And Kodak P3200 is now back

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by Dave Luttmann, Feb 23, 2018.

  1. OMG - what's next? I'm almost surprised as if they re-introduced 828 in Kodachrome.

    Guess I'll have to get me some.
  2. 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.
    john_sevigny|2 likes this.
  3. Well, I'm not going to complain about the reintroduction of an emulsion by any means(and I guess I can quit planning my retirement based on the dozen or so frozen rolls I have :) ) but this was always a special purpose emulsion to me. At the end of the day, if I still need a fast film, I'd rather use Tri-X at EI 3200. All films at 3200-even if designed to be pushed there(like P3200 or Delta 3200)-are pretty rough.

    Now, bring back Plus-X and we'll talk :) . My stash or PX is getting thin and I love that beautiful tonality.
    denny_rane likes this.
  4. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    I might have to try the new film at ISO 800. I don't like to push film.

  5. Vincent, it actually does push really nicely if you do need a film to push. There again, I still prefer Tri-X, but one thing about it is that the contrast doesn't go nuts with a 2 stop push like a lot of films will.

    I seem to recall that you're using F3s these days, but one thing to keep in mind if you ever use F4s or most other late 80s-90s cameras is that the film is DX coded to 3200. It's stupidly easy to override DX coding on an F4(the ISO dial is under the rewind crank, and you just move it from the "DX" position to the desired position), and for most other late high end cameras it's a matter of holding the ISO button and spinning a dial. Still, on low end cameras, it can sometimes require a trip to the owners manual if it's possible.

    I'd also like to see Ektachrome first too, though :)
  6. The TMAX 3200 as well as Ilford Delta 3200 are more of a distinct look with desired E.I. than strictly speed alone. It's always interesting to the results that various users get from these fast films as well as what users get from pushing the ISO 400 films. Pushing with stand and semi-stand does level the playing field somewhat for some, but it all comes down to individual preferences. As for TMZ, I liked it best in HC110, although for several years I used TMAX developer. These days I tend to stick to ISO 100 to 400 films at box speed, but I will try some TMZ when it becomes available.
  7. How's it going to scan on a flat bed like the Epson V600? Will the grain be picked up?
  8. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    I only shoot outdoors when the sun is still shining. ISO 800 is plenty for me LOL.

    I've got an assortment of F3HP's, FA's and F2A's now. I may be selling the FA's in the next month(s).
  9. Further ramblings on ISO 3200 (or maybe we should say E.I. 3200): When Kodak originally released TMAX 3200 and Ilford released Delta 3200 I, like many others of the day, was interested in getting as much speed as possible while keeping grain reasonable. Although grainy compared to pushed Tri-X and HP5+ back in the day, it was still a huge improvement over Kodak's 2475 (high speed recording film).
    Today I'm more conservative and find E.I. 800 is usually as high as I want. A favorite that I miss for that speed was Neopan 1600. I liked how it looked at 800 when I processed it in stock D-76.
    Scanning and grain- I would have to test it. I do have some processed TMZ negatives that I could scan, but if Kodak has tweaked the emulsion it might not be a valid test.
  10. When I get my hands on some, I'll put up some 3200 and 6400 test images....and I'll scan them on my V700 so flatbed users will have a reference.
  11. In 1988 I got some good shots with it rated at 1000 in the Smithsonian Air and Space museum. I got a really good one of a P51 WWII fighter. .
  12. My name is back why it disappeared I don't know.
  13. I can grain resolve Tri-X at EI 400 in D76 on my V700 and could also on my old Canon 2400f(which I think topped at 3200x3200). Provided that you'd properly set the focus on your V600, I doubt you'll have any issue seeing the grains on this.
    Dave Luttmann likes this.
  14. I've got no experience with T-Max 3200, but used and pushed Delta 3200. On recommendations from old threads here, I used Microphen for ISO 6400 and 12800 pushed rolls, and found the grain actually quite acceptable. Sure it's there, but it's not overly pronounced.
    Once I run out of Delta 3200 (which will take a while), I'll sure try a few rolls of this "new" T-Max 3200; quite like shooting after the sun set, so a good fast film sure has a place for me.
  15. I shot a ton of night sports on that stuff as well. A great film. Better at 1600.
    bgelfand likes this.
  16. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

  17. paul ron

    paul ron NYC

    why would they spend so much time and money on such a low demand emulsion? if i need that kind of speed, id use my digital camera!

    anyone have examples of what it can do?

  18. Why the assumption it is low demand? I doubt they just threw darts at which emulsion to re-introduce.... there will have been market research and probably they believe it's economically viable to bring this one back. Frankly, I think generically a business has a better view on market demands than random posters on internet fora (inclusing obviously myself).
  19. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    I just preordered 10 rolls (see my earlier post). Since my style is to shoot available light only (i.e., in daylight), the P3200 will let me shoot at dusk (or maybe even later, depending on the results I get from thew film).

    I think P3200 will be a good seller for Kodak (knock on wood).

    Hmm... I was wondering why
    Vincent was knocking on his

Share This Page