Tmax 3200 Update

[jmal]

For those that showed interest in my initial thread, I processed the two rolls of P3200 tonight and have some opinions. The first roll was a roll of pinhole photos and came out nearly blank. Terribly underexposed. Now, I shot many of the same shots using HP5 and though the negs were thin, they were printable. Also, the light was actually--to my perception--much brighter the day that I shot the Tmax P3200. Some buildings that I photographed with the Tmax P3200 were in full, clear afternoon sun and they barely registered @ 1/15 and 1/30. For comparison, I shot a shadowy building with HP5 (see my gallery for Chicago pinhole 1) @ 1/30 and it is printable. So, is it possible that HP5 is faster than Tmax P3200?

For the second roll, shot with a normal lens, I exposed at 1600 and developed for the times for 3200. The negs look a little thin. They are definitely thinner than Delta 3200 exposed and developed similarly. While this is all very uncontrolled data, I would never attempt to use this film above 800given the way I expose and process.

Jmal

 

[Lee L]

If you read the TMZ data sheet, you'll see that it's a nominal 800 ISO film in most developers, and that 1600 and 3200 are considered "pushes".

KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX P3200 Film is specially
designed to be used as a multi-speed film. The speed you
use depends on your application; make tests to determine
the appropriate speed.
The nominal speed is EI 1000 when the film is processed
in KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Developer or KODAK
PROFESSIONAL T-MAX RS Developer and Replenisher, or
EI 800 when it is processed in other Kodak
black-and-white developers. It was determined in a
manner published in ISO standards. For ease in calculating
exposure and for consistency with the commonly used
scale of film-speed numbers, the nominal speed has been
rounded to EI 800.

DDX does increase effective film speed relative to other developers, and many people apparently use it with HP5+ at EI 500-1600. TMZ may also be faster than EI 800 in DDX, but there are enough other variables with developer, film toe shape, spectral sensitivity, etc, that I don't find it terrifically surprising that you found the HP5+ as fast or faster than TMZ under specific circumstances.

Perhaps a little testing for film speed with the specific film/developer combinations is in order.

Lee

 

[pentaxuser]

Interesting that your experience is that even shooting at 1600 and developing for 3200 with DDX that TP3200 negs should turn out thin and yet the time increase for this is slightly greater percentage-wise than that for DDX and D3200. Suggests that even developing for the next speed up with TP3200 and DDX still isn't enough.

I have yet to try D3200 and DDX but my experience with D3200 and ID11 was that the negs looked normal but D3200 @1600 and Perceptol produced thin but perfectly printable negs using the dev time for the next speed.

Maybe TP3200 and DDX times are way out and/or DDX and TP3200 are not a match made in heaven the way DDX and D3200 are. However the real test is printing. How do the prints from the negs look? I suspect that fast film negs may just look thinner and more grey than slower speed negs but still print well. Certainly it would seem as if using recommended times produces thin looking negs whereas this is not the case with recommended times and slower speed films.

pentaxuser

 

[jmal]

I'll print this weekend, but the roll of pinholes went in the garbage. It was clear save for a few highlights. The other roll will print fine I'm sure. I just feel a real lack of confidence in using this film. I really doubt I will try again as it was purchased as a last resort when the store was out of D3200.

 

[PhotoJim]

I haven't shot a lot of P3200, but it is a nice film. I tend to shoot it at 1000 and develop it in XTOL 1:1. I wonder if you had a processing issue.

Shoot a roll with more normal equipment and see how it performs. It really is decent film.

I have tended to shoot D3200 since I prefer Ilford films, but the Kodak film is really pretty decent.