naive comment or common occurance?

[david_lyga]

<p>I have yet to buy a roll of TMZ 3200 that is even as fast as Tri-X. Grainy, usually EI of about 200 at best. Why? Me? Always? Other experiences? - David Lyga.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>how are you developing it?</p>

[david_lyga]

<p>Using regular D-76 or other standard developer. I have tried both long and short dev times. I am not a neophyte and have been developing film since I was 14 (1964). There is something that this film hates me for. Long ago I made friends with Tech Pan's pictorial (continuous tone) qualities, but with films faster than '400' I seek and find woes. - David Lyga.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>You're saying that this 3200 speed film is not cutting it compared to a 320 speed film? I don't use either of those, but that sounds like a big jump to me. This TMZ is coming out at 200 speed? And grainy? </p>

<p>Hey, did you take the lens cap off? Are you trying to make it see through a wall or something? I mean, come on, this really sounds like a pretty far out statement. Maybe you're pushing the bottom of the usable range when you're using it. Did you get stuck with a bad batch that slipped through quality control or something? </p>

<p>Slap up a section of a photo and let's see it. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I don't know whether you actualy meant 2000 instead of 200. My best experience with TMZ is developing it in a phenidone based developer. My first choice is undiluted Microphen. You can rate the film at 1600 or 3200 but the times Ilford lists are too short. Other phenidone based developers which will work include DD-X, Clayton F60, NACCO Super 76, UFG, FG-7, X-tol and Acufine. TMX is grainy bit the grain pattern is tight and sharp. If I have to go above 1250 I prefer TMZ to any pushed 400 speed film.</p>

[david_lyga]

<p>Again, I use a standard developer like D-76. And, yes, I get 200 not 2000. I do not expect 'belief' or concurrence but my experiences reflect reality. The film is kept in a salt mine before sale to thwart radiation fog. It is indeed possible that every roll I have ever bought has 'died' through bad storage. There are more complaints in life than this 'inability' on my part and I just wanted comments. Thanks. And JO'Keefe-Odom: I do not photograph with a lens cap on. - David Lyga.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I was just kidding. Well, how does this look, and how are you determining that this stuff is coming up 200?</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>ISO 3200 for TMZ is actually a "pushed" rating. Ilford does the same with their 3200 film. It's marketting bull. The true ISO developed normally is somewhere between 1000 and 1600. I tend to use 1250. You can search this fact anywhere on photo net or the rest of the web for that matter. It's well known.<br>

Grain....it's bad, not terrible, but yeah bad. I'd rather push Tri-X to 1600 in Acufine.. Better grain sturcture. The "best" I've seen out of Kodak's or Ilford's 3200 films is to rate it at 1250 and develop it in PMK Pyro. The "staining" properties of pyro developers helps fill in the gaps between the grain structure, and gives a much better grain structure. Mind you, after using D-76, pyro is going to feel like a long drawn out process, but it is sometimes worth it.</p>

[david_lyga]

<p>I rate film speed by judging how much shadow detail I can get WITHOUT LETTING THE HIGHLIGHTS BECOME BLOCKED. I think that this is the sanest way because one can enhance shadow detail or highlight detail by merely extending development. The trick is to get the needed shadows WITHOUT getting terribly dense highlights. With TMZ 3200 the ONLY way to achieve this (through my experiences) is to give at least as much (or more!) exposure as TRI-X. I have not tried pyro or other special developers so I stand to be corrected. I do not often purchase this film but when I have I probably have bought poorly stored or even outdated (often sold without box) and, given the speed originally manufactured for, it had lost some sensitivity. Simply put, I do not like this film. I bought 100 ft of TRI-X (exp 1958 !) a few years ago and I get an honest EI 50 with fog but really printable. But I think that speeds purportedly faster than 400 are overrated. Again, I am not the halide sage (or even a chemist) but I am an ardent experimenter. Thank you all . - David Lyga.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>EI 200 for TMZ and EI 50 for Tri-X? That sounds pretty extreme.</p>

<p>And you specified that you judge the film speed by "how much shadow detail I can get without letting the highlights become blocked." That's contrary to the usual recommended practice, which is to expose for the shadows and *develop* for the highlights.</p>

<p>And how are you evaluating the negatives? Using a densitometer? By eye? Conventional printing in the darkroom or scanning?</p>

<p>Can you provide some specifics about your development techniques? Developers, times, temperatures, agitation, etc.? The most likely solution is on this end of the problem, not by going to extremes in overexposing film.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>It sounds like this might be because of compression. I would have to check "The Negative" again, but I think one way to manage compression of contrast with with chemical exposure. I bet that this might be coming up this way if you are compressing and shifting. That might get you the four stop drop. </p>

<p>Have you read "The Negative"? Are you using the Zone System on purpose for this, or did you bump into this? If you are compressing and shifting all the way to 200; that's probably as far as it can go. My guess is that it's probably two stops slower than it was meant to go. Maybe this would explain some of the graininess; the higher speed film will be grainy to begin with; push or pull it beyond those limits; the bad points will seem worse. </p>

<p>This brings us back to what Ellis said. What are you developing it with? How long? J.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>About to shoot some Delta 3200 in a Kiev 88 I know I can get about 6400 from it in 35mm with pretty grain so we shall see... I think a few zeros were droped in a post earlier.</p>

[photo_smith]

<p>Like has been stated the 3200 speed is an EI based on using a speed increasing developer-pushing in other words.<br>

The True ISO speed is about 1000, it is grainy about the same as Tri-x but slightly faster.<br>

This is rated at P3200 and processed in T-Max developer.<br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/59765841.jpg" alt="" /><br>

This film is meant to be rated 800-12,800 it is grainy when you over expose and don't shift development time, rating it at 200 will give you more grain than at 1000 especially if you over-develop. <br>

For me I expose for the emerging detail then close down 2 stops, if I don't want burnt out highlights I compensate in the developer even in extreme lighting like stage I have yet to have a problem with highlights, are you using the film in bright contrasty light?<br>

Here is another shot on Delta 3200 (6x7) rated at EI 6400 and processed in Rodinal.<br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/92789242.jpg" alt="" /><br>

I guess grain and tone are somewhat subjective, but with the right workflow these films really shine.<br>

Mark</p>

[david_lyga]

<p>Lex, very low-tech here (but not inferior): I evaluate negatives with a magnifying glass and a strong light. Simple but demanding of strict protocol! Under identical lighting conditions (usually with tungtsten because I do not want a cloud to pass by the sun and slightly change the footcandle count) I take a picture of a static subject that has both highlights and shadows. (A partially full bookcase is great.) I give very sparing exposure because I want to see the shadows emerging very faintly (or even partially non-existent). I make sure that for each developer I achieve the same gamma (VERY important to avoid false results, thus false speed determinations). Using a magnifying glass I hold the dry processed negative a couple of feet from a clean white piece of paper and seriously evaluate the shadows. This, although rudimentary in a strictly scientific sense, does give a highly accurate evaluation of actual film speeds (as defined by me and, hopefully, by most, as adhering to just plain common-sense). Again, the contrast of each negative evaluated MUST be very similar to make this shadow evaluation. No I do not have the money to use full rolls of film lavishly - I use clip tests (two inch lengths of film that I carefully place (or gently tape) onto the back 24 x 36 aperture at the film gate on the camera. I do believe that these tests test definitively which film speed is garnered from a particular developer. I find that the ascorbic acid / metol (I have not tried Phenidone A in place of metol) is the best by a full stop on the slower continuous tone films (and almost two full stops on a process (ortho) film. The speed increase decreases with faster films to the point of being almost pointless with Tri-X and TMY. Why? I am not a chemist but the reality for me is solid. - David Lyga.</p>