T-MAX P3200 (TMZ) discontinued

taosbob · Oct 2, 2012

See the October 1 notice:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw/tMaxP3200.jhtml

BMbikerider · Oct 2, 2012

That doesn't surprise me one little bit. I have never used the film and I expect the majority of other APUG members haven't either. If it is a loser for them, so be it, so long as the 100 and 400 versions are still around.

perkeleellinen · Oct 2, 2012

Shame, I used it a bit a few years back and liked the grit. I was thinking about TMZ now that Neo 1600 is dead but now that it's dead too that leaves just Delta 3200.

MaximusM3 · Oct 2, 2012

I guess I wasn't stupid for buying 200 rolls three months ago. I often prefer it to Tri-X, shot @ 640-800 and developed in TMAX or Rodinal. Great stuff, and another sad Kodak day. My money is on TMX to kick the bucket next. I just can't see how that emulsion survives with digital eating its lunch, and especially with everything that is wrong at Kodak. I suggest to keep supporting Tri-X because THAT will be the real heartbreaker.

Felinik · Oct 2, 2012

Auch!

I've just developed a love for the p3200 and was about to purchase a cpl of bricks, so I should just quit that idea and go get some delta instead then, sad, I really like p3200!

taosbob · Oct 2, 2012

Me, too. Very late to the film party, alas.

I went on a shopping spree here in Seoul today and now probably possess over half the unexposed supply of TMZ in South Korea. I wonder if the military would lease me space in one of those deep underground North Korean tunnels they discovered, for personal storage?

Meanwhile somewhere there's a Kodak salt mine custodian out of a job . . .

MaximusM3 · Oct 2, 2012

..and I should add, that Kodak's statement for TMY as a "replacement", mentioning a "very significant grain penalty" with TMZ, is just silly. TMZ @ 800-1600 has a VERY different look than TMY, and grain is really about the same, when properly exposed and processed. The emulsion has its own distinctive look, and it always reminded me a bit of old Tri-X. They maybe don't understand that is not simply about speed or low light situations, but about the unique look, grain structure, of each emulsion. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. PlusX was unique and beautiful too..people don't buy it, don't use it, and it goes ...just like many before.

NB23 · Oct 2, 2012

My Ultimate film. I love P3200. This is SADDD!!!

pentaxuser · Oct 2, 2012

Two threads now with more to follow?. A merge might be sensible, mods

pentaxuser

Roger Cole · Oct 2, 2012

I certainly used it.

I didn't do as many seem to and shoot it at 640-1000 though. For 1000-1250 I prefer Tri-X in Diafine (to be fair though I've never even tried TMZ below 1600.) I shoot it routinely at 3200, develop in T-Max developer per the instructions for 6400, with great results. Sure it's a little contrasty but the shadow detail is adequate. Grain is obvious but reasonable and pleasing in many shots.

However, I like Delta 3200 nearly as well. I shoot it in 120 where the grain is less noticeable and get lovely results. I've been sticking with TMZ in 35mm because it seems slightly finer grained and perhaps a touch faster, or at least able to get more speed. I can get an usable 6400 from TMZ if needed. I've never tried that with Delta 3200 and I'm a little skeptical of getting good results.

But for other TMZ users, don't hesitate to try Delta 3200. It's a great film, and also available in 120 so you (and I now) can standardize on one film for high speed if you shoot both sizes.

Nicholas Lindan · Oct 2, 2012

Frankly, I didn't know they still made it.

I don't shoot more than two or three rolls a year. But for what it does, it does really, really well. I keep one camera loaded with it. I like it for hand held macros. It makes great enlarged negatives for alt-process. You don't normally associate salt-and-pepper with alt, but it works:

Unfortunately, it doesn't keep well: fogs badly and looses speed and there isn't anything you can do about it short of a deep, deep, deep salt mine to keep the gamma rays away. I just ordered my lifetime supply [hmm, I'm getting of an age where I have to use that term with caution].

Roger Cole · Oct 2, 2012

Yeah, if freezing it would keep it 10 years like slower films I'd lay in a stock, but it won't so I'm not. Well, that and the fact Delta 3200 is also very good and readily available.

Richard S. (rich815) · Oct 2, 2012

Beautiful image Nicholas.

htmlguru4242 · Oct 2, 2012

I much preferred neopan 1600, but the P3200 was a good film too.

I shot a couple of rolls at EI 12,800 back in high schol, just to see what would happen. The results were ... interesting.

I guess it's Ilford time...

Erik Petersson · Oct 2, 2012

I shot an entire project on Tmax 3200. I'll just have to try to continue with Ilford then, can't imagine do this with a 400 speed film.
http://erikpetersson.livejournal.com/pics/catalog/352/45185

baachitraka · Oct 2, 2012

Why worry, we still have Delta 3200.

Alan W · Oct 2, 2012

baachitraka said:
Why worry, we still have Delta 3200.

AND Tri-x!

clay · Oct 3, 2012

Ever feel that our little film world is in a situation like one of those wounded soldiers in the American Civil War where every day the doctor comes in the tent and says "The gangrene is spreading. I'm going to have to take off some more of your leg". Somedays I wonder how much leg is going to be left.

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 3, 2012

clay said:
Ever feel that our little film world is in a situation like one of those wounded soldiers in the American Civil War where every day the doctor comes in the tent and says "The gangrene is spreading. I'm going to have to take off some more of your leg". Somedays I wonder how much leg is going to be left.

Every day, Clay, I wonder exactly the same, and right now there is nothing but a little stump left of the Kodak leg. Four black and white films now, Tri-X 400 roll, Tri-X 320 sheet, Tmax 100 and 400. No chromes, but Portra 160/400, Ektar, and a couple of consumer films. It's becoming a very thin herd, and Ilford is by far the most diverse from a total product standpoint. It's very sad.

B&Wpositive · Oct 3, 2012

I shot this film regularly in high school (now 8-10 years ago, yikes). I used to shoot it at 3200 and 6400. I was using Ilfotec HC, and was always going to try out the finer-grain developers, but never got around to it. I haven't really shot any in the past year, but I have a whole bunch of expired rolls that probably won't be good beyond EI 800 now. That said, it's one of my favorite films (like Plus-X). Maybe it's finally time to go and buy that used Mamiya 645 body and a lens or two to shoot the Ilford film in 120. And I'll probably buy a few more rolls of the Kodak. What are the expiration dates on the latest rolls?

jim appleyard · Oct 3, 2012

B&Wpositive said:
Maybe it's finally time to go and buy that used Mamiya 645 body and a lens or two to shoot the Ilford film in 120. QUOTE]

I think you'll like the Ilford in 120, I do, but I don't shoot much of it. I mostly have Tri-X on hand to shoot "normally" or soup in diafine @1250 EI. The Delta 3200 in 120 gets pushed into the corner of "when I really need the speed".

ric_kb · Oct 3, 2012

I fear the next piece will be 800 Color... sigh..

"and so it goes" (KV)

Roger Cole · Oct 3, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Every day, Clay, I wonder exactly the same, and right now there is nothing but a little stump left of the Kodak leg. Four black and white films now, Tri-X 400 roll, Tri-X 320 sheet, Tmax 100 and 400. No chromes, but Portra 160/400, Ektar, and a couple of consumer films. It's becoming a very thin herd, and Ilford is by far the most diverse from a total product standpoint. It's very sad.

Welll...that's about what we had in Kodak black and white when I started out. There were three films in 35mm, Pan-X, Plus-X, and Tri-X. I couldn't afford to shoot medium or large format at the time but I know there was also Verichrome pan in 120 and Ektapan in sheets. I think that was about it for general purpose films. Color negative had the consumer Kodacolor (ASA 80) and pro Vericolor, types S and L. In slide film you could choose from Kodachrome 25 and 64 and Ektachrome at 64 and High Speed Ektachrome at 160, plus tungsten versions of the latter two films.

I'm not saying I'm liking the current situation, as I've sure enjoyed the abundant choices that were created in the meantime. Kodak has all but made itself irrelevant to me in black and white now. I love Tri-X, and that's the only reason it isn't irrelevant. I shoot TMY-2 in 4x5 but don't have to. If Kodak quit making 4x5 I'd shrug and go to HP5+ (and maybe drop Ilford a line begging for Delta 400 in sheets again, but use HP5+ until that happened.) We have Ilford and Foma and some coated in Germany films from Adox, plus Acros and the reported return of Neopan 400 in both 35mm and 120. On the whole black and white is doing better than I feared it would be with the digital onslaught.

Photo-gear · Oct 4, 2012

It looks like a slow death. If they wanted to keep the film division alive or sell it, they would try to keep alive a larger spectrum of films. Why don't they just shut down the whole division, instead of fooling around?

IMHO, they should just make up their mind with one clear avenue, so the users would know what to do.

railwayman3 · Oct 4, 2012

Photo-gear said:
It looks like a slow death. If they wanted to keep the film division alive or sell it, they would try to keep alive a larger spectrum of films. Why don't they just shut down the whole division, instead of fooling around?

IMHO, they should just make up their mind with one clear avenue, so the users would know what to do.

+1

T-MAX P3200 (TMZ) discontinued

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency