TMZ vs Delta 3200

[BetterSense]

I've never shot either one of these high-speed films. I'm tempted to go with D3200 just because it's available in 120. But then, I love TMY. Is TMZ any faster or finer grained than D3200?

 

[Harry Lime]

I've shot a lot of these films.

IMO Delta3200 is the better of the two. Smaller grain, HUGE exposure range. The true speed of this film is supposed to be a tad over 1000asa. I shoot it between 1250 and 1600 and developed mostly in DDX, but now also in xtol. You can shoot it at 3200 and it looks really good, but you lose some shadow detail. At 800 asa it's just creamy as can be.

TMZ3200P has more grain and a unique tonality. From what I remember the true speed is about 800 asa, so it's just a tad slower than D3200. I found the TMAX developer to give a noticeable boost to the shadows, but the grain is quite strong. I mostly shot it at 1250-1600. I think I would like to go back to TMZ and play with it a little more Xtol. TMZ can get quite grainy, but it has a unique look.

If you need to shoot 120, then obviously Delta3200 is your only choice and a glorious one it is.

The biggest problem with Delta3200 is the price. It's gotten really expensive. In some locations it's almost twice as much as TMZ3200P. From what I know Delta3200 a 5 layer film, but the pricing seems excessive and I fear that it will hurt sales and eventually kill it. Personally I had to seriously cut back after the price hike about 2 years ago. I was shooting about 1 - 1.5 bricks a month and had to switch to Tri-X and Tmy-2 pushed to 1250. Not as good, but almost half the cost.

Antonin Kratochvil of VII Photo shoots Tri-X and TMZ3200P. Take a look at some of his work here. http://www.antoninkratochvil.com/

 

[bwrules]

With the recent discontinuance of Neopan 1600, I wouldn't be surprised to see these two go really soon.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have some Kodak 3200 to try out. It was considerably cheaper than D3200. I recall Roger Hicks saying that of the two he preferred Ilford but on the grounds of tonality and looks rather than anything to do with grain. If I recall him correctly he said that of the two Kodak was actually finer grained. Possibly just his opinion as opposed to a scientific test.

pentaxuser

 

[Tim Gray]

I think you'll get answers that are pretty much evenly divided between the two. For every person that says one is finer grained with better tonality, someone else will say the other has finer grain and/or better tonality. They are both great films. Delta is in 120 as well. Most people say it's about a third of a stop faster.

I shoot TMZ. Great results from it shot at 1600 and developed in XTOL 1:1. I think it wet prints better than it scans. I'll shoot it at 3200 if I must, but 1600 looks better in my book. It's a pretty sharp film. In my experience about the same level of detail as Tri-X. Grainier but faster.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I find the Tmax quite a bit finer grained when both are in Xtol 1+1 or 1+2. Same with DDX but more grain for both. D 3200 is faster and lower in contrast, but the Tmax provides noticeably higher resolution. It gives up about 1/3 stop vs the ilford.

For general use the Tmax is, IMHO, the better film, but if pushing speed to the limit, the D3200 is the better bet.

I was amazed by the increase in resolution of Tmax over D3200 when I first tried the Tmax after using the D3200 for several years.

 

[ArtTwisted]

Personally , if your gonna eventually wanna shoot it in 120, just buy the delta, that way you can learn one film instead of two. I would love to give the kodak material a shot but not gonna happen. The delta btw is rather beautiful.

 

[Neal]

Dear BetterSense,

Good news! Finding the differences is like picking fly poop out of pepper. Either will work for a photo where that type of film is appropriate.

Neal Wydra

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

You know our committment, its already stated, we will not discontinue any film product that exists as of today : DELTA 3200 will remain available in Roll Film and in 35mm

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[nworth]

Of the images I've seen of TMZ and Delta 3200 at EI 1600 and 3200, Delta looks a bit better - not a whole lot better, but better. But TMZ has some distinctive features that can be an advantage. One is its golf ball-like grain. It is rather fined grained (sort of like 1960 Tri-X), but the grain is quite distinctive and can be useful in some applications. The more important advantage is its ability to be pushed beyond EI 3200. The initial reviews of TMZ showed surveillance shots made at EI 25000 - harsh but useable with recognizable faces. EI 6400 is quite useful and 12000 is possible in low contrast situations. This is quite remarkable for a film with a true speed of about 1200.

 

[pentaxuser]

In the best dev for high speed film does any know of a scientific comparison of speed? nworth quotes a true speed of 1200 and the best I've seen for D3200 is about 1250 so no difference there in practical terms. Others are suggesting that TMZ is a thrid of a stop slower with the slowest speed quoted here of 800.

So is there an answer or have I just asked: How long is a piece of string?

pentaxuser

 

[Tim Gray]

In the best dev for high speed film does any know of a scientific comparison of speed? nworth quotes a true speed of 1200 and the best I've seen for D3200 is about 1250 so no difference there in practical terms. Others are suggesting that TMZ is a thrid of a stop slower with the slowest speed quoted here of 800.

So is there an answer or have I just asked: How long is a piece of string?

pentaxuser

I always assumed that most people, me included, are probably just quoting what Ilford and Kodak report in their spec sheets.

Kodak says the following (pg 19 of f-4016):

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.

Ilford says the following:

DELTA 3200 Professional has an ISO speed rating of ISO 1000/31o (1000ASA, 31DIN) to daylight. The ISO speed rating was measured using ILFORD ID-11 developer at 20°C/68oF with intermittent agitation in a spiral tank.

 

[pgomena]

I tested TMZ when it first appeared on the market, and 800 seemed a good normal speed. I processed it in T-Max developer according to directions and found it worked very well up to EI 1600. At 3200 it started to lose shadow detail pretty quickly.

TMZ in T-Max developer produces very sharp grain. Yes, it is noticeable even at normal speed and development. I would not choose this combination for portraiture - skin looks like oatmeal. I'd use it for low-light and street work in a minute. I've also tried Delta 3200, but only in 120. I like it very much, but can't compare it to 135mm TMZ. I rate it at about 800 or 1000 for normal use. Both films have so much latitude and increase in contrast so slowly that there is tons of shadow detail.

Peter Gomena

 

[markbarendt]

Dear All,

You know our committment, its already stated, we will not discontinue any film product that exists as of today : DELTA 3200 will remain available in Roll Film and in 35mm

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Thank you Simon!

 

[erikg]

Dear All,

You know our committment, its already stated, we will not discontinue any film product that exists as of today : DELTA 3200 will remain available in Roll Film and in 35mm

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

I wish you could have said that when POP paper was still in the catalog, but that is nevertheless great to hear. I like Delta 3200 in 120 a lot and I really love Pan-F. It can't be said enough, it's great to have someone who represents a major manufacturer willing to speak so directly here on Apug.

 

[BetterSense]

Well, I went with Delta 3200, if only because it's available in 120 as well as 35mm.

 

[michaelbsc]

+1 for Delta 3200 and DD-X. Just ignore the published dev times and go one higher.

In fact, I use DD-X for everything, including Kodak film.

 

[Roger Cole]

I wish you could have said that when POP paper was still in the catalog, but that is nevertheless great to hear. I like Delta 3200 in 120 a lot and I really love Pan-F. It can't be said enough, it's great to have someone who represents a major manufacturer willing to speak so directly here on Apug.

But he said film, and POP paper isn't film.

Still, I too am very glad to read this. On this particular topic I've used TMZ in 35mm since before Delta 3200 came out. I bought some Delta 3200 in 120 to play with. Assuming the results are as good as I seem to be reading here, I may just switch for very low light in 35mm as well, as I would like to support a company that's pledged to support us.

Now I've heard that bringing Delta 400 back in sheet film was being considered now that Kodak canceled TMY-2 in 8x10. If they do I will at least try it, and possibly use it.

I have a nearly full 100 sheet box of Delta 400 4x5 frozen, but I don't know if it will be representative of what it would be like new. I love TMY-2 but could be persuaded to change. I can tolerate more grain in 4x5. Heck, HP5+ or TXP are fine from the standpoint of grain.

 

[pentaxuser]

In 35mm D3200 I found grain to be quite acceptable in DDX or Xtol at 5x7 so with MF 120 even 645 negs should be fine up to 8x10 or maybe even a little larger.

pentaxuser.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have never used TMZ, I admit, but I have used a fair amount of Delta 3200.

You guys should try the 35mm in Rodinal and make 16x20" prints. It looks really great!
An 8x10 of the same negative has very fine grain, at 5x7 it's hard to see it.
You could use something like Xtol 1+1 which would give a much finer grain. DD-X at 1+9 yields similar results.

- Thomas

 

[mr. mohaupt]

Dear All,

You know our committment, its already stated, we will not discontinue any film product that exists as of today : DELTA 3200 will remain available in Roll Film and in 35mm

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

This makes me only want to buy Ilford films. You gotta love the commitment.

~M

 

[Roger Cole]

I have never used TMZ, I admit, but I have used a fair amount of Delta 3200.

You guys should try the 35mm in Rodinal and make 16x20" prints. It looks really great!
An 8x10 of the same negative has very fine grain, at 5x7 it's hard to see it.
You could use something like Xtol 1+1 which would give a much finer grain. DD-X at 1+9 yields similar results.

- Thomas

What E.I.? What's your development data for Rodinal?

I found a full bottle (unopened) of Rodinal in my old darkroom, dating from 1998. If what I've read is right, it still should be fine. I'll retrieve it next time I'm back at the parents' house (where the old darkroom was) and give it a go.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What E.I.? What's your development data for Rodinal?

I found a full bottle (unopened) of Rodinal in my old darkroom, dating from 1998. If what I've read is right, it still should be fine. I'll retrieve it next time I'm back at the parents' house (where the old darkroom was) and give it a go.

Hi Roger. I shoot it at EI 1600, and process in Rodinal 1+25, agitating full first minute, and then 5s every 30s, for 12 minutes. You need to kick and drag it down the road a bit to get the right contrast. I used it in medium contrast lighting, and this was perfect for a straight grade 3 print for me, using Fomabrom Variant 112 and replenished LPD.

What surprised me, printing Delta3200/Rodinal negs large, was the sharpness and detail available. Nothing short of amazing. There is grain, but you kind of see through it, because everything is so sharp and well defined.

Attached is a lousy neg scan from one of the frames.

Have fun!

 

[K-G]

Hi Roger. I shoot it at EI 1600, and process in Rodinal 1+25, agitating full first minute, and then 5s every 30s, for 12 minutes. You need to kick and drag it down the road a bit to get the right contrast. I used it in medium contrast lighting, and this was perfect for a straight grade 3 print for me, using Fomabrom Variant 112 and replenished LPD.

What surprised me, printing Delta3200/Rodinal negs large, was the sharpness and detail available. Nothing short of amazing. There is grain, but you kind of see through it, because everything is so sharp and well defined.

Attached is a lousy neg scan from one of the frames.

Have fun!

I agree with your opinion on the sharpness. When I have used Delta 3200 , it has mostly been on indoor sports events ( I followed my son when he played handball ).
With lousy lighting situations and fast running kids , many pictures turned out quite blurry and that in itself enhances the the grainy feeling. On those few occasions when the motif was still and the focusing and exposure were correct, the pictures turned out to be so razor sharp that you almost didn't notice the grain. I developed mostly in D-76 and in the last years in DDX, but I understand that Rodinal can give even sharper negatives. I have also tried the TMZ and it gave excelent results, but for some , non scientific , reason I have allways been more comfortable with Delta 3200. Whichever film is available to you, use it and enjoy it.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[MaximusM3]

Thomas is correct on all counts and my vote goes to Delta 3200. Amazing things can be delivered, especially with Rodinal, and medium format is just spectacular. Less grit than 35mm obviously (and which I prefer) but it works wonders for street work/architecture, moody high contrast stuff, etc.