allancobb Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 I suspect that on many old cameras, or old handheld meters, you can't go up to ASA (from the old days) 6400. Quite true, in fact the camera I was using (a circa-1970 Yashica TL-E) has a highest meter setting of 800. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Gammill Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 This is bigger news than many have thought (IMHO) since a write up of the film's return and photo of box appeared the latest issue of Digital Imaging Reporter. It was the only film write up in the whole magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwa_goh Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 A bit late to see this thread, but for what it's worth, a few comments as I used this film quite extensively from the late 1980s till the mid 2000s. Even recently I've been using some which were frozen when it was discontinued. Excellent film, one of my faves. Very chunky grain, which was it's look really. At 800 it was quite flat but pushed to 1600 or 3200 was excellent. 6400 was about as far as to be realistic. Beyond it didn't look that great, but pre D3s and modern digital, it was all we had. I used D76, HC110 and TMAX dev, all excellent, even D76 at 1:1. I even experimented with Rodinal but at the lower ASAs, interesting look esp if you're a grain junkie! Important note though, a terrible film to "stash" as even in the freezer, the film fogs quite rapidly (relatively to say, TriX or Tmax 400). According to Kodak literarture, it's to do with background radiation. Also definitely one to hand inspect when passing through airport Xrays. Pretty much all my "stashed" TMZ has pretty high levels of base fog even though it has been deep frozen since being bought fresh at the time. Also keep cool as the heat does very much does affect the fog levels. Very very happy to be able to get fresh rolls of this, though admittedly these last few years have been using DELTA 3200 which is pretty nice too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 I haven't had a chance to try the one I bought yet. It seems that others aren't saying much since April. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul ron Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 it was a big hit at the time. seems it petered out. im sure kodak will be very disappointed. The more you say, the less people listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Peri Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 Just because no one here posted any pictures doesn't mean the film isn't selling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 I shot one roll of it at work, and have had a second sitting in my F2SB for a few months now. Here's one of the better ones from the roll I shot. This was shot in an F2 Photomic with an Auto-Nikkor 45mm f/2.8 GN. It was shot at EI 3200 and developed in TMAX developer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted July 7, 2018 Author Share Posted July 7, 2018 I shot one roll of it at work, and have had a second sitting in my F2SB for a few months now. Here's one of the better ones from the roll I shot. This was shot in an F2 Photomic with an Auto-Nikkor 45mm f/2.8 GN. It was shot at EI 3200 and developed in TMAX developer. [ATTACH=full]1252829[/ATTACH] Love the grain. I've got 10 rolls to play with. Gonna be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 Makes me want to go pull out my old High School annuals.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allancobb Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 Ok, here are a couple more, from Bourbon Street on a Friday night, with a Yashica TL-Super, 35mm f/2.8 Auto-Chinon... both are crops due to getting photo-bombed each time (and trying hard not to get bombed by flying beer). Cheers, Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_jones3 Posted July 8, 2018 Share Posted July 8, 2018 Yep looks just like what I remembered about this film. Not my cup of tea, but hey, to each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_jack1 Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 I don't like that either...grain nor the contrast. My DSLR with a 35mm f1.4 @ ISO6400 would of worked for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_jack1 Posted August 3, 2018 Share Posted August 3, 2018 Nice. I used to use a lot of that to shoot night football back in the early 90's. If only Plus-X and Panatomic-X could return. I cant agree more! Panatomic-x in Microdol was my favorite. I loved PXP for MF as well. I miss them both. But...Ilford Pan F Plus is a pretty darn good substitute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcindudzic Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 Is not so bad. I thought there would be worse information ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 I don't like that either...grain nor the contrast. My DSLR with a 35mm f1.4 @ ISO6400 would of worked for me. Are you just trying to go around to every thread talking about film and crap on it while saying digital is so much better? I don't know how many times in the past few days I've seen similar posts from you spread all over the site. Most of us figured that out 15 years ago...but we're still using film because we like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 I never figured out why people continued to paint after photography came along....... ;) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Peri Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 I never figured out why people continued to paint after photography came along.......;) Hmm... they had all those paint brushes lyin' around... http://bayouline.com/o2.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 Why do people still go to plays, when we have movies, and to concerts when we have high fidelity stereo systems? But yes, I suspect that painting was more popular before photography came along. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_farmer Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 I hadn't noticed this but just started knocking the dust off of the wet darkroom. I LOVED this film for portrait work in the late 80's and early 90's. I used to push it to 25,000 (about 34 minutes in TMax developer) and the results were great. I was never really happy with it at it's nominal rating of 1000. There, like someone else said, I would just push Tri-X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotohuis RoVo Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 It would be a smart step to introduce this film also in 120 roll film format. Even with iso 800-1000 it is a real high speed film and Ilford D3200 is also iso 1250-1600 only. But it IS available in 35mm and 120 roll film format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul ron Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 I don't like that either...grain nor the contrast. My DSLR with a 35mm f1.4 @ ISO6400 would of worked for me. yes, digital is amazing in low light with faster iso but the noise is a bit much to contend with. as for faster films... id rather push my TMY-400 which to me seems finer grained and still retains much of its tones. The more you say, the less people listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted September 5, 2018 Share Posted September 5, 2018 I believe that pushing TMY to 3200 was one of the reasons that TMZ went away. But then again, you can push TMZ to 6400 or 12500, which you probably don't want to do with TMY. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilmarco Imaging Posted September 5, 2018 Share Posted September 5, 2018 Exposed at EI 800 with D-76 1+2. 4 Wilmarco Imaging Wilmarco Imaging, on Flickr wilmarcoimaging on Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allancobb Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) as for faster films... id rather push my TMY-400 which to me seems finer grained and still retains much of its tones. Yes, it’ll most likely be finer grained, but according to Kodak tech data, due to differing characteristic curves between the two films, TMZ does better with shadow detail and highlight separation when you expose it at EI 3200 or 6400 than you can obtain with 400-speed films pushed by 3 stops. In any case, it’s for the unique look of TMZ that I use it for; I really love the grittiness. Edited September 7, 2018 by allancobb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_farmer Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 I to always used TMZ for it's look . . . Often at 25,000 . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now