aleckurgan
Allowing Ads
It certainly won't be less grainier than Delta 3200 especially if you want max true ISO speed you'll be forced to use Tmax, the grainiest of all Kodak developers.
It certainly won't be less grainier than Delta 3200 especially if you want max true ISO speed you'll be forced to use Tmax, the grainiest of all Kodak developers.How does this film compare to delta 3200.
Never been much of a fan of delta due to the grain.
It certainly won't be less grainier than Delta 3200 especially if you want max true ISO speed you'll be forced to use Tmax, the grainiest of all Kodak developers.
I have used D3200 in 135 format quite a lot and in most prints I can certainly begin to detect grain at 5x7. If P3200 gives grainless prints at 7.5 x9, as per TMZ, I'd settle for that. Clearly any bigger than that and the 120 of D3200 wins outTMZ of the past was capable of grainless 7.5''x9'' prints.
It is a little more than your "guess" it is a "fact" but we should not see this "against" Ilford.I guess Kodak knows though that if they want to compete with Ilford they need it in 120 too.
I don't think there is even a slight chance of it coming in 4x5...I'll try some of this new film. Hope to see it in 4x5.
I'll try some of this new film. Hope to see it in 4x5.
I can't wait to see what you do with this NB23!Oh I’m in love all over again
Lots of people who are loyal to Kodak and continue to use their products. As anyone who has followed my posts here will know, I am one of them. That being said, I'm happy to use and recommend Ilford. It is a better world when we have choice.Just one single data point here: for some irrational reason I don't use Ilford products. Don't know why. Maybe it's that I like yellow boxes. Anyway, I will try the new stuff, and I will not be stealing from Ilford's market to do it. At least part of my motivation will be to reward Kodak. There are probably two other people like me.
Lots of people who are loyal to Kodak and continue to use their products. As anyone who has followed my posts here will know, I am one of them. That being said, I'm happy to use and recommend Ilford. It is a better world when we have choice.
Now I better get back to the darkroom, where I am using Kodak developer and fixer and Ilford stop bath to print from negatives shot on various Kodak films on to either Ilford or Oriental paper.
Oh, I'm using a relatively ancient Ilford 400 series light source on my Omega D6 enlarger to to so.
The problem with that price is that translation into £ makes it about £2 more expensive than D3200. Will this be the one case when a Kodak product is cheaper in the U.K. than in the U.S? Somehow I doubt it and even if this were to be the case, it will have to be very close to the D3200 price for it to be competitive. I doubt his even more$10.99 was the price prior to discontinuation
No 120, no sale.
I don't even own a 35mm camera, but I have 3 medium format systems (Hasselblad V, Hasselblad H and Fuji GX680III) and several vintage cameras, all 120.
Kodaks response that if demand is enough in 35mm they will introduce 120 is flawed. I would buy a crapload of this in 120, but will buy approximately zero in 35mm. How will they gauge my demand from my non-existent purchases?
Jason Berge.
That is true, the original TMZ was only ever available in 35mm.
I guess Kodak knows though that if they want to compete with Ilford they need it in 120 too.
But given the backing paper issues they've been having, i understand them being wary about putting a 120 out yet.
How does this film compare to delta 3200.
Never been much of a fan of delta due to the grain.
Despite the TMAX branding, the grain will be quite high. Here's what Alaris says:
Q. What about granularity?
A. P3200 is a fine grain film, similar in nature to the classic look of TRI-X than to T-MAX 400.
It is a little more than your "guess" it is a "fact" but we should not see this "against" Ilford.
We better should realize Tmax 3200 is in addition to D3200. Therefore the need to 120 TMZ......
with greetings
That is true, the original TMZ was only ever available in 35mm.
I guess Kodak knows though that if they want to compete with Ilford they need it in 120 too.
But given the backing paper issues they've been having, i understand them being wary about putting a 120 out yet.
Make it 2 of us!Just one single data point here: for some irrational reason I don't use Ilford products. Don't know why. Maybe it's that I like yellow boxes. Anyway, I will try the new stuff, and I will not be stealing from Ilford's market to do it. At least part of my motivation will be to reward Kodak. There are probably two other people like me.
Our sensible approach to gun control is spelled out in our Constitution!
Perhaps P3200 has been brought back to compete with digital cameras' ability to use high ISO numbers.
Mine does 204,000. Looks like mush, but at that point the choice is a photo or no photo. There is no way TMZ is taking market share from digital.3200 is a joke for recent digital cameras. Try 32000 for top end.
Actually, the oldest Civil Rights organization flows from the Magna Carta, and is the common law.The NRA is the oldest Civil Rights organization.
Digital noise is ugly. Delta 3200 shot at 3200 has beautiful grain structure. Pulled at '1600' is also beautiful.
Anyways I'm glad this is being offered but it seems that 120 is equally popular to 35mm these days, so why limit production to 35mm? Especially for high speed film where larger film area would show less noise? There must be a business reason. I will certainly try this film. Maybe it will even usurp tri-x for pushing. Remember guys, a lot of us shoot film because the grain is beautiful, and some of us never got to try tmax 3200.
My guess is the marginal cost of production is less than they will make from it - having machines sit idle. And the market will absorb the film because there is a lot of demand right now. SMART business move. Good job Kodak. Don't listen to the naysayers and keep the machines running.
Actually, the oldest Civil Rights organization flows from the Magna Carta, and is the common law.
The NRA is just an industry front.
Digital noise is ugly. Delta 3200 shot at 3200 has beautiful grain structure. Pulled at '1600' is also beautiful.
Anyways I'm glad this is being offered but it seems that 120 is equally popular to 35mm these days, so why limit production to 35mm? Especially for high speed film where larger film area would show less noise? There must be a business reason. I will certainly try this film. Maybe it will even usurp tri-x for pushing. Remember guys, a lot of us shoot film because the grain is beautiful, and some of us never got to try tmax 3200.
My guess is the marginal cost of production is less than they will make from it - having machines sit idle. And the market will absorb the film because there is a lot of demand right now. SMART business move. Good job Kodak. Don't listen to the naysayers and keep the machines running.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?