First Images TMax 3200 by PetaPixel

The one thing that I do not have a clue about is how the obvious grain will look on moderate sized images/prints (8x12 to 16x24). I suppose developing will determine a lot of that.

Anyone trying this film yet?:)
 
I'm tempted, but I have trouble justifying it when I know I can push HP5+ to 3200 with good results. I do like the grain in the TMax 3200, though.
 
FWIW, I did not find those images indicative of what the possibilities with this film are, though they must represent the results that person got with the way he exposed and processed it.
I doubt I ever would have used the film if that was the only look on offer.
A long slow walk through the TMax 3200 section on filmdev.org would give a better idea of what this film “looks like”, even with the proviso that those are not always lab controlled results which necessarily followed strict protocols.

http://filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=tmax+3200
 
^x2. Nothing there really wow'd me.

I've never really mentioned it but I would like to get some in my hands to wet print and see how it REALLY looks. I find that scanning really can change the way a film can "look". Generally if something is scanned I take it with a grain of salt because I know how far things can be pushed.

edit: also the comments section is a trainwreck. I cant look away!
 
Those images are great. I do theater photos for a local group and it is really hard to get a usable image with the harsh lighting. Also, the M6 must have a great view/rangefinder. Focusing is difficult under these conditions. Besides the photographer, the film really is impressive.
 
Actually, it is surprising to see how many photographers argue on-line about film and digital even now after all this time. I thought the results were quite well-done although I would have preferred less obvious grain. The shadow details were good. Now I wonder how D76 would have rendered.

Sigh...beauty is in the eye of the beholder... unless one is a photographer as evidenced by the heated comments in the article.

Whatever. I do like grain. I do like the results from the studio's HB MF digital. I don't shoot exclusively with film or digital.

I am, however, interested in shooting extreme low light situations now with both mediums. It seems there are so many possibilities.:p
 
I'd actually want to see what it looks like in xtol.

I think that looking at those results that I could do better. I've printed some great stuff with delta 3200 in similar conditions. Better tonality, and smoother grain. Grain is fine, but I can't stand hard grain. It really gets in the way for me.
 
dave lackey said:
Actually, it is surprising to see how many photographers argue on-line about film and digital even now after all this time. I thought the results were quite well-done although I would have preferred less obvious grain. The shadow details were good. Now I wonder how D76 would have rendered.

Sigh...beauty is in the eye of the beholder... unless one is a photographer as evidenced by the heated comments in the article.

Whatever. I do like grain. I do like the results from the studio's HB MF digital. I don't shoot exclusively with film or digital.

I am, however, interested in shooting extreme low light situations now with both mediums. It seems there are so many possibilities.:p
Click to expand...

Well, Dave, perhaps that is because some photographers do make it an awful lot easier to argue with them, than others? Personally I recall a request online a while ago from someone, for advice about a problem they were having with a certain Japanese SLR and, having worked on a few examples of it with similar problems, I offered some observations about possible causes of their cameras faults, based on what had gone wrong with my own—only to have my suggestions ****canned by a third party with a big mouth, and an even bigger ego—who by the way, offered no constructive ideas, to help the person in need. Suffice to say I have had little interest in anything that person has said or done, since—and no prizes for guessing who it actually was, either. ;) I’d be far more interested in seeing what you or various other RFF members can do with the new TMZ, because at least it would involve the imaging of someone I’d actually respect as a human being.
Cheers,
Brett
 
I've only shot one test roll so far but I was impressed with the quality of the image vs Delta 3200. Granted I think Delta 3200 can look really nice on 120 format but for me on 135 it was just TOO grainy and I never got satisfactory results. (For my taste)

This rebooted TMAX 3200 looks like it will be definitely usable for the times I want or need to be shooting in really low light. I don't expect it to be a "frequently" used film stock in my repertoire but I am very thankful that it is there and very usable!
 
BLKRCAT said:
I'd actually want to see what it looks like in xtol.

I think that looking at those results that I could do better. I've printed some great stuff with delta 3200 in similar conditions. Better tonality, and smoother grain. Grain is fine, but I can't stand hard grain. It really gets in the way for me.
Click to expand...

Great idea!!!

I really would like to see xtol results! Been thinking about that for awhile...:)
 
You don't have to shoot at 3200. Here's a pic I took about a week ago on a fresh roll of Tmax 3200 (got it on Wednesday, shot it on Sunday). EI 800, in Xtol 1:1.

eos11_soft_tweak.jpg


Jim B.
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
Well, Dave, perhaps that is because some photographers do make it an awful lot easier to argue with them, than others? Personally I recall a request online a while ago from someone, for advice about a problem they were having with a certain Japanese SLR and, having worked on a few examples of it with similar problems, I offered some observations about possible causes of their cameras faults, based on what had gone wrong with my own—only to have my suggestions ****canned by a third party with a big mouth, and an even bigger ego—who by the way, offered no constructive ideas, to help the person in need. Suffice to say I have had little interest in anything that person has said or done, since—and no prizes for guessing who it actually was, either. ;) I’d be far more interested in seeing what you or various other RFF members can do with the new TMZ, because at least it would involve the imaging of someone I’d actually respect as a human being.
Cheers,
Brett
Click to expand...

Brett,

Thanks, we should each post different results so our dial-in will be quicker!

I volunteer to try D76!:):):)
 
dave lackey said:
Hmmm...

New genre of shooting for me? Nighttime and film noir?

Oddly, I have never shot much in extreme low light conditions with film. But these results have me thinking... why not?

https://petapixel.com/2018/03/28/first-photos-shot-on-kodaks-rebooted-tmax-p3200-film/

Time to take a walk on the dark side.:)
Click to expand...

:D

I remember how I was taking hiphop performance and they have only two spotlights on the stage...
I counted eight light sources on the stage. And her, their faces are directly lighten by another nearby light sources. Is this called as "extreme low light conditions"? Nighttime? :cool:


To get no motion blur and no shake blur with unsabilsized 90mm lens you need to be at 1/125 or higher, which is nowhere near to low light conditions, night time. And Summarit 1.5 doesn't looks like wide open (I had one).




It was no light close to him. I could barely see him and I was not able to see my M4-2, J-3 dials, it was too dark for it.

HP5+ @3200. Print, not neg scan, but darkroom print:



:)
 
Ko Fe,

I don't shoot street or in very low light. I spend my time shooting landscapes, en studio with lighting equipment or on location with half day photo shoots. Your image, is definitely extreme low light! Thanks for posting as I use HP5+ myself.

When I rarely do shoot some "low light", it is with MF digital.

I am interested in shooting low light with film only because I am planning some more photo shoots for the purpose of telling stories of patients who have suffered and survived trauma, medical issues and cancer and who want their story told in photographs and limited narrative to celebrate their restoration.

Sadly, it is hard to tell their story without dark images.

I probably won't be shooting in as dark a situation as you have posted, though!:)
 
If we're throwing out samples I'll put some out there. Arguably less contrasty light then the petapixel samples, and less speed/push. But I think the tonality is good here and the light is very low in a lot of these shots.

Delta 3200 @ 1600 Xtol (35mm)


Delta 3200 @ 12500 Xtol (6x9)


Delta 3200 @ 1600 (35mm)


I go over pushing delta 3200 to 12,800 in my video here

https://youtu.be/RXjjYVySrmQ
 
Ha!

I grew up in the country and my Dad had an Apache truck just a year later than that model and with the same water-cooled window device for the hot summer days!! It kinda worked....:p

Brought back quite a few memories, thanks for posting as that was the truck I learned to drive at the young age of 14.:eek:
 
Based on the excitement of this film's introduction, I bought one roll of Delta 3200 in 120 format, and 3 rolls of Tmax 3200 in 35mm. I shot the Delta in a Fuji GS645 camera, at EI 1000. On 3x5" test prints (developed and printed by North Coast Photo) the Delta has very nice tonality. However, when I had 5x7 prints made, the grain is very obvious. This is probably going to be the first and last time that I try the Delta 3200.

Based on the beautiful portrait above, I've got to try the Tmax at 800.

This is the extreme end of the scale for me, as I normally like ISO 25 to 100 film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom