New Kodak Professional Film Product

in the FAQ document:

"Q. Will you expand to support medium format?
A. Possibly, depending on the level of demand.*But initially it will be available in 135 format only."

ATTN FILM SHOOTERS: BUY BRICKS, GET OTHERS TO BUY BRICKS.

Let's get this made in 120.
 
I will be pulling my DevTec heater from the storage box and souping, as I have in the past, in TMax developer at 100˚f. Will need to find dev time again but it's a start. Y'all might wanna invest in a small sous vide heater cuz TMZ looked best (for myself and other photojs of that era) when cooked at that temp. ymmv of course
 
Now I can quit buying very expired rolls of Tmax p3200 off of ebay, at inflated prices, simply because I like it more than Delta 3200, which I also use.
What a nice surprise.
 
My preference is medium speed films, but I too, will buy some, just because.
Having it available in 120 would be lovely though.
 
Rob-F said:
I'd like Plus-X to come back. I like its tonality and contrast. And it's sharp and fine grain enough. And I don't think they could go wrong by selling XX in 36 exposure rolls! There is certainly enough interest here! They can keep T-Max for all I care.
Click to expand...

Yes. Bring back Plus X! T-max. I shoot it, but it's OK, Plus X was stellar.

I have 0 interest in 3200 speed T max.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Now I can quit buying very expired rolls of Tmax p3200 off of ebay, at inflated prices...
Click to expand...

yes, i can't wait for these fresh emulsions to nuke the expired film prices on ebay. cold stored ektachrome is going for stupid money.

don't go buying tmz or ektachrome on ebay! (at least in 135).
 
Agree with getting this in 120, though neither it nor Neopan 1600 have ever been available in that size. But with TMZ, weren't there issues with radiation and this film in the past? I seem to remember some lore about this stuff being stored in a salt mine underground so that background radiation wouldn't get to it. I imagine that 135 cartridges are a little more protective than backing paper.
 
finguanzo said:
So was Ilford 3200 not an option over buying expired Kodak 3200?
Click to expand...

It was an option, the most sensible option, but they are not identical films as the test above shows. Some people prefer the Ilford, some people prefer the Kodak. Up until today, if you preferred the Kodak, you were out of luck. If you prefer the Ilford, nothing has changed. Win, win.
 
Oren Grad said:
I don't have any inside information. But from the clues, the responses to the chatter and their overall product and R&D "footprint" right now I think the likeliest bet is a fast color negative film.
Click to expand...

This is one of those times in life when I'm very happy to have been proved wrong. I'll be in line to buy some new TMZ when it arrives. :eek: :)
 
gnuyork said:
Yes. Bring back Plus X! T-max. I shoot it, but it's OK, Plus X was stellar.

I have 0 interest in 3200 speed T max.
Click to expand...


I'm really with you here. PX, original TX 400 and FX would have been much better choices. Max 3200 wasn't that good a film to begin with and how much was actually used compared to FX, TX and PX. Who uses 3200 routinely?

A typical Kodak bad decision IMO.
 
Dante_Stella said:
Agree with getting this in 120, though neither it nor Neopan 1600 have ever been available in that size. But with TMZ, weren't there issues with radiation and this film in the past? I seem to remember some lore about this stuff being stored in a salt mine underground so that background radiation wouldn't get to it. I imagine that 135 cartridges are a little more protective than backing paper.
Click to expand...

It's true that Kodak stored it in salt mines due to fogging from cosmic radiation. I had a pretty good stash of Ilford delta 3200 in my freezer. It was always frozen and when I tried a roll that went out of date by only a few years it was so fogged it was unusable. I tested several rolls with the same results and just tossed it in the trash.

These high speed films are very sensitive to environmental radiation and won't keep much beyond the date without excessive fog.
 
I would say this may be a fluke from Kodak. Don't take me wrong, I like TMZ but don't really expect to use it much. When I need something like this, I usually push HP5+, It gives useable results.

I think TMZ made sense on its time, because it was used big for sports, night events, etc. Today, I'm not very sure it still make sense, because digital have become good enough at these ISO speeds.

I expect to get a few rolls for the fun of it, but I don't think I will make it one of my staples, mostly because it is a sensible film and it doesn't keep well after expire date.

Hope for the best

Marcelo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom