TMZ3200 for Grain

[raid]

I have tried out using Kodak TMZ3200 with a Pen F and with photos taken at a window during the day. I was optimistic and guessed the exposure, so the results my not be optimal or maybe not want be what could be obtained if I had taken meter readings. I sent the film for developing and kept the negative uncut for scanning with a Fuji Frontier machine. The negatives had each two images in them, with 38 negatives that gave me 76 exposures. I used PS to crop one image at a time to get my final images. I knew beforehand that such images either come out great or without details. Cost was minimal, so it was not a waste.

What do you think? Are these images any good?

Raid

Link: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=716927

 

[erikhaugsby]

I really find the pose of (your daughter?) in the first one to be intriguing--it begs to ask what she's looking at.

The second one is much more simple, and unfortunately out of focus.


I'd say you've found grain, if grain is what you want.

 

[raid]

I really find the pose of (your daughter?) in the first one to be intriguing--it begs to ask what she's looking at.

The second one is much more simple, and unfortunately out of focus.


I'd say you've found grain, if grain is what you want.

Erik:

Yes, the first photo is of my daughter. She was looking at the TV set. I have many other photos that are better focused.

Raid

 

[Doug]

At such small size, Raid, it's hard to assess the quality of the grain or sharpness. My first take on the second one was that its lesser sharpness might be due to camera movement. But the half-frame platform seems a natural for emphasizing grain!

 

[raid]

At such small size, Raid, it's hard to assess the quality of the grain or sharpness. My first take on the second one was that its lesser sharpness might be due to camera movement. But the half-frame platform seems a natural for emphasizing grain!

Doug: The link at the end of my first posting takes you to large size images. The grain becomes apparent. Lack of sharpness is my fault when it is present.

Raid

 

[julio1fer]

Grain it does have!

Half frame is a natural if you want to emphasize grain; double the grain size for half the film cost.

Personally I prefer the results from pushed Tri-X; the grain from TMax films seems "unnatural", as sandpaper with salt and pepper mixed over it.

This one is Tri-X unpushed in my Pen D3. Grain is noticeable in a print, maybe only marginally in this low res scan.

 

[raid]

Grain it does have!

Half frame is a natural if you want to emphasize grain; double the grain size for half the film cost.

Personally I prefer the results from pushed Tri-X; the grain from TMax films seems "unnatural", as sandpaper with salt and pepper mixed over it.

This one is Tri-X unpushed in my Pen D3. Grain is noticeable in a print, maybe only marginally in this low res scan.

Julio,

I intentionally used TMZ3200 to amplify the grain structure.

Cheers,
Raid

 

[kb244]

Hrm not to hi-jack or anything, but I've thought bout shooting Kodak P3200 Tmax in the PenFT pushed to 12,400 since I've done the same exposure before in my Canon P full frame rangefinder with good results. Right now the only half-frame shot picture I have that just 'screams' grain is this picture of the King Grain Mill in Lowell, Michigan. Shot with a 30 year old roll of Tri-X 400 and exposed and developed as 400, it just came out that way, shot in a Canon Demi (the first one).

 

[raid]

Karl,

This is some grainy photo! I wonder how much is due to the age of the film and the pushing process.

Raid

 

[Marc-A.]

Well I tried also the TMZ3200 lately, and I had pretty good results with fine grain. I rated my first roll of TMZ3200 @ 1600 and don't see much grain.
I'll post some pictures in the gallery. See my Flickr:

http://flickr.com/photos/marc-a/800112407/

http://flickr.com/photos/marc-a/800112257/

http://flickr.com/photos/marc-a/800112369/

 

[raid]

Well I tried also the TMZ3200 lately, and I had pretty good results with fine grain. I rated my first roll of TMZ3200 @ 1600 and don't see much grain.
I'll post some pictures in the gallery. See my Flickr:

http://flickr.com/photos/marc-a/800112407/

http://flickr.com/photos/marc-a/800112257/

http://flickr.com/photos/marc-a/800112369/

Marc: The photos are great looking with the TMZ. I suspect that the developing process plays a major role in how TMZ shots come out. I use ASA1000 in my very grainy shots. A commercial lab did the developing. No matter which speed film I gave them, the results were grainy looking.

Raid

 

[Burlap Jacket]

This one is T-Max 3200 @ 3200. I think it's very usable. Not too splotchy.

 

[kb244]

Karl,

This is some grainy photo! I wonder how much is due to the age of the film and the pushing process.

Raid

That's the thing, no pushing what-so-ever, I developed it like I would have for 400, as I shot it at 400 as well.

 

[raid]

That's the thing, no pushing what-so-ever, I developed it like I would have for 400, as I shot it at 400 as well.

Karl,
I may have misunderstood you, but you said: "Hrm not to hi-jack or anything, but I've thought bout shooting Kodak P3200 Tmax in the PenFT pushed to 12,400"


Raid

 

[kb244]

Karl,
I may have misunderstood you, but you said: "Hrm not to hi-jack or anything, but I've thought bout shooting Kodak P3200 Tmax in the PenFT pushed to 12,400"


Raid

Yes I said that but it was in no way related to the Grainy King Mill image.

I had shot in the past on a Canon P ( a full frame rangefinder, not the Demi) a roll of P3200 pushed to 12,400 by developing it in Tmax 1+4 (I am not aware of P3200 being made 30 years ago so my roll was a fresh stock), and I much enjoyed the results of those, and am anticipating doing the same but on my Pen FT but have yet to do so.

 

[raid]

You are correct, Karl. The information on the Canon P slipped by me somehow.
There was no TMZ made 30 years ago.

Raid