Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Kodak Re-starts T-Max P3200 film |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Kodak Re-starts T-Max P3200 film
It appears that the big announcement that Kodak has hinted at all week is the return of P3200 in 135 which was its only format before. It looks as if it will be available in March
Interestingly or otherwise its speed is listed as only 800 which is news to me I had thought that it was rated as 1000 as per the rating applied to D3200. The original was said to be slightly fined grained than D3200 but I have never seen evidence of this. Has anyone ever compared the two negs and prints side by side? Still a step in the right direction. Let's hope that it can meet its date of March. Some scepticism already surrounds an introduction date for Ektachrome Mike |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
A superb film returns!
http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites...ucts/F4001.pdf Mike, from the link above: The nominal speed is EI 1000 when the film is processed in KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Developer or KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX RS Developer and Replenisher, or EI 800 when it is processed in other KODAK black-and-white developers. It was determined in a manner published in ISO standards. For ease in calculating exposure and for consistency with the commonly used scale of film-speed numbers, the nominal speed has been rounded to EI 800 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If the ISO (which I presume is the same as EI?) is published as either 1000 or 800, why is the film not called P1000 or P800 rather than the published name of P3200?
Slightly confused , Terry S |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Delta 3200 isn't called 1000 either. I believe it has to do with the contrast curves - these films "look" best when exposed at EI 3200 and developed accordingly.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, Miha. I had always thought that real speed was that produced when using a so-called "standard" developer which was ID11/D76 and had assumed that this was the speed produced when D3200 was thus developed and yet Kodak only rates P3200 at 800 in anything other than the two developers mentioned which are T-MAX Professional or T-MAX RS. It might be that in other than in T-MAX Professional developer or T-MAX RS Kodak would rate Ilford's true speed as only 800 as well but Ilford clearly says that in its equivalent of D76 which is ID11 gives Ilford D3200 true speed of1000
On that basis it would look as if D3200 is 200 faster in "standard" developer compared to Kodak P3200 so it genuinely has the edge speed-wise on P3200. Mike |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
The thing is Mike there is no "standard" when it comes to BW developers.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I used to enjoy the film rated at 3200 or 1600 and dev in rodinal
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
An intriguing choice. Just how many people are there likely to use this quirky film?
Leica IIIc and and 50/3.5 collapsible Elmar , taken back in 1999 with OM2n, Zuiko 50/1.8 and +3 close-up lens on Kodak Tmax3200 (scanned from neg, unfortunately). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
All I can say from being on Photrio is that quite a number there are going ecstatic about its re-introduction. If it is genuinely finer-grained than D3200 and is equally good at say 1600 and 3200 then I'd say it has a future with the following provisos: 1. There has to be a future for Kodak itself and that does not seem to be a given. The needle on this one seems to swing wildly at times 2. In this country it has to compete pricewise with D3200 and based on the U.S. price this is looking dubious. 3. Finally it has to produce as printable negatives at say 1600/3200 speeds as does D3200 and again this seems open to question when you look at both films curves when they require "pushing" i.e. developing at more than their true speeds. Even if it is finer grained than D3200 then if pushing it makes negs more difficult to control it may not be enough to sell it as a product to the general analogue public as opposed to the Kodak diehards. If its true speed is only 800 and pushing it gives problem negatives then how much better is it than TMax 400 pushed to 800? Evidence suggests that TMax400 does very well at 800. Finally even if D3200 is grainier, it has a secret weapon which P3200 lacks, namely D3200 is produced in 120 and P3200 is not. So unless s your enlargements are quite large, grain ceases to be an issue. Mike |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Not a film I have used much myself, but I am delighted to see it return.
|
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak Film and Paper - New Ownership by the Kodak U.K. Pension Fund | Mike O'Pray | Photography in general | 24 | 14th May 2013 06:17 AM |
Kodak IR Film | Dave miller | Auctions of Interest | 13 | 2nd May 2011 06:50 AM |
kodak HIE film | mark d | Monochrome Film | 7 | 1st August 2010 03:59 PM |
Expired Tmax P3200 (TMZ 3200) - a case for the dustbin? | TimoS | Monochrome Film | 3 | 8th February 2010 04:10 PM |
The history of photography starts here | Sandeha Lynch | Photography in general | 10 | 2nd July 2009 07:12 PM |