Jump to content

And Kodak P3200 is now back


Dave Luttmann

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

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.

 

1821933752_frame1ed-web.thumb.jpg.35f720788e7b4654aa2e6e06da3dd48d.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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).

 

40787113755_40084d98d4_b.jpg

 

 

41765578632_8a7aaf30ed_b.jpg

 

Cheers, Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
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

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

  • 2 weeks later...
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

  • 2 weeks later...
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

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 by allancobb
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...