• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

T-MAX P3200 (TMZ) discontinued


This was true for me, too. Here in the US was also Agfachrome 64 and Fujichrome 100, and I suppose print film from each, too. Oh, and GAF, which in my opinion was crap.
It's an important point. Somehow we got by with the limited offerings. There's no reason to give up just because some of the films are going away. We still have much higher quality films than we had then (well, except Kodachrome, but then I'm partial to it), and while I dread the possible demise of E-6, I will switch to the excellent color negative materials if it happens. As for B&W, we should be okay for a long time to come. If a favorite goes away, there will be something else which will give results largely comparable to or better than the films used for most of the iconic images of the last half-century.
 
Kodak management is missing the point. Supporting low-volume films signals a commitment to film. They aren't sending that signal, so I'm switching completely over to Ilford for B&W. Now if Ilfors would just start making color film, too . . .
 
It's always a sad day, when a film stock departs for the big darkroom in the sky and I'm sorry to see P3200 go.

I went through a phase where I shot a lot of P3200. Almost exclusively at 1600 in T-Max developer, which gave the shadows a real boost.

P3200 had a unique look and if you wanted gritty, this was the ticket. Too bad it was not available in 120, because I always felt it was too grainy for 135, unless that is the look you were after. If that was the case you could not beat it. But it would have really shined in 120. There was something about the tonality of P3200 that was unique.

I ended up moving away from P3200, because I found Delta3200 to be a better film and it is available in 120. Tighter grain, better tonality and at least in my experience greater exposure range. Unfortunately Delta3200 has gone up quite a bit in price, so these days it's mostly good old Tri-X in Diafine.


Now if Tri-X went.... (bites tongue)
 
We seem to have it good here in the US regarding Ilford pricing. From what I've read, to some in the UK Ilford seems to have become the shortened form of "ill afford"
 
Dismayed said:
Kodak management is missing the point. Supporting low-volume films signals a commitment to film. They aren't sending that signal, so I'm switching completely over to Ilford for B&W. Now if Ilfors would just start making color film, too . . .
Click to expand...

Kodak really isn't in a position to lose money on products. Just like Techpan and HIE, not enough people used the product for it to be profitable. I mean, come on, Kodak dropped all of E6! And at my local store, the supply of Kodak 120 E6 is still pretty large. Sure, I'm stocking up for what I can, but the product just isn't moving off the shelves. Isn't that the biggest indicator of why a manufacturer would drop a product?

(Not that I bought much of Kodak 3200, as I've always been primarily a MF-LF photographer)
 
When the E6 cancellation hit I bought up some E100G from Freestyle. It showed one of their "low inventory, call for status" messages so I did. They had something like 30 or 40 rolls, I forget now, but said they usually sold about 10 rolls a month. (This was 35mm.) Ten rolls a MONTH, for what is probably the second largest film seller in North America, certainly among the top few. No wonder they canned it.
 
I shot 3 rolls of E6 in 35mm today, of course it was fall leaves so that may be half of the e-6 I would use in a year.
 
Now that TMZ is gone, next question: is it possible to make Ilford Delta3200 look like TMZ? I'm thinking about high contrast here mainly.

Tnx
 
rhmimac said:
Now that TMZ is gone, next question: is it possible to make Ilford Delta3200 look like TMZ? I'm thinking about high contrast here mainly.

Tnx
Click to expand...

No.

The two are fairly different contrast wise; the Delta 3200 exhibiting fairly low contrast in most conditions. The TMZ has more of a normal contrast, comparable to Tri-X, and its grain is significantly finer than that of D3200. Both have their place, but are very different films.
But D3200 is delicious - beautiful texture in both 35mm and 120, with a tonality that is beautiful, and finally resolution that is a lot higher than you might think (on par with FP4+).

If you want something that looks like TMZ, it's best to use Tri-X shot at about EI 400 and processed in something like FX-37 (mix yourself), Paterson FX-39, Neofin Blue (Tetenal), or maybe even Kodak DK50 (mix yourself, but it isn't as sharp as the others).
 
Oh this is bad! I had good uses for kodak TMZ 3200! What a bad start to the afternoon! :'( I ordered a few rolls a week or so ago, need to stock up when I have the money. The shadow detail was always good with TMZ 3200 at low light levels. Ilford Delta 3200 or kodak TMAX 400 i hope can fill the gap : - (

I guess it was no longer profitable to make, with few buyers :-(

Ah well, shit happens :/
 

If it's just shadow detail at low light levels you're after, I think you'll be pretty happy with Delta 3200. It doesn't look like TMZ, but it does work very, very well to at least 3200 and some have reported 6400. There are examples in this thread.

If it's speeds around 3200 you want, I'd suggest forget TMY. Delta 3200 is going to be far better IME, though definitely with more grain. I don't have any experience with TMY at 1000-1600 (I like Tri-X at 1250 in Diafine.)
 
Has anyone shot tri-x 400 at EI 3200 and pushed it to there? And compared that to the p3200 or delta 3200? I'd be interested to hear the results.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks Thomas, I'm left with some TMZ rolls in the fridge which I'm going to shoot this winter as they don't hold as long as slow film. After that my D3200 stock will be filled up drastically. I got a tip to overdevelop (push?)delta3200 one stop further to have it more up on contrast. e.g. shoot EI1600, develop as EI3200.
I'm going to test some TMX400 up to EI1600 too. It's in the family. Hopefully TMX400 stays alive after positive testing.
 
I have just one roll of TMZ p3200 left with expiring date of 03/2006. It has been deep frozen all the time. I wonder what would be to expect from it now. How does it hold?

Ulrich
 
I had to use TMZ for a special project where I was shooting in extremely low light conditions. Personally, the only reason why I chose TMZ was the excellent reciprocity which allowed me to shoot what I wouldn't have been able to with other films. Otherwise, I would have used D3200 for its much more pleasant grain structure and tonal range.
 
There are now a bunch of 100 foot rolls of 70mm P3200 on eBay if anyone is interested.. They guy is asking too much for my blood, but perhaps you guys are richer than I.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I have. D3200 or TMY3200 deliver noticeably better shadow detail.

If I'm going to push Tri-x I rate it at 1250 (sometimes 1600 max) and develop in Diafine.
 
Harry Lime said:
I have. D3200 or TMY3200 deliver noticeably better shadow detail.

If I'm going to push Tri-x I rate it at 1250 (sometimes 1600 max) and develop in Diafine.
Click to expand...

Thanks Harry


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
StoneNYC said:
Thanks Harry


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And may I add that Tri-X @ 1250 in Diafine looks pretty darn good, especially once you run a few rolls through it and it ripens a little.

Also Tmax TMY-2 400 looks really good at 1250-1600 in Diafine. TMY-2 has that straight toe, which may give you a little more shadow detail, while the 2-bath action will keep the linear shoulder from frying the highlights. Or at least that is my theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register