Official : Kodak P3200 Tmax is back

[CMoore]

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.

Good GOD Man.....a bonafide, Canadian, Anarchist.......

 

[removed account4]

3200 is a joke for recent digital cameras. Try 32000 for top end. Even the older bodies can shoot at 3200 comfortably. If you're going b&w you can push that sensor till next week and you'll be more or less fine.

P3200 is back on the market because they can. I don't think there's any other reason than that

not sure why it matters that a digital camera can expose at 32000, the new pentax is even faster from what i read yesterday ..
its to shoot film if they were competing with the speed sensors they would have told people how to fume the film
in a fume box with hydrogen peroxide to boost the iso to like 128000 ...
maybe they brought it back to have somethin POSITIVE to advertise after all the tmy120film problems that took them a year to sort out..
nothing like a feel good story, a week long advertising game and lots of excited film shooters to use it again, or try it for the first time. and a postiive BUZZ drowning out all the negative nancys
im stoked they are advertising again .. too bad they didn't advertise during the olympics like they used to, would have been amazing to have
flm shooters using tmz or tmy 35mm film shooting olympic athletes doing mcflips or skating or biatholoning, or curling or ... like the good old days...
like david burnett shooting the world series or presidential debate with a speed graphic or holga or ...

 

[MattKing]

Good GOD Man.....a bonafide, Canadian, Anarchist.......

Nah - a proponent of diversity

 

[CMoore]

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.

Thanks for ending my Day/Night with a smile.....

 

[Minoltafan2904]

Actually, the oldest Civil Rights organization flows from the Magna Carta, and is the common law.
The NRA is just an industry front.

We are NOT turning this into a debate on gun control or the NRA pleeeeeaseee

 

[Minoltafan2904]

And no, Kodak is not trying to compete with digital with P3200, that would be ridiculous, they are appealing to a certain crowd of peopel who like/want/need a high speed black and white film, without having to push Tri-X or T-Max.

 

[Jon Buffington]

Actually, the oldest Civil Rights organization flows from the Magna Carta, and is the common law.

Descendant of Magna Carta signers, from my mother's side.

Might have to try some tmz...never shot film higher than 800 (in c41) and rarely push/develop my triX past 1250 (diafine).

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...for some irrational reason I don't use Ilford products. Don't know why. Maybe it's that I like yellow boxes...

How large is your stash of Kodak black and white printing paper? If you don't have one, what are you printing all those Kodak black and white negatives on?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Do I really need it for ten bucks? What for? I could push @3200 HP5+ or even Kentmere 400, which is five times less for 36 frames (in bulk). Not just could, but I do push these films during winter days.
Print from HP5+ @3200.



And do I really need 3200 now? Day time is increasing and will be long enough long enough to forget about this 3200 for many.

 

[lantau]

How large is your stash of Kodak black and white printing paper? If you don't have one, what are you printing all those Kodak black and white negatives on?

Ilford is not the only maker of paper. I'm quite new to film and printing and I'm not using Ilford paper. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to Ilford, just happen to use Adox MCP/MCC and Foma Fomatone papers. And there are yet a few others.

 

[David Luttmann]

Do I really need it for ten bucks? What for? I could push @3200 HP5+ or even Kentmere 400, which is five times less for 36 frames (in bulk). Not just could, but I do push these films during winter days.
Print from HP5+ @3200.



And do I really need 3200 now? Day time is increasing and will be long enough long enough to forget about this 3200 for many.

As Kodak has stated, at 3200, P3200 will have better shadow detail than TriX pusshed...or HP5 for that matter. That said, I like how both look for different things.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Ilford is not the only maker of paper...

No, but Kodak isn't among the other makers of black and white paper.

 

[MattKing]

How large is your stash of Kodak black and white printing paper? If you don't have one, what are you printing all those Kodak black and white negatives on?

I don't know that mdarnton said anything that restricted thee issue to black and white

 

[mdarnton]

How large is your stash of Kodak black and white printing paper? If you don't have one, what are you printing all those Kodak black and white negatives on?

I haven't made a silver print since 2002, when I gave my darkroom to an eager student, and I don't ever intend to do it again, though of course you never know. To me, the ideal work path is film/scan/inkjet, the best of all worlds.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...To me, the ideal work path is film/scan/inkjet, the best of all worlds.

Which Kodak inkjet paper are you using?

https://www.kodak.com/gb/en/Consumer/Products/printing-supplies/Media/Inkjet-Paper/default.htm​

 

[CMoore]

I haven't made a silver print since 2002, when I gave my darkroom to an eager student, and I don't ever intend to do it again, though of course you never know. To me, the ideal work path is film/scan/inkjet, the best of all worlds.

With the potential for Digital Vs Film misunderstanding.....i just wanted to say this is not an Adversarial/Trolling question, just curious.
I do not own a Digital SLR, so i have no idea, but.....Seeing as how you are scanning into a computer and then printing (from) digital files...What is the advantage of shooting film and not digital.?
Again, not asking anybody to "justify" anything, just curious. A good reason might be that a person has had film cameras and lenses for the last 40 years and just keeps going with that, up to the point of printing.......

 

[bascom49]

With the potential for Digital Vs Film misunderstanding.....i just wanted to say this is not an Adversarial/Trolling question, just curious.
I do not own a Digital SLR, so i have no idea, but.....Seeing as how you are scanning into a computer and then printing (from) digital files...What is the advantage of shooting film and not digital.?
Again, not asking anybody to "justify" anything, just curious. A good reason might be that a person has had film cameras and lenses for the last 40 years and just keeps going with that, up to the point of printing.......

A lot of us don’t scan, we print.

 

[RattyMouse]

With the potential for Digital Vs Film misunderstanding.....i just wanted to say this is not an Adversarial/Trolling question, just curious.
I do not own a Digital SLR, so i have no idea, but.....Seeing as how you are scanning into a computer and then printing (from) digital files...What is the advantage of shooting film and not digital.?
Again, not asking anybody to "justify" anything, just curious. A good reason might be that a person has had film cameras and lenses for the last 40 years and just keeps going with that, up to the point of printing.......

Scanned film looks far different than a digital camera image. One still gets the vast majority of the benefits (or disadvantages depending on your viewpoint) from shooting and then scanning film. I've shot literally thousands of rolls of film in the past 6 years and have not printed a single shot on photographic paper. Everything printed has been from a scanned negative.

Also, shooting film lets you use film cameras, which to many are far better cameras then digital ones. A Nikon FM2n, Contax G2, or Mamiya 7 are incredible cameras and if you want to shoot them, you need to shoot film.

 

[Lee Rust]

Indeed, if scanned film images did not successfully transmit their distinctive characteristics into the digital realm, then we could not have all these analog vs digital discussions here on PHOTRIO.

Film naturally compresses the broad illumination range of a real-world scene into something that better matches the limited capabilities of computer displays or paper prints. Software processing can do that too, of course, but for many of us it still seems that film and film cameras are more fun to "do" than digital. Plus, you get built-in archiving without resorting to the tyranny of the Cloud or an endless succession of temporary mass-storage devices.

 

[mdarnton]

With the potential for Digital Vs Film misunderstanding.....i just wanted to say this is not an Adversarial/Trolling question, just curious.

Sure, I don't take it as adversarial.

Basically, it's exactly as RattyMouse said, but I'll expand.

I like the compactness of 35mm cameras, my Leicas and Nikon FGs, using old lenses, using old equipment that I lusted after when I was a kid. I like buying a camera used for pennies on the dollar and knowing that it won't be unrepairable and broken in five years because the electronics have moved on. How much film can I buy for the cost one new digital Leica that will be dead in ten years?--My first Leica was 15 years old when I bought it, and my three current ones are 45, 45, and 80 years old, chugging along just fine!

I like using an 8x10 camera for portraits because the subjects behave differently in front of it, and because the depth of field characteristics of 8x10 are completely unobtainable from any digital camera.. I like it that each button press isn't free, which keeps me tuned on track to concentrating on making the best picture, rather than just firing randomly and hoping for the best. I like it that in 20 years I'll have my pictures in a format that's readable, not obsolete, with no effort on my part. I fully utilize the 20 stops of real dynamic range that film offers that no digital camera does (though my Nikon D7200 represents a solid move towards that not being a reason--give me five more stops, please) because I like the fully open shadows AND highlight texture that only film can offer at this point.

I also like it that I can take the time to carefully craft one ditigal print that is exactly how I want it, sitting in comfort on the sofa, then make infinite copies of it with no bother at all from that point in any format I choose. I like the quality of a good digital print made with a good printer on good paper base of a thickness and quality that was never available with silver on it.

I worked in professional labs when I was younger, and the thrill of the darkroom wore off me forever around 1980, but that doesn't mean I'm immune to recognizing and capitalizing on the particular advantages of both silver and digital. For me it's not political, as it is for so many zealots on either side--it's just a means of getting what I want with the most direct technology.

For those who say silver prints are "better", well I call BS on that. I've seen some beautiful B&W digital prints, including a wonderful show at the Art Institute of Chicago which what half digital, half silver, by a genuinely great printer, where the difference was exactly zero, except for paper color. Once I saw that and knew what was possible from someone who knows what he is doing, that was the end of worrying about darkroom printing, and from that point I understood that any failure in my own digital printing was mine, not the media.

 

[trendland]

Sure, I don't take it as adversarial.

Basically, it's exactly as RattyMouse said, but I'll expand.

I like the compactness of 35mm cameras, my Leicas and Nikon FGs, using old lenses, using old equipment that I lusted after when I was a kid. I like buying a camera used for pennies on the dollar and knowing that it won't be unrepairable and broken in five years because the electronics have moved on. How much film can I buy for the cost one new digital Leica that will be dead in ten years?--My first Leica was 15 years old when I bought it, and my three current ones are 45, 45, and 80 years old, chugging along just fine!

I like using an 8x10 camera for portraits because the subjects behave differently in front of it, and because the depth of field characteristics of 8x10 are completely unobtainable from any digital camera.. I like it that each button press isn't free, which keeps me tuned on track to concentrating on making the best picture, rather than just firing randomly and hoping for the best. I like it that in 20 years I'll have my pictures in a format that's readable, not obsolete, with no effort on my part. I fully utilize the 20 stops of real dynamic range that film offers that no digital camera does (though my Nikon D7200 represents a solid move towards that not being a reason--give me five more stops, please) because I like the fully open shadows AND highlight texture that only film can offer at this point.

I also like it that I can take the time to carefully craft one ditigal print that is exactly how I want it, sitting in comfort on the sofa, then make infinite copies of it with no bother at all from that point in any format I choose. I like the quality of a good digital print made with a good printer on good paper base of a thickness and quality that was never available with silver on it.

I worked in professional labs when I was younger, and the thrill of the darkroom wore off me forever around 1980, but that doesn't mean I'm immune to recognizing and capitalizing on the particular advantages of both silver and digital. For me it's not political, as it is for so many zealots on either side--it's just a means of getting what I want with the most direct technology.

For those who say silver prints are "better", well I call BS on that. I've seen some great digital prints, including a great show at the Art Institute of Chicago which what half digital, half silver, but a genuinely great printer, where the difference was exactly zero, except for paper color. Once I saw that and knew what was possible from someone who knows what he is doing, that was the end of worrying about darkroom printing.

All you just stated above seams (to me) quite logical and reasonable.
By the way what is your point on new Leica price list? I noticed a Leica M lens at around 10.000 bucks. ....
Compared with simular Leica lenses just 5 years ago the double pricing...
Leica M : F 0,95/50mm...
But there are real good lenses from Zeiss for Leica M.
Then you may afford to buy more than 100 films in addition.
And then you may afford to spent 10 bucks to a single TMZ roll.
By the way - other films are more cheap.
That's my way : Mixed calculation - because there should't be a need to shot every film with E.I 3200/6400.
For those guys who need 6400/12800 to EVERY shot : Digital may be cheaper.
with regards

 

[mdarnton]

Well, I shoot xray film in 5x7 and 8x10 because I like the c1880 color response (I guess that puts me with the wet-plate people), and that stuff is dirt cheap. Also, I have always rolled my own 35mm--I just bought the first pre-spooled 35mm film I have tried in decades, out of curiosity.

Leica new pricing has never affected me because I've never bought a piece of anything Leica that was new. They can do whatever they want; I think I prefer my collapsible Summicron, anyway. For lenses, the only lenses I've bought new were from Voigtlander, because they offered something special for W/A aficionados at a really good price. I didn't want to wait to have a 15mm, and the 50/1.1 Nokton. And a 60 year old 21/4 Super Angulon still costs a lot more than the really nice Voigtlander version.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

We are NOT turning this into a debate on gun control or the NRA pleeeeeaseee

Amen.
We don't pack 9mm S&W, we pack 8mm B&H.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Question: it's been so long since I used/developed TMZ (I never did use it much in the day, it was easier to push 400 speed film but that's another story), I can't recall if it required longer fixing times...as the TMax films in 100 and 400 speeds do.

Anyone remember, or know for this revived version?

 

[Craig]

I can't recall if it required longer fixing times...as the TMax films in 100 and 400 speeds do.

I didn't shoot much either, but I do remember it needing fixing times similar to TMX and TMY.