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.
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.
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.
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
How about best developer for tmz?
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.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.
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
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.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.
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?
Was TMZ ever available in 120?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?