Official : Kodak P3200 Tmax is back

[aleckurgan]

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.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

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.

 

[miha]

TMZ of the past was capable of grainless 7.5''x9'' prints.

 

[pentaxuser]

TMZ of the past was capable of grainless 7.5''x9'' prints.

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 out

pentaxuser

 

[trendland]

I guess Kodak knows though that if they want to compete with Ilford they need it in 120 too.

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

 

[GarageBoy]

$10.99 was the price prior to discontinuation

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

I'll try some of this new film. Hope to see it in 4x5.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

I'll try some of this new film. Hope to see it in 4x5.

I don't think there is even a slight chance of it coming in 4x5...

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

It’s listed for pre order on FPP at 9.99 a roll. There’s a temporary code for a dollar off of that.

 

[RattyMouse]

I'll try some of this new film. Hope to see it in 4x5.

Never going to happen. Never.

 

[Bill Burk]

Oh I’m in love all over again

I can't wait to see what you do with this NB23!

 

[jtk]

i'd shoot a lot of the old 2475 (@ 800 with DK50) ....beautiful sharp grain, prints and scans wonderfully well. No interest in fast low grain...my Samsung NX is just getting started at 1600ev .

 

[mdarnton]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[faberryman]

Although I have no plans to use TMax3200 (or D3200), I am happy it is now available for those that are partial to it. Kodak is to be commended for bringing it back, though I don't think it will have any affect on their bottom line.

 

[LeftCoastKid]

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.

+1. Count me as another who plays "mix and match" with the offerings of Kodak and Ilford. With the exception of a few rolls of Velvia 50 that I ran through my Hasselblads several years ago, Kodak has had a lock on my color film purchases since 1979 (Kodachrome, subsequently Ektachrome); Ilford, on the other hand, supplies me with PanF+and FP4+ in 120, as well as paper. chemicals, and HP5+ in 35mm. Again, I turn to Kodak for Tri-X (35mm and 120) , as well as chemicals. TMax 3200? Delta 3200? No preference: I'll use whichever...

 

[pentaxuser]

$10.99 was the price prior to discontinuation

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

Maybe Kodak expects all its sale to be in the U.S. for whose customers will see no price change which is usually good news

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I use Delta 3200 120 because I need the speed for nature photograph with the Hasselblad C 500mm lens with and without the 2XE extender on a tripod. I would like P3200 with traditional grain in 120 to fully utilize this lens and extender.

 

[Peter Schrager]

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.

Make it 2 of us!
Aren't we so blessed to have choices...
I'm going to try it for a project and since I never used it before can be exciting..for me anyway

 

[Cholentpot]

Our sensible approach to gun control is spelled out in our Constitution!

The NRA is the oldest Civil Rights organization.

Perhaps P3200 has been brought back to compete with digital cameras' ability to use high ISO numbers.

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.

 

[Craig]

3200 is a joke for recent digital cameras. Try 32000 for top end.

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.

 

[MattKing]

The NRA is the oldest Civil Rights organization.

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

 

[1kgcoffee]

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.

 

[removed account4]

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.

here's part of the press release on emulsive
https://emulsive.org/articles/news/announcing-the-return-of-kodak-t-max-p3200

maybe its a innitial offering at 35mm and when they see it selling like hotcakes
they will release it in larger sizes. i think its a brilliant move releasing this film now, with the uptick in new/young film shooters
and a lot of people shooting available light / street / low light and its variable iso makes it even better.

 

[Cholentpot]

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

I'm not gonna argue here, not the time nor place.

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.

Digital noise is ugly, when present. Clumpy grain is ugly too.