Tmax 400 @ 1600 vs Tmax 3200 @ 1600

[athbr]

Interested in experiences pushing Tmax 2 stops vs using Tmax P3200 @ 1600 (from what I have glanced 3200 would be a 1-2 stop push in and of itself).

Looking at some scans on flickr it seemed the grain wasn't really better on P3200 than 400 pushed. The contrast was certainly lower.

Which did you like best? What developer did you use?

 

[Bill Burk]

If you lookup posts by Thomas Bertilsson you swill find some interesting discussion and maybe some examples.

His position was that it’s better to use a faster film like Delta 3200 for fast work, and 400 speed film for general purposes.

 

[NB23]

TMZ is a mind blowing film, made for speed. Gorgeous.

 

[foen]

How about best developer for tmz?

 

[ic-racer]

TMZ is more sensitive to light, so shadow detail will always be better at the same exposure than any other B&W film on the market. If you are trying to eliminate shadow detail by underexposing for special effect, a slower film might be better.

 

[athbr]

TMZ is more sensitive to light, so shadow detail will always be better at the same exposure than any other B&W film on the market. If you are trying to eliminate shadow detail by underexposing for special effect, a slower film might be better.

My biggest concern is grain. I can deal with higher contrast but the grain on tmz for some reason seems higher than tmy + 2 for me (I have not shot tmz yet, I am just going off flickr).

Here's a post from Grim Tuesday on the following thread that caught my eye: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/400-vs-1600.169394/#post-2203892

From Kodak Pub O-3:

"ARE THERE OTHER USES FOR PUSH PROCESSING?

Yes. Oddly enough, pushing can offer an advantage in a number of well-lit situations. For example, consider an outdoor tennis match at midday. You can easily shoot a 400-speed film at 1/500 second to stop action or usf/16 for good depth of field. But you might prefer to use a 100-speed film, pretend it is 400, and then push-process. Push processing increases film graininess, but a 100-speed film pushed to 400 is not as grainy as a true 400-speed film exposed and processed normally. This technique sacrifices some shadow detail, but in many sports situations, such as tennis, golf, swimming, etc., shadow detail is not terribly important to the image. In situations like this, you can end up with better overall image quality by underexposing and push-processing a slower film than by making the more natural choice of a faster film.

 

[warden]

Interested in experiences pushing Tmax 2 stops vs using Tmax P3200 @ 1600 (from what I have glanced 3200 would be a 1-2 stop push in and of itself).

Looking at some scans on flickr it seemed the grain wasn't really better on P3200 than 400 pushed. The contrast was certainly lower.

Which did you like best? What developer did you use?

I'd forget flickr unless your main goal with the output is sharing on flickr. If your concern is grain I think 400 is the way to go.

 

[athbr]

I'd forget flickr unless your main goal with the output is sharing on flickr. If your concern is grain I think 400 is the way to go.

All of the work gets scanned. Choice favourites get wet printed. So yes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My biggest concern is grain. I can deal with higher contrast but the grain on tmz for some reason seems higher than tmy + 2 for me (I have not shot tmz yet, I am just going off flickr).

Here's a post from Grim Tuesday on the following thread that caught my eye: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/400-vs-1600.169394/#post-2203892

XTOL or replenished XTOL produces very fine grain. It is my go to developer although sometimes I use pyro for MF and LF.

 

[radiant]

How about best developer for tmz?

What is tmz?

 

[warden]

All of the work gets scanned. Choice favourites get wet printed. So yes.

I don't think there is a bad decision here between these two films if you're exposing at 1600 which they both can do. It sounds like you have a handle on what you want (less grain, not too worried about shadow detail or contrast) so 400 film can definitely work.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I've done both, using Tmax Developer.

Tmax 400 had finer grain but worse shadow and highlight detail (in other words it was too contrasty). Tmax 3200 had more grain but better tonaility

 

[Donald Qualls]

What is tmz?

TMX = TMax 100
TMY = TMax 400
TMZ = TMax P3200

 

[athbr]

I don't think there is a bad decision here between these two films if you're exposing at 1600 which they both can do. It sounds like you have a handle on what you want (less grain, not too worried about shadow detail or contrast) so 400 film can definitely work.

Yeah its obviously a trade-off. I'm leaning on tmy +2 but I will buy some tmz and do some testing as that would be only fair.

 

[athbr]

XTOL or replenished XTOL produces very fine grain. It is my go to developer although sometimes I use pyro for MF and LF.

View attachment 242893

Love Xtol.

Off-topic but which pyro do you use? And why not on 35?

 

[warden]

Yeah its obviously a trade-off. I'm leaning on tmy +2 but I will buy some tmz and do some testing as that would be only fair.

Good call to try both. TMZ will have more grain, but I like the grain it makes. It's just a preference and I use 'em both. I hope Kodak gets around to offering TMZ in 120 format one of these days.

 

[M Carter]

I've rarely like the grain of delta 3200 - it can have a "wet popcorn" look that smears out detail (then again, I disliked it so much in 35 that I never tried it in larger formats). In my tests, I've found that HP5+ at 1200-1600 in DD-X is pretty remarkable; you'll lose some deep shadow detail, but it's a good looking neg with nicely controlled grain.

I haven't shot any of the Kodak B&W stuff in ages though, the last 5 years I've been more focused on getting a few films really dialed in, so there could certainly be a Kodak alternative with similar results. But for pushing film, the Ilford combo is really nice. (I rarely need a film faster than 400 though).

 

[pentaxuser]

Depending on the picture being shot I found that more than 5x7 in D3200 @ 1600 began to show too much grain with 35mm film. However in an MF 645 this changed a lot and for the better. I am a bit puzzled why Kodak hasn't at least indicated that a return of TMZ in 120 isn't on the cards. Intuitively I'd have thought that the investment required for the return to be had would be pretty good although intuition isn't always reliable.

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

Was TMZ ever available in 120?

 

[138S]

Interested in experiences pushing Tmax 2 stops vs using Tmax P3200 @ 1600 (from what I have glanced 3200 would be a 1-2 stop push in and of itself).

Looking at some scans on flickr it seemed the grain wasn't really better on P3200 than 400 pushed. The contrast was certainly lower.

Which did you like best? What developer did you use?

With same developer, TMZ will have better shadow detail.

I like much more the TMZ grain than the TMY pushed grain.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Was TMZ ever available in 120?

No, it was always 35mm only. Ilford Delta 3200 is made in 120 size, though. I've used a lot of it in 120 and it looks nice; grain is not an issue there like it is with 35mm.

 

[Tim Gray]

A decade ago I did a test of TMY, TMZ, and 400TX. Nothing super controlled or scientific. I don’t think I ever uploaded the pushing results, but I did write up the nominal exposures. I did negative and print scans. One thing that struck me at the time was that TMZ grain looked nicer printed than it did scanned. It was also the first time I had ever shot TMY.

TMZ is such a great film.

https://125px.com/articles/photography/film/txtmytmz/