Old 02-24-2018   #121
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
....

As to FX, there's no equivalent today. Ilford has their 50 ISO film but it's contrastive and much more difficult for most people to manage. FX was a very tame contrast film easy to expose for full shadows and tame highlights...
Could not agree more with your whole post, but this bit in particular.

Was talking with a friend today who posited that perhaps they found a forgotten master roll in deep salt-mine storage, thus the immediate release. Makes sense. Granted a b&w emulsion is simpler to produce, but given the difficulties resurrecting Ektachrome I donít picture them just whipping up a batch of this stuff, which has such a small potential market.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #122
bluesun267
Registered User
 
bluesun267's Avatar
 
bluesun267 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
Kodak had products for decades that competed with other of their products for decades. Other than the name new TX has no similarity to original TX. If people want both it can be marketed as Original TX and TX-II as in Kodachrome, Kodachrome II, Kodachrome X, Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64.

As to FX, there's no equivalent today. Ilford has their 50 ISO film but it's contrastive and much more difficult for most people to manage. FX was a very tame contrast film easy to expose for full shadows and tame highlights.
Absolutely agree...we need a slow speed B/W 25-32 ISO which has low contrast to fill the gap left by Panatomic-X and APX 25. There are plenty of slow stocks but all are high con (some can be great, no doubt) but it's not the same. I have serious doubts that Ferrania P30 alpha is anything remotely similar to the stock used by the neo-realists in the 50s/60s. Just too much contrast.

On the other hand, you've conflated products like TX320/TX400 that were offered in the same era to different groups (amateur/pro) with products that underwent changes and were replaced by new versions over decades. You've got at all 3 eras of Kodachrome there.

What I want to know is why Ektachrome is delayed...and why Ferrania can't coat a run of some kind of color reversal at this point. I think buyers have shown they're more eager to try something than wait for perfection. For Kodak this should be a piece of cake. How many new Ektachromes were developed in the 1990s--10 or 20? I know they're a smaller company now but I don't think one new Ektachrome within a year's time is such a tall order.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #123
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is online now
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesun267 View Post
I know they're a smaller company now but I don't think one new Ektachrome within a year's time is such a tall order.
Do they have an extra coating machine specifically for Ektachrome, or do they have to schedule time on an common coating machine between runs of other emulsions? Maybe they have constraints on a time slot.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #124
dallard
Registered User
 
dallard's Avatar
 
dallard is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 313
It's available for pre order @ B&H for $10.99/roll
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...Max_P3200.html
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #125
dallard
Registered User
 
dallard's Avatar
 
dallard is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 313
Delta 3200 is $9.29
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #126
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Do they have an extra coating machine specifically for Ektachrome, or do they have to schedule time on an common coating machine between runs of other emulsions? Maybe they have constraints on a time slot.
Building 38 is run nowhere near capacity. Time on the machine is the least of their problems.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #127
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by dallard View Post
Delta 3200 is $9.29
A much better deal.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #128
objectowcer
Registered User
 
objectowcer is offline
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 8
People have definitely been shooting ektacrhome over on instagram. The kodak camera club had a walk several weeks ago and people mentioned shooting it then.

I don't know what steps it takes to bring a film to market, but it's probably a good sign that it's being tested or whatnot.

A link to some ektachrome (among other) shots:
https://www.instagram.com/stoffelmatt/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #129
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by dallard View Post
Delta 3200 is $9.29
FPP has P3200 for $8.99 until the end of the month.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #130
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
I've been shooting in low light for many, many years, using Delta 3200. An excellent film, especially when developed in Ilford's DD-X. Available now and cheaper than P3200.
I like Delta 3200 too. I like DDX as well. It's all good. I ordered some P3200 because it's cheaper than D3200 when you buy from the right people, and I want to have some fun with something new.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #131
dallard
Registered User
 
dallard's Avatar
 
dallard is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawarden View Post
FPP has P3200 for $8.99 until the end of the month.
I only see it on there for $9.99. Maybe there's a deal going on?
https://filmphotographystore.com/col...ax-3200-1-roll
The reason I posted the prices is because this film is supposed to compete with Delta and at 10.99 a roll I don't think it does that very well. At 9.99 however...

Then again I'm sure there are many out there who just like the look of p3200 so much that nothing will compete with it at any price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #132
dallard
Registered User
 
dallard's Avatar
 
dallard is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawarden View Post
I like Delta 3200 too. I like DDX as well. It's all good. I ordered some P3200 because it's cheaper than D3200 when you buy from the right people, and I want to have some fun with something new.
I agree. I'll probably order a few rolls to play with but I doubt it will become a staple. It's encouraging to see a film line up expanding rather than shrinking but I would like to see brand new film products rather than just the reintroduction of old ones. Really looking forward to the new Ektachrome.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #133
GarageBoy
Registered User
 
GarageBoy is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 751
It's a weird move, a special purpose product with a limited storage life. As much as I like TMZ(I like the newspaper look), i would have preferred almost anything else to be reintroduced. I hope it sells enough that Kodak contemplates bringing something else back
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #134
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by dallard View Post
I only see it on there for $9.99. Maybe there's a deal going on?
Yes, just type "savedollar" if you order and each roll will be reduced by a buck. Only until the end of the month. Good price.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

New Kodak Professional Film Product
Old 02-24-2018   #135
PunkFunkDunk
Registered User
 
PunkFunkDunk's Avatar
 
PunkFunkDunk is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 157
New Kodak Professional Film Product

I used to shoot a quite a bit of TMZ in the early 2000s, averaging about 40 rolls a year. It was always better than Delta 3200, or perhaps that is only because I used Perceptol to develop the Delta as per Ilford recommendation and it never worked to my taste, whereas TMZ was souped in D76. Anyway, these days I have no interest in shooting film rated at 3200 box speed. Why bother? Much rather push HP5 given I always have 20-30 rolls in the fridge. Half the cost of TMZ too - and half again if you bulk load.

Frankly, in my view shooting film in especially low light these days seems idiotic, excluding tripod based shots in larger formats than 35mm. I used to love it back when digital sensors produced garbage. But now? Personally, I concentrate on chasing amazing natural light - the spot lit band on stage or by the campfire stuff is best left to digital. That is just one shooting context I am more than happy to concede to pixels while I chew through ACROS and HP5 in gorgeous and abundant sunshine. Especially down here in Oz.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #136
dallard
Registered User
 
dallard's Avatar
 
dallard is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by PunkFunkDunk View Post
I used to shoot a quite a bit of TMZ in the early 2000s, averaging about 40 rolls a year. It was always better than Delta 3200, or perhaps that is only because I used Perceptol to develop the Delta as per Ilford recommendation and it never worked to my taste, whereas TMZ was souped in D76. Anyway, these days I have no interest in shooting film rated at 3200 box speed. Why bother? Much rather push HP5 given I always have 20-30 rolls in the fridge. Half the cost of TMZ too - and half again if you bulk load.

Frankly, in my view shooting film in especially low light these days seems idiotic, excluding tripod based shots in larger formats than 35mm. I used to love it back when digital sensors produced garbage. But now? Personally I concentrate on chasing amazing natural light - the spot lit band on stage or by the campfire stuff is best left to digital. That is just one shooting context I am more than happy to concede to pixels while o chew through ACROS and HP5 in gorgeous and abundant natural light.
I've seen some really nice results online from Tri-X @ 1600 in Diafine. Always meant to try it but never did.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #137
kiss-o-matic
Registered User
 
kiss-o-matic is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 424
So, what does P3200 offer over Tri-X at 3200? I've seen some outstanding results w/ Tri-X standing in Rodinal up to 6400 (I usually only go to 1600), and it's like half the price of P3200.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #138
GarageBoy
Registered User
 
GarageBoy is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 751
Actual shadow detail is what you get vs tri x
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #139
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiss-o-matic View Post
So, what does P3200 offer over Tri-X at 3200? I've seen some outstanding results w/ Tri-X standing in Rodinal up to 6400 (I usually only go to 1600), and it's like half the price of P3200.
Normal contrast, Tmax3200 was designed to handle tricky contrasty lighting conditions. Also Tmax has a softer gradation than tx which suits some subjects extremely well.

Last edited by DominikDUK : 02-25-2018 at 08:12. Reason: typos
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #140
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiss-o-matic View Post
So, what does P3200 offer over Tri-X at 3200?
Much better image quality:
- much better sharpness
- much higher resolution
- significantly finer grain
- much better shadow detail.

But, you would get an even better image quality at ISO 3200/36į in most cases with the following combinations:
- TMY-2 with a lens with image stabilisation
- TMY-2 in a modern film body and modern fill-in flash system using the fill-in flash to fill the sensivity gap
- TMY-2 @800 in combination with one of the numerous modern, excellent f1.4 lenses.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #141
Guy Pinhas
Registered User
 
Guy Pinhas's Avatar
 
Guy Pinhas is offline
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by newsgrunt View Post
It's been many moons but all chemistry was tempered with the DevTec heater at 100˚f (basically an element with a temp control, which someone hot glued at that temp) TMax developer was usual working strength and one shot. Times were obviously shorter. Iirc, it looked better than processing at lower temps (68˚ for example). I've read that some photographers are experimenting with sous vide heaters like these https://ca.anovaculinary.com/?gclid=...hoCt3UQAvD_BwE.

When I get some new rolls, will run some tests again to establish some sort of baseline at 68˚ and 100˚. So *when* they bring out 120 P3200 (haha) I'll be ready and steady.

I'm pretty excited and will, like many, use it for super dim light work.
Looking forwards to it! Thanks again.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #142
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
- TMY-2 @800 in combination with one of the numerous modern, excellent f1.4 lenses.

Cheers, Jan
TMY works very well at ISO800 even unpushed. It would be interesting to see what TMY could do at ISO1600 and pushed vs the p3200. I suspect it will do very well given the TGrain properties that it has. While P3200 has the TMAX brand, Kodak themselves say it compares to Tri-X, not TMAX400.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2018   #143
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
TMY works very well at ISO800 even unpushed.
Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
It would be interesting to see what TMY could do at ISO1600 and pushed vs the p3200. I suspect it will do very well given the TGrain properties that it has.
Well, since 2007 we already have the improved TMY-2 version .
It strictly depends on the developer! In most developers TMY-2 delivers a straigt, linear characteristic curve. That is not so good for pushing, because you get too dense ("burned") highlights.
Therefore for pushing TMY-2 you need a push developer with a compensating effect, which flattens the characteristic curve in the hightlight zones VIII - X.
That is for example the case with ADOX Atomal developer:
You get a very high speed / sensivity (very good shadow detail) and highlights with detail (flattened characteristic curve in the highlights).
It's a very good combination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
While P3200 has the TMAX brand, Kodak themselves say it compares to Tri-X, not TMAX400.
T-Max 3200 is similar to Tri-X concerning the shape of the characteristic curve.
But concerning sharpness, resolution and fineness of grain T-Max 3200 clearly shows that it is a T-grain film.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2018   #144
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post



T-Max 3200 is similar to Tri-X concerning the shape of the characteristic curve.
But concerning sharpness, resolution and fineness of grain T-Max 3200 clearly shows that it is a T-grain film.

Cheers, Jan
From Kodak's FAQ:

Q. What about granularity?
A. P3200 is a fine grain film, similar in nature to the classic look of TRI-X than to T-MAX 400.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2018   #145
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
From Kodak's FAQ:

Q. What about granularity?
A. P3200 is a fine grain film, similar in nature to the classic look of TRI-X than to T-MAX 400.
I know.
Kodak marketing bla bla.
Fact is that the grain structure of TMZ and Tri-X is very different.
And TMZ surpasses Tri-X significantly in sharpness and resolution.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2018   #146
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,348
I was about to try TX @1600 in Diafine.
How Tmax3200 should compare to it?

also, if I remember correctly, either delta or Tmax was said to be actually a 1600 ISO film, and 3200 is already a one step push. Any info about this?
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:38.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.