New Kodak Professional Film Product

[sepiareverb]

....

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...

Could not agree more with your whole post, but this bit in particular.

Was talking with a friend today who posited that perhaps they found a forgotten master roll in deep salt-mine storage, thus the immediate release. Makes sense. Granted a b&w emulsion is simpler to produce, but given the difficulties resurrecting Ektachrome I don’t picture them just whipping up a batch of this stuff, which has such a small potential market.

 

[bluesun267]

Kodak had products for decades that competed with other of their products for decades. 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.

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.

Absolutely agree...we need a slow speed B/W 25-32 ISO which has low contrast to fill the gap left by Panatomic-X and APX 25. There are plenty of slow stocks but all are high con (some can be great, no doubt) but it's not the same. I have serious doubts that Ferrania P30 alpha is anything remotely similar to the stock used by the neo-realists in the 50s/60s. Just too much contrast.

On the other hand, you've conflated products like TX320/TX400 that were offered in the same era to different groups (amateur/pro) with products that underwent changes and were replaced by new versions over decades. You've got at all 3 eras of Kodachrome there.

What I want to know is why Ektachrome is delayed...and why Ferrania can't coat a run of some kind of color reversal at this point. I think buyers have shown they're more eager to try something than wait for perfection. For Kodak this should be a piece of cake. How many new Ektachromes were developed in the 1990s--10 or 20? I know they're a smaller company now but I don't think one new Ektachrome within a year's time is such a tall order.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I know they're a smaller company now but I don't think one new Ektachrome within a year's time is such a tall order.

Do they have an extra coating machine specifically for Ektachrome, or do they have to schedule time on an common coating machine between runs of other emulsions? Maybe they have constraints on a time slot.

 

[dallard]

It's available for pre order @ B&H for $10.99/roll
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29146-USA/Kodak_1516798_TMZ_135_36_T_Max_P3200.html

 

[dallard]

Delta 3200 is $9.29

 

[Ted Striker]

Do they have an extra coating machine specifically for Ektachrome, or do they have to schedule time on an common coating machine between runs of other emulsions? Maybe they have constraints on a time slot.

Building 38 is run nowhere near capacity. Time on the machine is the least of their problems.

 

[Ted Striker]

Delta 3200 is $9.29

A much better deal.

 

[objectowcer]

People have definitely been shooting ektacrhome over on instagram. The kodak camera club had a walk several weeks ago and people mentioned shooting it then.

I don't know what steps it takes to bring a film to market, but it's probably a good sign that it's being tested or whatnot.

A link to some ektachrome (among other) shots:
https://www.instagram.com/stoffelmatt/

 

[jawarden]

Delta 3200 is $9.29

FPP has P3200 for $8.99 until the end of the month.

 

[jawarden]

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.

I like Delta 3200 too. I like DDX as well. It's all good. I ordered some P3200 because it's cheaper than D3200 when you buy from the right people, and I want to have some fun with something new.

 

[dallard]

FPP has P3200 for $8.99 until the end of the month.

I only see it on there for $9.99. Maybe there's a deal going on?
https://filmphotographystore.com/co.../products/35mm-bw-film-kodak-tmax-3200-1-roll
The reason I posted the prices is because this film is supposed to compete with Delta and at 10.99 a roll I don't think it does that very well. At 9.99 however...

Then again I'm sure there are many out there who just like the look of p3200 so much that nothing will compete with it at any price.

 

[dallard]

I like Delta 3200 too. I like DDX as well. It's all good. I ordered some P3200 because it's cheaper than D3200 when you buy from the right people, and I want to have some fun with something new.

I agree. I'll probably order a few rolls to play with but I doubt it will become a staple. It's encouraging to see a film line up expanding rather than shrinking but I would like to see brand new film products rather than just the reintroduction of old ones. Really looking forward to the new Ektachrome.

 

[GarageBoy]

It's a weird move, a special purpose product with a limited storage life. As much as I like TMZ(I like the newspaper look), i would have preferred almost anything else to be reintroduced. I hope it sells enough that Kodak contemplates bringing something else back

 

[jawarden]

I only see it on there for $9.99. Maybe there's a deal going on?

Yes, just type "savedollar" if you order and each roll will be reduced by a buck. Only until the end of the month. Good price.

 

[PhotoGog]

New Kodak Professional Film Product

I used to shoot a quite a bit of TMZ in the early 2000s, averaging about 40 rolls a year. It was always better than Delta 3200, or perhaps that is only because I used Perceptol to develop the Delta as per Ilford recommendation and it never worked to my taste, whereas TMZ was souped in D76. Anyway, these days I have no interest in shooting film rated at 3200 box speed. Why bother? Much rather push HP5 given I always have 20-30 rolls in the fridge. Half the cost of TMZ too - and half again if you bulk load.

Frankly, in my view shooting film in especially low light these days seems idiotic, excluding tripod based shots in larger formats than 35mm. I used to love it back when digital sensors produced garbage. But now? Personally, I concentrate on chasing amazing natural light - the spot lit band on stage or by the campfire stuff is best left to digital. That is just one shooting context I am more than happy to concede to pixels while I chew through ACROS and HP5 in gorgeous and abundant sunshine. Especially down here in Oz.

 

[dallard]

I used to shoot a quite a bit of TMZ in the early 2000s, averaging about 40 rolls a year. It was always better than Delta 3200, or perhaps that is only because I used Perceptol to develop the Delta as per Ilford recommendation and it never worked to my taste, whereas TMZ was souped in D76. Anyway, these days I have no interest in shooting film rated at 3200 box speed. Why bother? Much rather push HP5 given I always have 20-30 rolls in the fridge. Half the cost of TMZ too - and half again if you bulk load.

Frankly, in my view shooting film in especially low light these days seems idiotic, excluding tripod based shots in larger formats than 35mm. I used to love it back when digital sensors produced garbage. But now? Personally I concentrate on chasing amazing natural light - the spot lit band on stage or by the campfire stuff is best left to digital. That is just one shooting context I am more than happy to concede to pixels while o chew through ACROS and HP5 in gorgeous and abundant natural light.

I've seen some really nice results online from Tri-X @ 1600 in Diafine. Always meant to try it but never did.

 

[kiss-o-matic]

So, what does P3200 offer over Tri-X at 3200? I've seen some outstanding results w/ Tri-X standing in Rodinal up to 6400 (I usually only go to 1600), and it's like half the price of P3200.

 

[GarageBoy]

Actual shadow detail is what you get vs tri x

 

[DominikDUK]

So, what does P3200 offer over Tri-X at 3200? I've seen some outstanding results w/ Tri-X standing in Rodinal up to 6400 (I usually only go to 1600), and it's like half the price of P3200.

Normal contrast, Tmax3200 was designed to handle tricky contrasty lighting conditions. Also Tmax has a softer gradation than tx which suits some subjects extremely well.

 

[HHPhoto]

So, what does P3200 offer over Tri-X at 3200?

Much better image quality:
- much better sharpness
- much higher resolution
- significantly finer grain
- much better shadow detail.

But, you would get an even better image quality at ISO 3200/36° in most cases with the following combinations:
- TMY-2 with a lens with image stabilisation
- TMY-2 in a modern film body and modern fill-in flash system using the fill-in flash to fill the sensivity gap
- TMY-2 @800 in combination with one of the numerous modern, excellent f1.4 lenses.

Cheers, Jan