Kodak Tmax 3200 - It's back baby!

DWsHGmNUMAAL4tG
 
Ok, its good that we have another film, just not that exciting for me personally.
 
Mr Badger said:
Do you perhaps now have that feeling that you wish you'd been better behaved? Roll on Ektachrome. :whistle:
Click to expand...

LOL, quite.

To be honest though, considering the bad mouthing Kodak receive from a large chunk of film shooters, I think we're lucky they're releasing anything 'new' at all.
 
I've never used Tmax. How does it compare to Ilford 3200? That's a bit grainy for me really. Is T-max less so or about the same?
 
FujiLove said:
LOL, quite.

To be honest though, considering the bad mouthing Kodak receive from a large chunk of film shooters, I think we're lucky they're releasing anything 'new' at all.
Click to expand...
I don't think I've ever bad mouthed Kodak, and over the years it's mainly been their colour film that I've used in preference to any others. These days I use their colour film for 'best' and I'm even trying some of their black and white stuff instead of Fuji Acros 100 and XP2. So don't get me wrong, I wish them well and long may they continue supplying us with the best films in the world. (y)
 
Last edited:
BTW - it has an EI of 800 in most Kodak developers, but it's designed to be easily pushed to 3200. They have it listed up to EI 25,000 with experimentation!
 
KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX P3200 Black & White Negative Film ⁄ 3200TMZ is a multi-speed continuous-tone panchromatic black-and-white negative film that combines high to ultra-high film speeds with finer grain than that of other fast black-and-white films. It is especially useful for very fast action; for dimly lighted scenes where you can’t use flash; for subjects that require good depth of field combined with fast shutter speeds; and for handholding telephoto lenses for fast action or in dim light. It is an excellent choice for nighttime photography.

March 2018 • F-4001

FEATURES

• KODAKT-GRAIN Emulsion

• High to Ultra-High speed • Superior sharpness

BENEFITS

• Highspeed • Finegrain

• Allows available light photography in situations where it was previously impossible.

• Maintains subject detail in prints higher degrees of magnification than conventional films

Sounds good to me :cool:
 
The data sheet shows no reciprocity adjustments needed for up to 1 second but no data after that... :( Mind you, if shot at 3200, maybe you don't need longer exposures...

Anyone got a price? Not listed on macodirect yet...
 
FujiLove said:
I'd always assumed the Kodak/Lomo film was Portra 800. No?
Click to expand...

Apparently it's the consumer film (Gold/Procolour/Ultramax ?!) that Kodak put into the 800ISO disposable cameras

skysh4rk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not really. I try to shoot medium format on as much a budget (lol) as possible, and Portra 800 at £60 a box is too rich for my tastes over time.
Now that I've found my new favourite lab (Palm Labs in Brum) is happy to push C41, i'll be shooting Portra 400 or Fuji 400h at 800 or 1600ISO and getting them to push in development.

http://canadianfilmlab.com/2013/11/14/kodak-ektar-fuji-400h-pushed/
 
Ste_S said:
Not really. I try to shoot medium format on as much a budget (lol) as possible, and Portra 800 at £60 a box is too rich for my tastes over time.
Now that I've found my new favourite lab (Palm Labs in Brum) is happy to push C41, i'll be shooting Portra 400 or Fuji 400h at 800 or 1600ISO and getting them to push in development.

http://canadianfilmlab.com/2013/11/14/kodak-ektar-fuji-400h-pushed/
Click to expand...

That's fine, I'm not saying one has to use films like Portra 800 or Cinestill 800, but that there should be realistic expectations about cost and performance if people desire some of the features that more expensive films offer. People are willing to spend big money on digital sensors that offer enhanced low light capability, better colour, etc. so that spurs research and development. If film shooters won't do this, then we won't get film's equivalent of the better digital sensor developments.

For what it is worth, pushing films like 400H, Ektar, and Portra doesn't necessarily get you closer to what some of the more expensive films are offering; it really only offers better shutter speeds in available daylight situations (note that Canadian Film Lab's examples contain ample and good-quality daylight). In artificial or mixed lighting, Ektar, Portra, and 400H require two stops of additional exposure, so pushing doesn't really get you very far, except maybe back to the original daylight-balanced ISO. As such, Cinestill 800T, as a tunsten-balanced film, offers significantly better low-light capability compared to any ISO 400 daylight-balanced film (at least three stops better).

Pushing Ektar, 400H, and Portra 400 probably can get you closer to Portra 800 as all are daylight balanced. That said, I enjoy Portra 800 because of its colour palette and flexibility (it looks good shot at EI 200), which is also something digital shooters spend big money to get.

Even I myself don't buy refrigerators full of Cinestill 800T or Portra 800, as the costs do add up, but I will happily buy a number of boxes throughout the year as I see it as upgrading my camera for a few shots. There are times (e.g., holidays, special events) where I need certain looks or capabilities out of my film that aren't possible with some of the cheaper films.
 
Last edited:
Andysnap said:
Ooh... you shouldn't go around releasing assassins, they can be dangerous. :)
Click to expand...
You just can't take off your work hat off can you?
 
skysh4rk said:
That's fine, I'm not saying one has to use films like Portra 800 or Cinestill 800, but that there should be realistic expectations about cost and performance if people desire some of the features that more expensive films offer. People are willing to spend big money on digital sensors that offer enhanced low light capability, better colour, etc. so that spurs research and development. If film shooters won't do this, then we won't get film's equivalent of the better digital sensor developments.

For what it is worth, pushing films like 400H, Ektar, and Portra doesn't necessarily get you closer to what some of the more expensive films are offering; it really only offers better shutter speeds in available daylight situations (note that Canadian Film Lab's examples contain ample and good-quality daylight). In artificial or mixed lighting, Ektar, Portra, and 400H require two stops of additional exposure, so pushing doesn't really get you very far, except maybe back to the original daylight-balanced ISO. As such, Cinestill 800T, as a tunsten-balanced film, offers significantly better low-light capability compared to any ISO 400 daylight-balanced film (at least three stops better).

Pushing Ektar, 400H, and Portra 400 probably can get you closer to Portra 800 as all are daylight balanced. That said, I enjoy Portra 800 because of its colour palette and flexibility (it looks good shot at EI 200), which is also something digital shooters spend big money to get.

Even I myself don't buy refrigerators full of Cinestill 800T or Portra 800, as the costs do add up, but I will happily buy a number of boxes throughout the year as I see it as upgrading my camera for a few shots. There are times (e.g., holidays, special events) where I need certain looks or capabilities out of my film that aren't possible with some of the cheaper films.
Click to expand...

I have never heard of Cinestill - what's it like?

#threadderail?
 
Sectionate said:
I have never heard of Cinestill - what's it like?

#threadderail?
Click to expand...

Cinestill repackage Kodak motion picture films for use in still photography. The Cinestill 800T emulsion, in particular, is tungsten balanced, so it performs better under artificial and mixed lighting conditions with very good reciprocity characteristics. Daylight film loses nearly two stops of sensitivity in those conditions. The downside is that 800T comes at a cost (e.g., around £10–£15 per roll) and, because it's repurposed motion picture film, the anti-halation layer must be removed to enable C41 processing, resulting in halos around reddish sources of light. The halos sometimes actually add to the picture, especially with some nighttime city scenes, but can be problematic in other instances, such as sunlight around sunset (although this is a tungsten-balanced film, so I wouldn't ordinarily use it under daylight conditions).

Some examples:




 
FujiLove said:
BTW - it has an EI of 800 in most Kodak developers, but it's designed to be easily pushed to 3200. They have it listed up to EI 25,000 with experimentation!
Click to expand...

So I'm a bit confused... if the EI is 800, then what is "box speed"?

I'm guessing that the recommended dev times for this film shot at 3200 are really the push dev times of the EI800 film?
 
Box speed in my mind is 3200. Obviously haven't had chance to process any yet but i expect the dev times to be similar to the old stuff.
15 mins @3200
13 @ 1600
11 @ 800
Unsure if it will push past 3200 in my set up.
I'm sure I'll get one shot at 256k iso
 
ChrisR said:
So I'm a bit confused... if the EI is 800, then what is "box speed"?

I'm guessing that the recommended dev times for this film shot at 3200 are really the push dev times of the EI800 film?
Click to expand...

Box speed is the ISO speed when it's developed with the chemicals and using the technique described by the manufacturer. In this case, you will achieve an EI of 3200 when you follow the instructions on the data sheet. This will almost certainly involve using a speed enhancing developer (probably Tmax or Xtol) to achieve EI 3200. However, that isn't to say those results will be the 'best' achievable with the film. Kodak is suggesting the highest quality is obtained at EI 800.
 
So this new film is actually an 800 and can be pushed 2 stops, hardly revolutionary is it?
Matt
 
I think the 3200 genre is just very versatile, its not revolutionary since its already existed once, gotta expect Kodak to big up anything they decide to introduce to the market however ordinary it might seem.
I think the reintroduction of Ektachrome is a bigger deal, nothing but Kodachrome is gonna increase my pulse rate though.
 
MatBin said:
So this new film is actually an 800 and can be pushed 2 stops, hardly revolutionary is it?
Matt
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it was ever billed by anyone as revolutionary; it isn't even a new film. From my understanding though, the actual speed by ISO standards is 1000 rather than 800.

While not revolutionary, films such as this are quite handy, as they are designed with pushing in mind. That said, the film isn't very useful for me personally until it's available in 120 format.
 
FishyFish said:
So, in general, is it better to overexpose this stuff by a stop or two (and then process normally) rather than shooting it a box speed? Does that for for Delta 3200 as well (which I believe I've see is actually EI 1600)?
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, Delta 3200 is also nominally a 1000 speed film based on ISO standards. Like P3200, however, it is designed with pushing in mind, so "box speed" is effectively 3200 (Ilford recommend setting meter to 3200).

That said, both films I would test before shooting anything important, as differences in exposure, development, and personal taste will impact how you ultimately prefer to use these films. There is certainly no one way to make use of these films.
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
So, in general, is it better to overexpose this stuff by a stop or two (and then process normally)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you be under exposing if you set your meter to 3200?
 
MatBin said:
Wouldn't you be under exposing if you set your meter to 3200?
Click to expand...
FishyFish said:
If the film has a nominal speed of 1000, then presumably yes. Which was the reason for my question - I'd rather over-expose than under. I find it a little confusing.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get too caught up in the rating of 1000 by the typical ISO standard for Delta 3200 and P3200.

To my knowledge, both Delta 3200 and TMax P3200 are low contrast films designed for pushing. If you were to drop Delta 3200 or TMax P3200 at the lab and tell them to develop normally, they would develop for EI 3200, which is effectively the "box speed" (even if not technically by ISO standards).

Below is a photo I took a few Christmases ago using Ilford Delta 3200 pushed to 6400 (home developed in DD-X). It's quite likely that I actually exposed for EI 3200, but I can't remember. As you can see, the film can handle the pushing well enough provided there is some sort of light source on your subject.


 
Last edited:
Regarding the speed of this film, my understanding is as follows...

The ISO of a film is not purely a characteristic of the film itself. It depends on the film, the developer, and the specific development process used. The speed for that combination of factors is determined by measuring the difference in negative density for a given difference in exposure. This is then rounded to the nearest standard speed found in a table in the ISO spec.

So-called box speed is the maker's recommended exposure index for a given film, developer and process. Since changing developer and/or process can change ISO, it's up to the maker to set their criteria for how the film is rated, such as the most linear response to a given brightness range in the subject, ability to retain shadow detail when under-exposed, and so on. In other words, box speed tends to be the maker's recommendation that will best lead to whatever quality of the film they want to emphasise.

In the Kodak datasheet for TMax films, P3200 is rated at 1000 with certain developer and process combinations, and 800 with other combinations. The combinations that yield the slightly higher rating have then been adjusted to a nominal 800 when rounded to the nearest standard speed in the ISO table. It would appear that Kodak chose this speed for reasons other than supporting the high speed aspect. They don't give the reason(s), but the datasheet says that when rated at 3200 (ie, exposed and developed differently), there will be some loss of shadow detail, and a slight increase in contrast and graininess.

To me, this suggests that the 1000 or 800 'true' speed was established as a result of characterising and adjusting the exposure/developer/process combination until certain criteria were met (such as image quality, shadow detail, linear response, etc). However, this stuff is not considered in the ISO rating - that is concerned with difference in negative density for a given difference in exposure. Consequently, if a maker wants to promote a film as a high speed one, they are at liberty to mess around with higher EI settings and different developer/process combinations as they see fit, and declare that the film is rated at whatever speed they feel satisfies whatever it is that they want to promote.

So, what is the box speed of P3200? A further look at the TMax datasheet reveals that the 100 and 400 films are rated at those speeds "in most developers", while P3200 is described as a multi-speed film. The non-committal wording notwithstanding, the nomenclature of the TMax films is perhaps telling. The 100 and 400 films are called 100TMax and 400TMax, while the '3200' is called P3200TMax. The 'P' prefix seems to me to be important - my guess is that it signifies that the film is suitable for pushing to 3200. Perhaps more importantly, if the number on the box - industry wide - usually indicates the nominal EI to be used in conjunction with a given developer and process, then 'P3200' isn't a number, it's a label or a name. Arguably a bit of marketing fluff, but only if you see 'box speed' as something that meets certain arbitrary criteria that aren't required by the ISO spec. Maybe P3200 doesn't have a box speed, or the box speed is the 1000 / 800 given in the datasheet for results that satisfy certain criteria, or, if we seek to use it in the manner promoted by the maker (ultra high speed), we could say that it's 3200 (other speeds are available, but that's what is implied by the nomenclature).

Ultimately, it's a moving target - all film speeds are, and more so with this because it seems to be very tolerant in terms of producing 'acceptable' images for a wide range of EI and developer/process combinations.

The usefulness of referring to a box speed for this film is perhaps down to what photographers agree it should be - but that will depend on what they use it for. It could be an 800 film with good image quality, or a 3200 with acceptable image quality. It is somewhat equivalent to say that it's an 800 that can be pushed, and that it's a 3200 that can yield 'even better' image quality when pulled.

Personally, I'd call it a 3200. If I bought it, it would be because I'd be interested in using it at that speed - 3 stops more than my normal fast film of 400 is a big change that would allow me to shoot in conditions where the 400 would struggle. Others may prefer to use it at 800 and get better image quality, but the extra stop over Tri-X doesn't tempt me.

Addendum
Looking at the datasheet some more, the packaging artwork for the then-current datasheet (2007) is given, and that's what I refer to above. However, the previous artwork is also given. In that, the films are explicitly rated thus...

100 - 100 ISO / 21 DIN
400 - 400 ISO / 27 DIN
3200 - 3200 ISO / 36 DIN

However, the 3200 also has three boxes...
[ 1600 P1 ]
[ 3200 P2 ]
[ 6400 P3 ]

The 'Pn' designations perhaps indicate the number of stops that it can be pushed, which again implies that the nominal speed is 800. For that older packaging, however, Kodak do clearly give the box speed as 3200 (the newer packaging doesn't have the explicit ISO / DIN - just the name or label).

What we'll see on the reissued film remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:
Nomad Z said:
The ISO of a film is not purely a characteristic of the film itself. It depends on the film, the developer, and the specific development process used.
Click to expand...

This isn't my understanding. ISO refers to an unchanging, standardised method for measuring a film's sensitivity to light; this method is applied uniformly across films. ISO is, after all, an abbreviation for the International Organisation for Standardisation.

If this measurement isn't standardised, the system falls apart, does it not? How would you be able to compare across films? Companies could advertise all sorts of misleading information. The ISO system was created to prevent this very issue is my understanding.

Edit:

This explains things well and even explicitly mentions TMax 3200: Working in Black and White
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top