And Kodak P3200 is now back

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

  1. Yep looks just like what I remembered about this film. Not my cup of tea, but hey, to each his own.
  2. 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.
  3. I don't like that either...grain nor the contrast. My DSLR with a 35mm f1.4 @ ISO6400 would of worked for me.
  4. Is not so bad. I thought there would be worse information ;)
  5. 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.
  6. I never figured out why people continued to paint after photography came along.......

    jason_withers likes this.
  7. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    Hmm... they had all those
    paint brushes lyin' around...
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. paul ron

    paul ron NYC

    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.
  12. 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.
  13. D47D7554-C31D-4CFD-BFAD-59C8A5676034.jpeg
    Exposed at EI 800 with D-76 1+2.
  14. 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.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2018
    ed_farmer likes this.
  15. I to always used TMZ for it's look . . . Often at 25,000 . . .
  16. There is also a certain look from 20 year old TMZ, with white spots over all the dark areas.

    Best to not go past 3200, though, with old TMZ.
  17. I might have to try the new film at ISO 800. I don't like to push film.
  18. I suppose so.

    But the whole idea, as well as I know, is that the ISO system doesn't accurately describe what the film does.

    I am not sure about TMZ, but some Ilford films have a curviness in their characteristic curve, that is the part that is normally straight isn't, which makes it different from the way ISO works.

    But also film speed tries to cover shadow detail, mid range, and highlights all with one number.

    Light meters also try to do that, but not in the same way.

    Exposing TMZ at EI 3200, the speed that it was designed for, though not that ISO gives it,
    doesn't seem to me to be pushing. Using it at 6400, 12500, or 25000 does, though.
  19. Agreed on this.

    I've not played MUCH with Delta 3200 or TMZ P3200 at their ISO speed, but from the small amount of experimenting I've done they're quite flat and boring(IMO).

    These films really do shine at EI 3200-even though they are fairly contrasty at that speed, they do handle it well for the most part and IMO it's about the most "natural" speed at which they can be exposed.

    Of course, I should qualify that I pretty much exclusively use TMAX developer on these films(my only real use for that particular developer) and I've found TMZ in particularly to be somewhat better behaved in it than in D76 or HC110.
  20. I bought some TMax developer when I bought my (one) roll of TMZ.

    From the data sheet, the higher speeds need it, and I think it is supposed
    to be better at more normal speeds.

    Between that and a bottle of HC-110, I should have enough to last a long time.

Share This Page