Kodak Tmax 3200, Delta 3200 how do they achieve their pushability?

Ted Baker · Feb 27, 2018

With the re-release of Tmax 3200 and several thread already started...

I am interested to understand how these films are different, any Ilford or Kodak reps comments most welcome!

Both these films have an ISO of 1000 or 1200, depending on the developer, so they are obviously more sensitive, a common comment is they have lower contrast at these ISO speeds than what they might otherwise have, but how?

A film exposed and developed to the ISO standard will have identical density at an exposure Log(1.3) (about 4 and bit stops) greater than the exposure that results in a density of Log(0.1). The two points while arbitrarily chosen are close to a middle tone and deep shadows respectively. So the contrast ratio between these two points should be same for any film exposed and developed to the ISO standard, indeed I believe the correct value is 0.62.

So how are the films different? The ISO test only defines two points, one in/close to the toe and one that would be a mid tone that the films contrast must pass through. That leaves the toe, the path between the two points and all of the density from the mid tones and up, that could be varied, but how?

Answers on a postcard.

trendland · Feb 27, 2018

Ted - from my point you can see a simple Ilford Hp5 as "ultraspeed film" sure you will reach highest ISO's
But the characteristic isn't "everybodys darling"
The grain comes "massive" and tonals are very "contrasty" from my point.
D3200 has from the beginning a lower contrast to avoid HP5's characteristic at higest speed. Some stated D3200 is foggy at lower speed. That's might be a missunderstanding and is highly dependable from developer.
So Tmaxx3200 has not this low contrast characteristic at "normal" ISO's.
The most difference is a finer grain characteristic at all speeds! ....
Tonals may increase very high at max.
speed. Kodak recomanded a tested workflow at higher speeds (ISO 12800 - ISO 25000) but such ISO's [box speed] are very extreme.
I would like to state to manage tonals is your "task" from developing.
These films give you just a "basis" on higher speeds.
with regards

trendland · Feb 27, 2018

To answer in addition : Yes they (both) have a much more "sensitive" characteristics. Tmax 3200 has~ 8times more in comparison to Tmax100 for example. The design is made to optimize some different parameter you have to optain within push workflow.
So (just if I understand your question correct) there is no way from "low contrast films" to use as extreme high speed. [The lower the contrast - the higher the possible reachable ISO].
THAT IS NO WAY.
You need the more sensibilisation of the emulsion.
with regards

Gerald C Koch · Feb 28, 2018

A film's speed is determined by its composition. Factors such as halides present (chloride, bromide, iodide), crystal size, sensitization dyes, etc. For example silver bromide emulsion is faster than silver chloride. Small crystal size produces lower speed. The underlying principle here is the crystal's cross sectional area that is exposed to light. The larger this size the faster the film. With dyes what potion and how much of the spectrum is covered.

pentaxuser · Feb 28, 2018

michael_r has kindly given us the Ilford D3200 curve but is there a similar curve available still for the old version of P3200 if we can assume that what Kodak has done is simply to start up the former P3200?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Ted Baker · Feb 28, 2018

michael_r said:
What these films (in particular Ilford D3200) feature is lower contrast in the highlights (ie further up the curve than the ISO triangle). You can see this in the characteristic curves. Delta 3200:

I agree with michael's summary regarding the contrast from mid tones to highlights.

I think michael, get's what my question is about. In summary a film exposed and developed to the ISO standard will have an identical contrast ratio at exactly the same two points on the exposure scale. Those two points being, one close to the shadows, a density of log(0.1) and on the other point is roughly a mid tone at an exposure log(1.3) greater than the first point, and has a density of log(0.9). If you don't get these values then you did not test the film correctly...

So all films exposed and developed to the ISO standard, are identical at those two points, my question then relates to the how are these films more pushable? How do they manage contrast, with extended development but still have the same ISO contrast.

ic-racer · Feb 28, 2018

You graph does not show how D3200 responds differently to under-exposure and over-develompent compared to any other film. Can we see the graph from the other film or what is being compared?

pentaxuser · Feb 28, 2018

I am not sure if I am reading the graphs correctly but it looks as if the gradient of P3200 in all the Kodak developers continues to rise steeply whereas D3200 in both its Ilford developers levels off markedly by comparison. The curves are not what you might term slightly different but markedly so. The P3200 curves do not seem to level off at all by comparison.

It may be/may be not that in either of the two Ilford developers P3200 would behave more like D3200 but there is no source to which we can refer.I am unsure how to translate this into practicalities / ease of use when using both films but just basing it on the curves it looks as if P3200 is markedly less amenable to pushing beyond, say, its ISO speed which is why one buys this kind of film in the first place.

In situations where EI 3200 is required, D3200 is likely to produce negatives more amenable to capturing a range of zones that may require a lot more darkroom printing manipulation if P3200 is used. If the above conclusions hold water then it would seem that where speed is required D3200 is the better( much better?) bet?

If greater problems arise with P3200 negatives than with D3200, at what speed(1250, 1600 2000, 3200 ) does it become difficult enough to make it the poorer choice compared to D3200?

I don't suppose that anyone here has done the comparison of shooting both films in similar light conditions at say 1600 then 3200 in the same developer and then tried making prints from the two sets of negs or have they?

Please bear in mind these are simply questions to extend my knowledge of the two films and how they behave and are not designed to start a fight between Kodak users and Ilford users. I am simply interested in each film's pros and cons.

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass · Feb 28, 2018

I would like to see a shot by shot comparison of the two films.

DREW WILEY · Feb 28, 2018

In most cases you're not actually "pushing" anything. You're merely lopping off deep shadow values by underexposure, then raising the density of what's left over through overdevelopment. TMZ would drop you off that cliff into a black hole cleaner, Delta 3200 more on a playground slide.

mdarnton · Mar 1, 2018

I wonder if the more generic direct answer to the question might be that as a general rule, higher speed emulsions are lower contrast, inherently, than low speed ones, which allows them to be stretched through development. Further, I'm going to guess that the most important limitation for speed is not so much anything else beyond how low will the customers go in quality (grain, sharpness) to gain speed.

Ted Baker · Mar 1, 2018

mdarnton said:
I wonder if the more generic direct answer to the question might be that as a general rule, higher speed emulsions are lower contrast, inherently, than low speed ones, which allows them to be stretched through development.

The problem with the lower contrast explanation at least without some qualification is that it doesn't fit into the ISO definition, a film exposed and developed to the ISO standard has the exact same contrast at the two test points. So a description of contrast needs to have some qualification or explanation, in this context.

There are obviously many variations that a film can take and still pass through those points, and hence a group of films developed to the ISO standard will all look quite different.

mdarnton · Mar 1, 2018

But it depends where those measuring points are. What works for their theory may not cover the whole range we use. Do you know?

Ted Baker · Mar 1, 2018

mdarnton said:
But it depends where those measuring points are. What works for their theory may not cover the whole range we use. Do you know?

The points are precisely defined but they are only two and they do not cover the whole range, just 4 and a bit stops of exposure, I understand the concepts, but I am interested in others expertise, hence the question, answering your question I don't know the answer ISO is just a system of measurement it is not a theory it is a practical thing, so I am interested in relating a practical measurement to real practical results.

Photo Engineer · Mar 1, 2018

Look at the inflection point of the above curve. If you sharpen it, it will then be possible to get the identical upper scale with higher speed and the same contrast. This can be done by development if the emulsions can do this. OTOH, you can put in a lot of silver, and then by proper exposure and development you can get the same general effect.

This is just a trick that effectively gives higher speed in negative films by taking advantage of pushability by the longer tone scale. It cannot give useful results in a reversal process.

It is not real speed any way you look at it.

PE

Sirius Glass · Mar 1, 2018

michael_r said:
This might help to illustrate. Both film A and Film B have the same ISO speed, but due to the difference in curve shapes, we would tend to say Film B is more "pushable" (ie easier to print when pushed). The Film B curve is similar to that of D3200.

View attachment 196225

Please help me understand. Are you saying that P3200 is more like film A? Also exactly why is film B easier to print? Is it because film B can fit on the paper while film A has too big a dynamic range?

warden · Mar 1, 2018

michael_r said:
This might help to illustrate. Both film A and Film B have the same ISO speed, but due to the difference in curve shapes, we would tend to say Film B is more "pushable" (ie easier to print when pushed). The Film B curve is similar to that of D3200.

That certainly does help, thank you. Always something new to learn.

cowanw · Mar 1, 2018

In any case neither Delta 3200 or P3200 have a
ASA rating; only EI's

cowanw · Mar 1, 2018

Sorry you are certainly correct about Ilford D3200 but I cannot find that information for P 3200. Can you show me that?

mshchem · Mar 1, 2018

PE's comment about Reversal film is what makes me believe that 3200 is not real. I bought some Ilford 3200 from my dealers freezer. I get better results pushing TMY-2 to 1600 than I get from any 3200 at box speed. To be truthful I tend to shoot the 1600 TMY at 1200 or so.

Mike

DREW WILEY · Mar 1, 2018

I shoot both D3200 and TMZ at 800.

Ted Baker · Mar 2, 2018

mshchem said:
PE's comment about Reversal film is what makes me believe that 3200 is not real.

It also worth remembering that the ISO test method for reversal film and digital is actually different. Reflecting different constraints and goals.

pentaxuser · Mar 2, 2018

DREW WILEY said:
I shoot both D3200 and TMZ at 800.

Are these 135 or 120 and which film then produces the better print in terms of tones, grain etc

Thanks

pentaxuser

DREW WILEY · Mar 2, 2018

Of course, speed is dev related, and I use PMK and generally want usable shadow gradation. I shoot D3200 in both 35mm and 120. I've never shot TMZ in anything but 35mm, and have no idea if it will become available in 120. You'll get visible grain regardless. More often I shoot TMY400 because anything faster becomes clumsy for selective focus technique with wider apertures.

pentaxuser · Mar 2, 2018

I am wondering now if I misunderstood your sentence. I had read it as saying you had shot both D3200 at 800 and TMY at 800 so I was looking to a "compare and contrast" review between negs taken on both films at 800, in, say, similar conditions. It may be that you meant that you have shot D3200 @ 3200 or another speed but not at 800. Thus while you have shot both films in 135 which is helpful for a comparison, then if the film speeds were different a comparison might be more difficult. You have said that "you'll get visible grain regardless" Is this with reference to D3200 only or does it apply to both films at 800?

My assumption is that in 135 TMY at 800 is going to be less grainy than D3200 at 800 and a doubling of speed with TMY400 to 800 without much in the way of losses is well within its range so all thing being equal and if 800 was the upper limit of speed needed then TMY would be the film to go for. Is this a fair assumption based on your experience with both films?.

If my assumption is correct then on the grounds of price as well, TMY probably represents better value in the U.S. although a quick check on two major U.K. retailers only admittedly, reveals that there is almost no difference in price between D3200 and TMY in 135.

Thanks

pentaxuser

Kodak Tmax 3200, Delta 3200 how do they achieve their pushability?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency