(a few thousand rolls) it doesn't take THAT many folks ordering 5 or 10 rolls to sell it out. You could also have had folks making big orders that won't order again for a while, but given how poorly this stores that doesn't seem overly wise. If I use it more, I see it being ordered on an as-needed basis rather than ordering 50-100 rolls at a time like I do with some other films. 6 rolls of TMZ is enough to get free shipping from B&H.

...Most people are going to buy it, then send it to a local lab, which is the same problem since the dawn of time with conventional B&W film. The lab will then almost certainly under develop it because most labs still running conventional film lines are running Ilford developers, and they are terribly mismatched for something like TMZ. Also realize TMZ is horrendously sensitive to ambient radiation and fog levels and degrades quickly near it's expiration date...

I just started a new thread about labs that can properly develop P3200:

Labs That Develop P3200 Properly...???