Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > General discussions > New products and offers

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 23rd February 2018, 11:44 AM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,969
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23rd February 2018, 12:59 PM
Miha's Avatar
Miha Miha is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 1,508
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 23rd February 2018, 01:23 PM
Terry S Terry S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,797
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 23rd February 2018, 01:31 PM
Miha's Avatar
Miha Miha is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 1,508
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 23rd February 2018, 03:56 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,969
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 23rd February 2018, 07:00 PM
Miha's Avatar
Miha Miha is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 1,508
Default

The thing is Mike there is no "standard" when it comes to BW developers.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 28th February 2018, 06:30 PM
Dave Hall Dave Hall is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 391
Default

I used to enjoy the film rated at 3200 or 1600 and dev in rodinal
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 1st March 2018, 08:54 PM
Simon E Simon E is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 29
Default

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).
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 1st March 2018, 10:23 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon E View Post
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).
The picture looks quite good Is this taken at 3200 or another speed?

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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 15th March 2018, 02:14 PM
Keith Tapscott.'s Avatar
Keith Tapscott. Keith Tapscott. is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,144
Default

Not a film I have used much myself, but I am delighted to see it return.
Reply With Quote
Reply
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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.