Kodak Tmax 3200 - It's back baby!

FishyFish

FishyFish

Messages
7,505
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
https://mobile.BANNED/KodakProFilmBiz/status/965541545645658112

Calling all film lovers! Kodak Professional has an exciting that we will be sharing with the world on Friday. In the mean time, we will be tweeting clues and riddles all week to keep you on the edge of your seat! #KodakProfessional #KodakProFilmClues
Click to expand...

Clues tweeted so far are:

"Do you even push?"

"Get ready to take your photography to the next level"

"Film is back in the fast lane"

This is leading to speculation of a Tmax 3200 release.

Whatever it is, it's due for release in Marck 2018, and has been confirmed not to be the Ektachrome release.
 
h'mm a grain free colour neg film at 1600iso or 3200iso at a cheap price would excite me.
 
excalibur2 said:
h'mm a grain free colour neg film at 1600iso or 3200iso at a cheap price would excite me.
Click to expand...

Oh Brian, bless you and your boundless optimism. Whatever it is it definitely, positively, absolutely will not be cheap.:D
 
The technology in the Vision3 motion picture films means they probably have to do 'relatively' little work to create a high speed colour negative film. So I'm going to guess at it being Portra 1600 (which will turn out to be best shot at 800...hence basically daylight balanced 500T).

Failing that: T-Max 3200.
 
The dial on my Canon A1 goes up to 12,800, so bring it on, Kodak! ;)
 
Last edited:
Calling all film lovers! Kodak Professional has an exciting that we will be sharing with the world on Friday. In the mean time, we will be tweeting clues and riddles all week to keep you on the edge of your seat! #KodakProfessional #KodakProFilmClues

They should proof read stuff before they tweet it.
 
Is it too cynical to wonder if calling it "Professional" means they can charge more for it? :thinking: However, any new film should be welcomed anyways, so I'll look forward to learning more.
 
desf said:
Calling all film lovers! Kodak Professional has an exciting that we will be sharing with the world on Friday. In the mean time, we will be tweeting clues and riddles all week to keep you on the edge of your seat! #KodakProfessional #KodakProFilmClues

They should proof read stuff before they tweet it.
Click to expand...

More interesting was this link in the tweets https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=45&v=q1gBBv8w3gg portraiture with digi versus film and one of the cameras he was using was the Pentax 67...mind you his film shots can't be selling as he has holes in his trousers o_O:D
 
FujiLove said:
If it’s Kodak trousers with holes to store your film, I’m going to be really disappointed.
Click to expand...

Now that is a brilliant idea, if it isnt this then Kodak are missing a trick. :D
 
The post featuring a B&W shot of (the very fast) Usain Bolt suggests this is likely to be the return of T-Max 3200 (TMZ).
 
Ste_S said:
If only.... even a proper release of that consumer 800ISO colour film they sell to Lomo would be appreciated.

Consigned to having to push Portra 400 +1/+2 stops for a fast film now.
Click to expand...

Or use Portra 800? Beautiful film!
 
I bet this is going to be up to £10.00 a roll, if it is 35mm or 120, bet it's not 120.
 
FujiLove said:
I'd always assumed the Kodak/Lomo film was Portra 800. No?
Click to expand...

Possibly. I’ve never looked into the Lomo one but my point was there is a VERY good, fast film readily available.

Sectionate said:
Fast colour film would be ace
Click to expand...

Like Portra 800? Or faster like the Fuji 1600?

excalibur2 said:
Well I would have thought Kodak would have dropped it by now as surely there can't be too many filmies using it at the silly price of £10-£12 a 35mm roll.
Click to expand...

Except all the high end wedding photographers who use it? Or the amateurs like myself who think it’s a beautiful emulsion to shoot? There are plenty people using it out there.

And, by that same rationale, you’d think Polaroid Originals wouldn’t have got to the stage they have, but myself and many other people are buying and shooting the film.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FujiLove said:
I'd always assumed the Kodak/Lomo film was Portra 800. No?
Click to expand...

I'd be pretty surprised. I've had a number of issues with Lomo 800 that I've never experienced with Portra 800.

That is unless Lomo have purchased discarded, defective stock from Kodak and/or Lomo's added their own terrible backing paper that tends to blend onto the negative... I suppose I can't really rule these out completely...

excalibur2 said:
Well I would have thought Kodak would have dropped it by now as surely there can't be too many filmies using it at the silly price of £10-£12 a 35mm roll.
Click to expand...

People spend hundreds and, in the case of medium format (which is the only thing I shoot), thousands on digital cameras where the primary cost is the digital sensor; yet, some film shooters aren't even willing to spend £10 for a few rolls of film??

I think that your expectations regarding cost are unrealistic.

If you want better low light capability and better performance for your digital sensor; it usually costs more. You want better low light capability and finer grain for your film; similarly, it will cost more. The research, development, and production needs to be paid for at some point.
 
Last edited:
Didn't there used to be a T-Max 3200? I thought I used it once to shoot a metal band back in the 80s - grain like golf balls, which was exactly what I wanted.
 
I'd prefer it if Portra 800 was cheaper, after all, I'm sure most people would like to pay less for things (as long as their own income wasn't affected!), but I don't begrudge paying about £11 a roll for 35mm Portra 800 as I think it's a really good looking film. So I just shoot less of it than I would if it were cheaper (keeping it for 'best') In fact I'd rather have one roll of P 800 than two rolls of Portra 400 (just personal taste, as I don't shoot portraits and find the colours to be on the dull and flat side in duller weather (which for me is usually the reason I'm using a 400 ISO film!).

As far as I'm concerned, as long as the price of a film I like isn't too daft then it won't put me off using it, however, if the price per 36 exp roll of 135 is reasonable - say between £5 and £8 then I'd use more of it and more regularly. I'm probably not alone in thinking that way, so if Kodak are reading this and want to increase sales and shift more filmstock (thus keeping manufacturing plant working and their stocks fresh) then perhaps weigh up your options on the volume v unit-price ratio? (y)
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
I'd prefer it if Portra 800 was cheaper, after all, I'm sure most people would like to pay less for things (as long as their own income wasn't affected!), but I don't begrudge paying about £11 a roll for 35mm Portra 800 as I think it's a really good looking film. So I just shoot less of it than I would if it were cheaper (keeping it for 'best') In fact I'd rather have one roll of P 800 than two rolls of Portra 400 (just personal taste, as I don't shoot portraits and find the colours to be on the dull and flat side in duller weather (which for me is usually the reason I'm using a 400 ISO film!).
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, as long as the price of a film I like isn't too daft then it won't put me off using it, however, if the price per 36 exp roll of 135 is reasonable - say between £5 and £8 then I'd use more of it and more regularly. I'm probably not alone in thinking that way, so if Kodak are reading this and want to increase sales and shift more filmstock (thus keeping manufacturing plant working and their stocks fresh) then perhaps weigh up your options on the volume v unit-price ratio? (y)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
excalibur2 said:
Well you can't all protest at Portra 800 costing £11 per roll by stop buying it as if you did, Kodak would stop producing it....so Kodak could keep putting the price up and you'll just have to cough up or use Portra 400 @ 800iso ;)
Click to expand...
It's not so much the ISO, it's the look of the film that I like! If I had to choose just two colour neg films it would be Ektar 100 and Portra 800. But then again, I suppose I'd prefer beef wellington and a slightly oaky Beaujolais to meat and potato pie and a glass of Vimto, now all I need is the disposable income to pay for expensive tastes! :D
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing Kodachrome 200 in 126 cartridge format, coinciding with an ironic re-release of the Instamatic camera for hipsters. Or a new Disc Camera with a 15 frames per second motordrive. Or a 3D-printed Box Brownie with blockchain support, or something.
 
Mr Badger said:
It's not so much the ISO, it's the look of the film that I like! If I had to choose just two colour neg films it would be Ektar 100 and Portra 800. But then again, I suppose I'd prefer beef wellington and a slightly oaky Beaujolais to meat and potato pie and a glass of Vimto, now all I need is the disposable income to pay for it! :D
Click to expand...

Well I suppose I could use expensive Portra 800 like in the old days with expensive Kodachrome for special occasions...but the difference is:- Kodachrome was so superior to colour neg film at the time and worth paying the high cost, but is Portra that "vastly" superior to the cheaper films and worth it. But as said "wedding photographers like it" but the cost is claimed back by expenses, so if it was £20 per roll they could pay it...h'mm so how many guys here would pay at any cost.
 
FishyFish said:
https://mobile.BANNED/KodakProFilmBiz/status/966628741798559745

The latest clue shows a colour photo of a house with black and white door. A fast C41 B&W film perhaps?
Click to expand...


That's the "House of black and white" from Game of Thrones. Hopefully it's not C41 and is in fact tmax 3200 (or similar)
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I suppose I could use expensive Portra 800 like in the old days with expensive Kodachrome for special occasions...but the difference is:- Kodachrome was so superior to colour neg film at the time and worth paying the high cost, but is Portra that "vastly" superior to the cheaper films and worth it. But as said "wedding photographers like it" but the cost is claimed back by expenses, so if it was £20 per roll they could pay it...h'mm so how many guys here would pay at any cost.
Click to expand...

What do you call 'any cost' though? Of course, it has to be realistic. If it gets much more expensive than it is now, it would be off-putting, sure.

Mr Badger said:
It's not so much the ISO, it's the look of the film that I like! If I had to choose just two colour neg films it would be Ektar 100 and Portra 800. But then again, I suppose I'd prefer beef wellington and a slightly oaky Beaujolais to meat and potato pie and a glass of Vimto, now all I need is the disposable income to pay for expensive tastes! :D
Click to expand...

Exactly the same as me. Ektar and Portra 800 are lovely.
 
raathistle said:
That's the "House of black and white" from Game of Thrones. Hopefully it's not C41 and is in fact tmax 3200 (or similar)
Click to expand...

Well, it definitely sounds like Kodak are raising something from the dead.

Either that, or it could be one of those shape-shifting films...you load and shoot it as B&W ISO 400, but when you open the back......damn it!.....it's a roll of C41 ISO 100.

I've had a few of those recently.

#DisorganisedScatterBrain
 
Assassins.
That's what they are releasing.
 
kendo1 said:
Assassins.
That's what they are releasing.
Click to expand...

Ooh... you shouldn't go around releasing assassins, they can be dangerous. :)
 
Why would anybody want TM3200...:cautious:
I mean, I can think of other films now discontinued that I'd much rather be resurrected than TM3200.
Yeah, I'll be pretty disappointed if that's all it is, never bought it when it was alive anyway and with Delta still available, that's not likely to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top