New Kodak Professional Film Product

[Phil_F_NM]

Bah. So it's TMZ. In 35mm.
Boring. Hopefully this is just a little beginning blip on a new wave of film resurgence from Eastman Kodak. I don't think it is going to do much to help poor EK though.
I like Delta 3200 for that fast emulsion and use it in 120. I love it. Kodak TMZ, not at all. I just don't like Kodak's T grain emulsions for 35mm work but would use the hell out of it were it motion picture stock.

Back to experimenting with EK-5222 and figuring out other ways to shoot in the dark with slower emulsions. I'm thinking of using EK-7222 and pushing it in my favorite HC-110. The only downside to this is that it is a negative and I'll have to telecine it to actually view it, not good old fashioned projector reversal.

Phil Forrest

 

[BLKRCAT]

if its plus-x I'll crap my pants.

Thank god it's tmax 3200...

Still really exciting for the film community. I've been a happy camper today with the news.

 

[bayernfan]

Back to experimenting with EK-5222 and figuring out other ways to shoot in the dark with slower emulsions. I'm thinking of using EK-7222 and pushing it in my favorite HC-110. The only downside to this is that it is a negative and I'll have to telecine it to actually view it, not good old fashioned projector reversal.

Phil Forrest

Have you looked into a low-contrast cinema developer like D-96?

 

[Ted Striker]

It seems individuals are not taking this announcement very seriously. Most responses are (jokingly I assume) about reviving long dead formulations that have zero chances of seeing the light of day again (Kodachome, Plus-X, etc.). I mean are people really going to jump for joy if its Portra 800 or T-Max 3200, or will it be "that's nice, I may buy a few rolls to try out", which is hardly a sustainable response.

Ilford already makes a fantastic 3200 film. I see no need for this Kodak film and will keep buying Ilford.

 

[Pentode]

While I'm not likely to use a whole bunch of TMZ personally, I think any addition of a new film to market or resurrection of an old film is good news for film photographers.

It means there's still a market for the stuff and it means that other emulsions have a chance of returning or new ones surfacing.

I'll still buy some and play with it a bit, but it gives me hope for other things turning up instead of just watching the films I like slowly disappear.

 

[Skiff]

Good news.
Period 🙂.

 

[Guy Pinhas]

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

Would you mind expanding? Super curious and interested!!!

 

[Corran]

PX, original TX 400 and FX would have been much better choices.

You think competing with themselves and all the other 100-speed films, along with a basically duplicate SKU, would be better?

I am positive EK will sell boatloads more TMZ than any of those. I would bet there are more young people shooting film right now regularly who weren't even born yet when Panatomic-X was discontinued, than the supposed market for it from those who want it back.

 

[bluesun267]

I'm not that excited about TMZ3200. In its first run I believe I shot two rolls over a period of 20 years. But now that it's back I'll give it another try to see if it can be developed to look anywhere close to the beloved Neopan 1600. Delta 3200 certainly didn't. I'm liking the samples I'm seeing in this thread.

Anyone with more TMZ experience have advice on its similarities/differences vs Neo 1600...what developers work best in that respect, etc?

 

[J enea]

i actually prefer tmax 400 pushed to 1600 in xtol over both of the 3200 speed film, ilford and kodak.

my guess is that the 3200 B&W film was the easiest film to get up and running, so thats why they brought it out as ektachrome release is delayed from original announced date. maybe its gonna be delayed again, but i hope not

 

[ABrosig]

Yea, but the original TX400 was such a beautiful film. Once Kodak reformulated several years ago, it just wasn't the same.

I'm indifferent to the announcement. Shot a ton of P3200 back in "the day" for night/indoor sports. It was good enough for print reproduction on newsprint (which is basically paper towels) but never had tons of luck printing. Grain the size of marbles.

If you love the stuff, glad for you an old friend is back. Me, not shooting film the same way I was - working mostly with rangefinders at EK XX/Ilford Delta 100 and letting the exposures fall where they may. Might pick up a couple rolls to play with, but probably nothing serious for me.

Now, if they want to bring Kodachrome back and reopen a couple of labs . . .

You think competing with themselves and all the other 100-speed films, along with a basically duplicate SKU, would be better?

I am positive EK will sell boatloads more TMZ than any of those. I would bet there are more young people shooting film right now regularly who weren't even born yet when Panatomic-X was discontinued, than the supposed market for it from those who want it back.

 

[newsgrunt]

Would you mind expanding? Super curious and interested!!!

It's been many moons but all chemistry was tempered with the DevTec heater at 100˚f (basically an element with a temp control, which someone hot glued at that temp) TMax developer was usual working strength and one shot. Times were obviously shorter. Iirc, it looked better than processing at lower temps (68˚ for example). I've read that some photographers are experimenting with sous vide heaters like these https://ca.anovaculinary.com/?gclid...-EFZu9VDg5PpE01J6egEJK8fCDOaqKFhoCt3UQAvD_BwE.

When I get some new rolls, will run some tests again to establish some sort of baseline at 68˚ and 100˚. So *when* they bring out 120 P3200 (haha) I'll be ready and steady.

I'm pretty excited and will, like many, use it for super dim light work.

 

[Corran]

Yea, but the original TX400 was such a beautiful film. Once Kodak reformulated several years ago, it just wasn't the same.

I have no experience with older formulations. I do know that one of the best photographers I know uses nothing but current-production Tri-X and his tonality and the overall look of the film is phenomenal. I'm sure you and others are correct, that it "isn't the same," but I also doubt it matters much outside of the need to recalibrate.

 

[Freakscene]

I'm not that excited about TMZ3200. In its first run I believe I shot two rolls over a period of 20 years. But now that it's back I'll give it another try to see if it can be developed to look anywhere close to the beloved Neopan 1600. Delta 3200 certainly didn't. I'm liking the samples I'm seeing in this thread.

Anyone with more TMZ experience have advice on its similarities/differences vs Neo 1600...what developers work best in that respect, etc?

TMZ doesn't look anything like Neopan 1600. It's much faster, has a different tonality with a longer toe and straighter density curve with less shoulder, and a completely different spectral response.

If you want a film that looks like Neopan 1600, HP5+ in DD-X is most similar, and has a base ISO speed of 640, similar to Neopan 1600.

Leica R6, 80/1.4 @ 1.4, Neopan 1600 @3200, TMax 1+4

Marty

 

[ABrosig]

Blast from the Past 005 by Andrew Brosig, on Flickr

Blast from the Past 004 by Andrew Brosig, on Flickr

Original Tri-X, pushed 1600, don't remember for sure, but probably D-76 1:1

 

[Hogarth Ferguson]

In my mind, with digital cameras going up to 802000 iso now (Pentax k-1ii) it makes sense to release a high iso film for people who are trying film out, so I do not see it as a fluke.

I'm excited about it, even if people are being debbie downers.

 

[jawarden]

In my mind, with digital cameras going up to 802000 iso now (Pentax k-1ii) it makes sense to release a high iso film for people who are trying film out, so I do not see it as a fluke.

Much agreement here. I would really like to have PlusX back, but Ektachrome and P3200 are both better choices for 2018 because they each fill a gap in Kodak's current offerings with minimal cannibalizing of their other products. And it's hard to argue against P3200 in the age of high ISO digital offerings. It's just fun to shoot in low light.

 

[Ted Striker]

Much agreement here. I would really like to have PlusX back, but Ektachrome and P3200 are both better choices for 2018 because they each fill a gap in Kodak's current offerings with minimal cannibalizing of their other products. And it's hard to argue against P3200 in the age of high ISO digital offerings. It's just fun to shoot in low light.

I've been shooting in low light for many, many years, using Delta 3200. An excellent film, especially when developed in Ilford's DD-X. Available now and cheaper than P3200.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I've got a few very fast lenses for my 35mm systems which, I'm willing to bet, many serious photographers also have. The reason to have those large apertures is to gather light and use the lowest film speed possible to reduce grain. I have no problem using a 400ISO film pushed a stop and wandering around at night using a lens with f/1.2 or f/1.4 max aperture. If I want to do so with my medium format system, I have to use Ilford, which I'm going to do. So personally, this reintroduction of TMZ is not a factor at all. I'm sure many will shoot it but not me. If EK releases it in 120, then count me in. I don't know how many folks feel and shoot the same as I do but there have to be a significant number.

Phil Forrest

 

[x-ray]

You think competing with themselves and all the other 100-speed films, along with a basically duplicate SKU, would be better?

I am positive EK will sell boatloads more TMZ than any of those. I would bet there are more young people shooting film right now regularly who weren't even born yet when Panatomic-X was discontinued, than the supposed market for it from those who want it back.

Kodak had products for decades that competed with other of their products for decades. One example, TX400, TXP320 and Royal Pan 400 ( not to be confused with Royal X pan). Many of us that were dedicated TX400 users went to Ilford when new TX came out in 2006. Other than the name new TX has no similarity to original TX. If people want both it can be marketed as Original TX and TX-II as in Kodachrome, Kodachrome II, Kodachrome X, Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64. TMax films are totally different than PX, FX and original TX. Tonality, grain structure, color sensitivity and sharpness are completely different. IMO theres a reason to have both as does Ilford with Delta 100 And 400 as well as HP5 and FP4.

As to FX, there's no equivalent today. Ilford has their 50 ISO film but it's contrastive and much more difficult for most people to manage. FX was a very tame contrast film easy to expose for full shadows and tame highlights.

My bet is there'll be very little of TMZ sold. It wasn't a general purpose film in the beginning and won't be now. IMO it wasn't as good as pushing HP5 in Acufine. Time will tell but I'll bet it's pulled from the market in a couple of years.