Kodak T-max P3200

It was so successful when it came out that Ilford decided to make something similar, despite having ruled it out earlier -- and then Ilford did it better. Yes, grainier, but also faster (which is why it was/is grainier) and as far as most were concerned, with better tonality. The disappearance of TMZ is a symptom of the decline of film, not the decline of Kodak: there just wasn't enough demand for another, slightly inferior, 'push' film. Or indeed for another even slower film, barely faster than HP5 Plus, Neopan 1600.

Yes, it's sad, but it's the usual question: when did YOU last buy a roll of TMZ?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
It was so successful when it came out that Ilford decided to make something similar, despite having ruled it out earlier -- and then Ilford did it better. Yes, grainier, but also faster (which is why it was/is grainier) and as far as most were concerned, with better tonality. The disappearance of TMZ is a symptom of the decline of film, not the decline of Kodak: there just wasn't enough demand for another, slightly inferior, 'push' film. Or indeed for another even slower film, barely faster than HP5 Plus, Neopan 1600.

Yes, it's sad, but it's the usual question: when did YOU last buy a roll of TMZ?


Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Steadily, Roger, including three batches in 2012.
 

Attachments

  • Vadokhryshcha, Azdamichy 2012, 2012011-02.jpg
    Vadokhryshcha, Azdamichy 2012, 2012011-02.jpg
    82.5 KB · Views: 0
TMZ was the last Kodak product I still had in use.
Not that I'll miss it desperately, but we were used to each other ...

Rest in peace, TMZ (and farewell, Kodak).

12_11_085.jpg
 
To be honest I never used it, only Ilford Delta 3200 on occasion. Like somebody already remarked, hi-ISO is digital these days. My new Nikon D600 yields near perfect color shots at ISO 3200 and even if pushed all the way to ISO 25.600 images converted to B/W look cleaner than regular ISO 400 B/W film. Do I still use film then? Yes, and I do my own development and wet dark room printing as well. Maybe if I cannot tell a high contrast digital shot from an analogue one anymore I'll stop doing that. But only maybe.
 
Roger Hicks said:
My commiserations. Alas, there were not enough like-minded people.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

There never are. I shot the last three rolls I had this past month. I've preferred it to Ilford 3200, but now that I'm thinking about it, I changed labs between my last roll of I3200 and Kodak P3200, so that may be a factor. Suppose I'll give Ilford another try, I am primarily an HP5 shooter when it comes to B&W.
 
Roger Hicks said:
It was so successful when it came out that Ilford decided to make something similar, despite having ruled it out earlier -- and then Ilford did it better. Yes, grainier, but also faster (which is why it was/is grainier) and as far as most were concerned, with better tonality. .
Click to expand...

A matter of taste. I liked the tonality of TMZ better.
 
Those RX-1 images looked pretty dull to me, not really that great, I get much better from my D700.
Film can be good at high speeds too here is Ilford 3200 film at 6400E!
92784831.jpg

Here's one at 12,800
92815846.jpg

And another at 25,000
100698699.jpg


Film can be amazing too, if you know how.
 
I wish I could say I like this film, but I tend to find the blacks choke up more then I want.

P3200 @1600

Probably the best off this last roll.
U35273I1350282457.SEQ.0.jpg


More commonly this is my results with it

8083106801_c4b5eda894_z.jpg


in daylight (ambient though)
8083447991_bb5358897a_z.jpg
 
Filmtwit those look quite underexposed I'm guessing the true rating would be 6400EI or more next time try to expose at EI 1600 and use the development time for 3200.
Of course I can't know the light you shot in, but it looks like you've got the typical 'peppery' look in the blacks that scream underexposed and recovery in scanning – especially the first shot.

You need to expose for the emerging shadow detail that is if blacks 'block up' either there just isn't enough light or as the case in your middle shot the face is too dark because it's underexposed.
It's up to you to make the detail in the shadows though exposure, of course sometimes there may be no light and you may be 1/4 sec at ƒ1,4 so you're just making the best of a bad job–up against the wall so to speak.
In some cases you just can't get detail, you hit that 'wall', like here where I'm 1/8 wide open at 50,000EI for one hour development in Microphen.
100689504.jpg

The only light source in the large room is 3m away and is a Asus netbook on the ebay front page, I couldn't see to focus and can honestly say there wasn't much light on his right cheek–it's going to be black...
 
HEre we go, what we are really going to miss is Neopan1600... these 3200 films were merely stop gap when running out of Neopan. I have tested pushing Neopan400 (I have a lot of it left) and it kind of works well too with ILFOTEC DDX. Both Kodak 3200 and Ilford 3200 look muddy to me vs Neopan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom