Kodak Tmax 3200 - It's back baby!

For P3200, in the 2007 datasheet, Kodak themselves say...

-------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------

So, it's 1000 in some developers, 800 in others, in accordance with the ISO standard, and they round it to 800 for ease of use. Or am I missing something?
 
Nomad Z said:
For P3200, in the 2007 datasheet, Kodak themselves say...

-------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------

So, it's 1000 in some developers, 800 in others, in accordance with the ISO standard, and they round it to 800 for ease of use. Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I think by using different developers they are deviating from the standardised ISO measurement process, explaining why they are citing EI rather than ISO. My reading is that all other factors—beside the development—have been controlled though according to usual ISO testing processes, which is why they say the EI has been determined in accordance with ISO standards, but they haven't technically measured ISO.

This matches up with the link that discusses ISO, EI, and TMax 3200 that is included in my previous post.
 
Last edited:
Aye, but on the other hand, they're saying "The nominal speed is EI 1000 when ... or EI 800 when ..."

If anything, it's a bit ambiguous.

The thing that makes me think it can vary is, if we, for example, underexpose and then develop to get the required minimum density, whether a subsequent fixed increase in exposure results in the required fixed increase in density (to determine the film speed from the Dmin EI) depends entirely on the chemicals and process involved. In any such case where we expose at a different EI and the increase factors are still satisfied, the film speed has changed. I find it difficult to believe that there are no such cases given there are so many variations of developer and process.
 
Nomad Z said:
Aye, but on the other hand, they're saying "The nominal speed is EI 1000 when ... or EI 800 when ..."

If anything, it's a bit ambiguous.

The thing that makes me think it can vary is, if we, for example, underexpose and then develop to get the required minimum density, whether a subsequent fixed increase in exposure results in the required fixed increase in density (to determine the film speed from the Dmin EI) depends entirely on the chemicals and process involved. In any such case where we expose at a different EI and the increase factors are still satisfied, the film speed has changed. I find it difficult to believe that there are no such cases given there are so many variations of developer and process.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, after googling a few sources, this issue seems more nuanced than I would have expected.

From what I can see, films have traditionally been tested using a single ISO developer, which obviously makes sense and helps with standardisation; however, some of the films with newer technologies, such as t-grain films (e.g., Delta, TMax), apparently reacted differently to the standard ISO developer than traditional films. As such, ISO testing standards were seemingly adjusted to allow ISO speed testing with other developers, but that these instances should be made clear to the consumer.

According to ISO 6:1993:

This International Standard recognizes that black and white films do not generally have a unique speed if several different processes are recommended. This conflicts with the tradition of associating a specific speed value with a particular product. In the future, the process used for determining sped values should be unequivocally described to avoid misinterpretation. Since users often do not know how these films well be processed, manufacturers have an obligation to provide a speed value for this situation which will ensure good results.
Click to expand...

That said, the process of determining ISO appears to correlate more strongly with optical density and exposure variables than chemistry.
 
Mike Johnston of TOP has a nice article on this film, among his advice is: don't shoot at EI 3200!
 
ChrisR said:
Mike Johnston of TOP has a nice article on this film, among his advice is: don't shoot at EI 3200!
Click to expand...

It's interesting that he states that TMax P3200 never had an official ISO rating because it was never submitted for the ISO testing protocols. This would explain why Kodak and now Kodak Alaris have been careful to use EI in their published materials concerning the film rather than ISO.
 
Mr Badger said:
Yes, and it seems another new film from Kodak has slipped under our radar while we were reading about 3200 TMax and the return of Ektachrome! It will be interesting to see what the F&C regulars think of this when they try it: http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/kodak-pro-image-100-35mm-pack-of-5-4267-p.asp
Click to expand...

h'mm pro image 100 @ 100 ISO well would think most filmies would prefer 200 or 400 ISO for general use..anyway pleased Kodak made it available.
Looked it up and it was first introduced in 1997 http://www.thorleyphotographics.com/?page_id=172
 
Kodak Pro Image is not new, I’ve got a load in the fridge. It’s a reasonably cheap ok’ish colour negative film. Standard C41 process, doesn’t respond well to poor storage conditions.
 
RaglanSurf said:
Kodak Pro Image is not new, I’ve got a load in the fridge. It’s a reasonably cheap ok’ish colour negative film. Standard C41 process, doesn’t respond well to poor storage conditions.
Click to expand...

Nick, Have you any examples of this film and how does it, if at all differ from Kodak Gold? With regard to storage the Ilford site states "Storage at normal room conditions"
 
medwaygreen said:
Nick, Have you any examples of this film and how does it, if at all differ from Kodak Gold? With regard to storage the Ilford site states "Storage at normal room conditions"
Click to expand...
I’ll see if I can dig out some shots, I’m not sure I’ve worked my way through much of it. As far comparing it to Kodak Gold, I’m sorry I have no idea, I don’t think I’ve used Kodak Gold since the 90’s.
 
FujiLove said:
This is the forum for discussing 'photography'. The act of creating photographs using light sensitive materials. 'Digital imaging' is very interesting and creative, but sadly can only be used to create files.
Click to expand...

..but he has a point in that for colour work, filmies are hampered for nice grain shots at 1600 or 3200 ISO (for low light situations) with film at a reasonable price...which is my continuing moan. :grumpy:
 
excalibur2 said:
..but he has a point in that for colour work, filmies are hampered for nice grain shots at 1600 or 3200 ISO (for low light situations) with film at a reasonable price...which is my continuing moan. :grumpy:
Click to expand...

There are two solutions:

1. Kodak 500T can easily be shot at 1600 and looks great. It's less than £5 a roll if you buy it pre-rolled or only £2.75 if you roll it yourself from cans.

2. A tripod! :p
 
Clean images are (were?) possible at 1600 and 3200 ASA, but you need to stop using a miniature format. ;)
 
Hmm, I have 4x5, 120 and 35mm but if you really want cheap, small grain high ISO colour, you are looking in the wrong place!
 
..and things are looking up as on the picture in win 10 welcoming screen it says " Whether you prefer film or digital, you're going to want pictures of this". Nice to know Microsoft knows film still exists.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Clean images are (were?) possible at 1600 and 3200 ASA, but you need to stop using a miniature format. ;)
Click to expand...

Well yes but in places MF\LF is a bit inconvenient...some guys here go to gigs and might leave their digi at home and then snap away happily with 35mm if there was a very high ISO low grain colour film available.... at a reasonable price.
Ideal C41 colour film would be VG results @ 3200 (for low light) but results even better using film on sunny days @ 800 IS0 or maybe 400 ISO (y)
 
excalibur2 said:
some guys here go to gigs and might leave their digi at home and then snap away happily with 35mm if there was a very high ISO low grain colour film available.... at a reasonable price.
I
Click to expand...

I know! Imagine all those concert images we see from the 60's up until the early 2000's that were all shot on film and made into posters and hung on bedroom walls all around the world. If only they had had a tool that was up to the task! :rolleyes:

Oh, you tagged on "at a reasonable price". My apologies. Yes, we need a 1600 speed, colour film with grain as seen on 50 ISO films and can be bought from Poundland. :D
 
gazmorton2000 said:
I know! Imagine all those concert images we see from the 60's up until the early 2000's that were all shot on film and made into posters and hung on bedroom walls all around the world. If only they had had a tool that was up to the task! :rolleyes:

Oh, you tagged on "at a reasonable price". My apologies. Yes, we need a 1600 speed, colour film with grain as seen on 50 ISO films and can be bought from Poundland. :D
Click to expand...

Well let the filmie guys who use their digis e.g. gigs say why they don't use a film camera.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well let the filmie guys who use their digis e.g. gigs say why they don't use a film camera.
Click to expand...

Or we will see more people who don't actually shoot much of what they talk about making assumptions and quoting numbers without real word experience. How much fast, colour negative film have you actually shot recently? Or fast B&W for that matter? I can't believe I have to say this again but, not everyone who shoots film also shoots with or owns a digital camera (yes, there's a camera on my iPhone before anyone says that).
 
gazmorton2000 said:
we need a 1600 speed, colour film with grain as seen on 50 ISO films and can be bought from Poundland. :D
Click to expand...

You know, Kodak 500T is really close to fitting that definition...particularly if you compare it to high speed colour film from a couple of decades ago.
 
FujiLove said:
You know, Kodak 500T is really close to fitting that definition...particularly if you compare it to high speed colour film from a couple of decades ago.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic. For my needs, I have the films I need. I am just struggling to find the other elements at the moment. :)
 
FujiLove said:
Me too. I have cameras and film coming out of my ears. Time and light? Not so much,
Click to expand...

For me it's the right models and locations. But that's not a discussion for this thread. :)
 
gazmorton2000 said:
How much fast, colour negative film have you actually shot recently? Or fast B&W for that matter?
Click to expand...

I'm a flasher for when I can and when I can't, I ain't paying £10 plus a roll for Fuji 1600 plus dev costs when I can use my Nex 3.
It's all about the right tool for the job and although a committed filmie realise digi has a part to play.
 
I used to regularly use Ektar 1000 ASA film for photographing music gigs but found I was usually just about on the limit of getting an acceptable photo in the available light. Latterly, I used Fuji 1600 which gave just a bit more leeway light-wise. The results from both were quite acceptable grain-wise and stood blowing up to poster size for festival posters, etc.

These days I would definitely use a full frame DSLR with image stabilised lenses for that job though, the Canon 6D I have gives fine looking results at 6400 ISO in low light situations and that would have usually been ample for what I needed back in the day. It's horses for courses really and I don't see a good reason not to pick the best tool for the job if the situation requires it, on the other hand there's nothing wrong with exploring the limits of film for hobby or artistic purposes if that's what people like to do. :)
 
Cameras - Check
Film - Check
Time - Check
Light - Check
Talent - Oh hang on.... :coat:
 
excalibur2 said:
Well yes but in places MF\LF is a bit inconvenient...some guys here go to gigs and might leave their digi at home and then snap away happily with 35mm if there was a very high ISO low grain colour film available.... at a reasonable price.
Ideal C41 colour film would be VG results @ 3200 (for low light) but results even better using film on sunny days @ 800 IS0 or maybe 400 ISO (y)
Click to expand...

TBH the last gig I shot seriously using film was a combination of Tmax 3200 on 35mm and an Agfa colour 1000ASA film using my Bronica ETR, probably in 1988 or 1989. Results from the Agfa were pretty close to 200asa in 35mm format, and the band loved the shots.
 
ancient_mariner said:
TBH the last gig I shot seriously using film was a combination of Tmax 3200 on 35mm and an Agfa colour 1000ASA film using my Bronica ETR, probably in 1988 or 1989. Results from the Agfa were pretty close to 200asa in 35mm format, and the band loved the shots.
Click to expand...

Well I used Fuji 1600 about 7 years ago in a church at a wedding...but no one said they were great shots :( my fault as I really needed an 85mm f1.8 lens, but only had a 135mm f3.5 at the time. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top