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

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by Karim Ghantous, Feb 23, 2018.

  1. I'm purely speculating, but AFAIK TX and TXP are the only "traditional"(non-T-grain) emulsions that Kodak still makes. I wonder if bringing back a T-grain is easier for them than a traditional emulsion.

    FP4+ is a decent enough substitute, but nothing gives me the tonality of Plus-X quite like the real thing. Unfortunately, all I have left is 35mm-if the bring it back I hope that they go whole-hog and do 120 and 4x5.
     
  2. I'm still lucky enough to bee still shooting px. So yes, bring it back. My all time fav. Only 100 foot can left.
     
  3. I'm looking forward to this. One of my favorite films for street photography at night. Love the grain.
     
    casey_c and msantanaphoto like this.
  4. I'm down to about 30 24ex rolls...and none in 120(I don't know when they quit making it). I'm stretching it...
     
  5. To the best of my knowledge Ben, P3200 was never available in 120....that is why Delta 3200 in 120 became so popular
     
  6. Sorry, I thought when you said "PX" you meant Plus-X.

    I probably only have a half dozen rolls of P3200.
     
  7. I am no Kodak Employee/Insider, but...Circa 2015... i cannot imagine what their rationale is for doing this.
    Yeah, Plus-X was a great film. You would think THAT would outsell this 3200 buy a 50:1 ratio.
    Who Knows.?
    If i need something "fast", i use Delta 3200, usually at 1600. No need to push anything in my experience. 3200 is well within its lousy limits anyway. :)
     
  8. Well, instead of using Delta 3200, you can in the future switch Kodak T-Max 3200.
     
  9. I’ve used both TMZ and Delta 3200; bottom line, I miss TMZ and will be (as I was before) a regular consumer of it upon its return. Although Delta 3200 came to the rescue when TMZ was discontinued, to me, (and only my subjective opinion) TMZ was a bit grittier and “punchier” creating its own unique atmosphere. I’m elated it’s coming back.
     
  10. It is much harder to recreate older emulsions, as much as we may love them.
     
  11. Well, let's hope Kodak sells the entire batch, however large it is. Otherwise they lose money.
     
  12. This worries me about some of my favorite transparency films.

    I recently bought a pile of 35mm transparencies from B&H that was cheap because it was short dated. I bought a BUNCH of Velvia 50, and it's from the same lot as I bought from B&H at its then regular price about a year ago. I don't know about the others, but I think they all expire this month.
     
  13. Suspect the P3200 "revival" is a relatively low-cost way to gauge residual demand for Kodak still film products. Put another way, if it fizzles I doubt there will be much hope for Ektachrome or other long-gone emulsions.
     
  14. Vincent Peri

    Vincent Peri Metairie, LA

    Anyone here ever expose the older version of P3200 at ISO 800-1000? I ordered some of the new film, but it hasn't shipped yet.

    How is the grain at ISO 800-1000? I don't think I'll ever expose it at higher than ISO 1600.

    Thanks.
     
  15. paul ron

    paul ron NYC

    why bring it back when tmy-400 can be pushed just as easily....

    120 tmy 645 rated 1600..... one more stop push wouldnt make much of a difference...

    55.JPG
     
  16. Ektachrome has nothing to do with this film. One cannot gauge the desire for Ektachrome based upon high speed b&w film demand. I'm rather shocked this was even suggested.
     
  17. Because P3200 will hold shadows better than tmy400 at 3200 and 6400iso
     
    casey_c likes this.
  18. paul ron

    paul ron NYC

    dave just judging by the examples posted, i dont see much better than my example of tmy400 pushed at 1600. yes maybe format size has an influence on my result. but im sure i could have pushed a few more stops to render similar results.

    id expect that sort of grain from tri x, but not from a t grain, its very dissapointing imho.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  19. paul ron

    paul ron NYC


    im sure he didnt mean based on demand, he was refering to a a business move. i dont find it shocking when a company invests money into products that dont make it and scrap other more expensive endevors to cut losses.
     

Share This Page