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

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Ted Baker, Feb 27, 2018.

  1. cowanw

    cowanw Member

    Messages:
    1,539
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Hamilton, On
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Sorry you are certainly correct about Ilford D3200 but I cannot find that information for P 3200. Can you show me that?
     
  2. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,174
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I can't seem to locate the old tech pub for p3200 but in the latest version on the top of page 2 they talk about the nominal EI being 800-1000 (depending on the developer) and the paragraph then reads "It was determined in a manner published in ISO standards."

    http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/F4001.pdf

    Based on this I would say we're both right. :smile: You are correct - they use the term EI even for the speed determined based on the ISO standard. Thanks for prompting me to re-read the tech sheet.
     
  3. mshchem

    mshchem Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,115
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    Location:
    Iowa City, Iowa USA
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    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
     
  4. DREW WILEY

    DREW WILEY Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I shoot both D3200 and TMZ at 800.
     
  5. OP
    OP
    Ted Baker

    Ted Baker Member

    Messages:
    173
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Location:
    London
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    It also worth remembering that the ISO test method for reversal film and digital is actually different. Reflecting different constraints and goals.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2018
  6. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    10,191
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Are these 135 or 120 and which film then produces the better print in terms of tones, grain etc

    Thanks

    pentaxuser
     
  7. DREW WILEY

    DREW WILEY Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    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.
     
  8. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    10,191
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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
     
  9. DREW WILEY

    DREW WILEY Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    No. I shoot TMY400 at ASA 400, and TMZ 3200 as well as Delta 3200 at 800.
     
  10. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    10,191
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Thanks. That clarifies matters. I should have noted that you had mentioned TMZ as the comparison with D3200 . Just to be clear about the nomenclature, TMZ 3200 is the same as Tmax P3200? So how does TMZ 3200 at 800 compare with D3200 at 800 in 135 on a compare and contrast basis?

    pentaxuser
     
  11. DREW WILEY

    DREW WILEY Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Yes.
     
  12. DREW WILEY

    DREW WILEY Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I assume TMZ will be distinctly more contrasty than D3200, esp in the shadows. The grain structure will probably be more distinct too. But I'm basing this on past experience since the new TMZ is not available yet.
     
  13. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    10,191
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Thanks, Drew I can understand the more contrasty comment in respect of P3200 v D3200, now I have seen the two films' curves. I think your reference to the grain structure being more distinct refers to P3200. If so I was kind of hoping that in return for the disadvantages in certain situations for more contrast you might have been able to give confirmation that in 135 P3200 had less grain but there were are. I have seen the odd comment about P3200 being less grainy but not enough of such comments to make me trust that it is a generally recognised benefit of P3200 v D3200.

    The new P3200 may be different from the old. We are yet to find out, as you say, but somehow I doubt it.

    pentaxuser
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. Rudeofus

    Rudeofus Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,515
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Did you mean highlights? That's where their characteristic curves differ most.
     
  16. DREW WILEY

    DREW WILEY Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    It will have distinctly more contrast in the shadows too if you giver it more exposure than the "wishful thinking" box speed. As far as "better" or "worse" grain,
    that is a matter of personal taste. For some people, the whole point of shooting a high-speed small format film is to obtain conspicuous grain.
     
  17. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    27,521
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Groups:
    Mine would be to get the photograph with available light. Silly me.
     
  18. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    10,191
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Especially true of high speed outdoor shots in overcast light such as Isle of Man TT motorcycle racing, football (soccer) matches or more prosaically indoor shots of kids' birthday parties without distracting flash. I would use P3200 or D3200 when the conditions call for it and certainly not to get grainy pictures.

    pentaxuser
     
  19. Photo Engineer

    Photo Engineer Subscriber

    Messages:
    28,177
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Remember, as speed goes up, keeping goes down.

    PE
     
  20. Gerald C Koch

    Gerald C Koch Member

    Messages:
    8,262
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Southern USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I see no reason for Kodak to reformulate it.
     
  21. DREW WILEY

    DREW WILEY Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    You're going to get grain regardless, so it's just a question of what kind of grain you like or dislike, and what kind of developer delivers the look you prefer.
     
  22. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    10,191
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I suspect that your above statement, Drew, aptly sums things up. Thanks

    pentaxuser
     
  23. Gerald C Koch

    Gerald C Koch Member

    Messages:
    8,262
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Southern USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    High speed films, at least conventional ones, have a greater variance in grain size. This creates both a greater latitude and lower contrast. Low speed films are more contrasty.
     
  24. OP
    OP
    Ted Baker

    Ted Baker Member

    Messages:
    173
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Location:
    London
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    That's a good point, as the lower speed part of the emulsion starts to have density, the combined density of the all the layers of the emulsion now moves up, probably above the the log(0.9) density. I am assuming the different size grains will indeed have their own contrast characteristics, with the whole film acting as complete system.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2018
  25. Bill Burk

    Bill Burk Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,066
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Maybe you could help explain... I always hear about film being more contrasty than another low contrast film. In the case of Ortho Litho film developed in litho developers sure, high contrast is part of the ideal.

    But any traditional film, I find that the contrast of that film relates directly to how you develop it. And I don't know how any film can be less or more contrasty than another developed to the same contast index.

    I always assumed that people would call a film "contrasty" when it develops quickly.
     
  26. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,174
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If you think about it, high vs low contrast for film really has to do with the exposure scale of the film given some sort of constant such as a contrast index (or gamma etc.) or a maximum density.

    Develop two films to the same gamma for example. Which resultant characteristic curve can accommodate a wider exposure range? That's the one we'd typically refer to as the lower contrast film.

    As a practical example, two ends of the spectrum would be, say, Tri-X and CMS20, developed to the same "normal" contrast in D-76. Tri-X might hold 12-13+ stops of exposure while CMS20 might only hold 2 stops. This is why we say CMS20 is a very contrasty film relative to Tri-X.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2018
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. If you have a Photrio account, please log in (and select 'stay logged in') to prevent recurrence of this notice.