TMAX P3200 Introductory Price at Cinestill
Old 02-24-2018   #1
bayernfan
Registered User
 
bayernfan is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 704
TMAX P3200 Introductory Price at Cinestill

It's going for $9.99/per everywhere else, so this is a nice way to save $30 on a brick. Free shipping over $75 as well.

https://cinestillfilm.com/collection...3200-36exp-135
__________________
M_V instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #2
agoglanian
Reconnected.
 
agoglanian's Avatar
 
agoglanian is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Age: 33
Posts: 923
Nice find! I'll do a little pre order to have some on hand. Maybe 10 rolls or so. Won't be my main film stock but it would be fun to have available
__________________
- Abram

M-A | M10 | 500CM | P67II

Instagram. | Website.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #3
dshfoto
Registered User
 
dshfoto's Avatar
 
dshfoto is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 411
Anyone know how this works with Diafine?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #4
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,555
I'll be surprised if this is affordable here in Oz. 100 Tmax is currently sixteen dollars per roll here!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #5
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
Nice heads up thanks!

Curious.
Why did kodak bring this back now?
This won’t save the company

I still have some in my freezer. Seldom have the occasion to reach for it.
Wonder how well it’s holding up as far as speed and possibility of fogging.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #6
Oren Grad
Registered User
 
Oren Grad is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by dshfoto View Post
Anyone know how this works with Diafine?
I tried it many years ago. Grain like boulders. Not what people usually mean when they say TMZ in HC-110 or whatever gives you "grain like boulders". I mean *real* boulders, the kind you can catapult against your enemy's fortress to breach the walls just before you launch your invasion across the moat.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #7
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
Curious.
Why did kodak bring this back now?
This wonít save the company

I still have some in my freezer. Seldom have the occasion to reach for it.
Wonder how well itís holding up as far as speed and possibility of fogging.
I was reading someplace the past few days (FPP?) where Kodak is looking to expand their film portfolio. Tmax 3200 was a logical choice.

I too, found a few rolls in the freezer. One is now in my old FTb. A few more shots to take then I can process it.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #8
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
Nice heads up thanks!

Curious.
Why did kodak bring this back now?
This won’t save the company

I still have some in my freezer. Seldom have the occasion to reach for it.
Wonder how well it’s holding up as far as speed and possibility of fogging.
If it's like Delta 3200 it will be unusable four or five years past expiration. I had a dozen rolls I kept frozen that was unusable within a few years of expiration. High speed films don't keep well.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #9
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,627
Thanks for the tip. I'm usually much more interested in slow speed films such as Rollei RPX 25, as I'm in the Southern USA, where the sun is quite intense. However, I am curious about this film, so I ordered it from Cinestill via your link.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #10
Chuffed Cheese
Registered User
 
Chuffed Cheese is offline
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 156
good price. hope it's not vaporware.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #11
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
If it's like Delta 3200 it will be unusable four or five years past expiration. I had a dozen rolls I kept frozen that was unusable within a few years of expiration. High speed films don't keep well.
I've got some TMAX3200 expired 02/2012 - the most recent roll I developed was 02/2016, and the results were still good. Sounds like I need to use it soon or lose it, if your experience is indicative. Thanks.
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #12
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,670
Oh, figured it wouldn't keep for long. My last roll (rolls, I discovered another) expired 2014. I guess I should find a reason to load em up before they become "collector's items". I feel better about my long expired Pan-X and Ilford Pan-F because slow films are slower to fog...but that's another story.

I may order up some TMZ just to have in the selection. It had its place and use.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #13
john_s
Registered User
 
john_s is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
I'll be surprised if this is affordable here in Oz. 100 Tmax is currently sixteen dollars per roll here!
As much as I like to support the local outlets, the prices of film here at the end of the Earth are ludicrous.

Keith, I'm still going through the HP5+ you got for me in a bulk purchase. I wonder if there's a risk of xray damage if we get some from the US, given its sensitivity?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #14
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
 
p.giannakis's Avatar
 
p.giannakis is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stafford - UK
Posts: 2,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by john_s View Post
Keith, I'm still going through the HP5+ you got for me in a bulk purchase. I wonder if there's a risk of xray damage if we get some from the US, given its sensitivity?
In my experience, there is no risk. I only use 400 iso film when I travel abroad and in many cases my gear will get multiple x-ray scans. I never noticed anything that would imply that it was affected by the x-ray.
__________________
Regards,
Pan


The Monochrome Archives
Instagram



  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #15
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
 
sebastel's Avatar
 
sebastel is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: highdelberg
Posts: 1,129
no 120, however.
__________________

si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #16
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by dshfoto View Post
Anyone know how this works with Diafine?
As I recall, it doesn't work with Diafine. Flat negs.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #17
sanoire
Registered User
 
sanoire is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 30
I've been able to get from extremely smooth grain all the way to golf ball grain with this film. At first I developed it in TMAX developer and it was very smooth. Then, I went with XTOL and at higher dilutions it was also quite smooth and scans very well. With Rodinal 1:30 it gets quite crunchy but I like that. It's a film that, in my experience, with some experimentation can take on a lot of different looks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #18
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
...

Curious.
Why did kodak bring this back now?
This wonít save the company
It won't. They took it off from production because it was not purchased enough.
These days with f1.1 and 1.4, 1.5 lenses available for moderately low price, it is going to be dead product as soon as novelty factor dies within few months time frame.

Releasing 3200 film on the year time then daylight is increasing in most of the countries for Kodak market shows how lost they are.

I don't need this film even for six bucks. I could get close enough result even with Kentmere 400.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #19
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is online now
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
Curious. Why did kodak bring this back now? This wonít save the company.
Nothing Kodak does in the film division will save the company. It is too small a part of their business as a whole. While I am not interested in TMax3200, I know some people are, and I am happy for them that they have their film back. Same with Ektachome.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #20
Hogarth Ferguson
Registered User
 
Hogarth Ferguson's Avatar
 
Hogarth Ferguson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
I tried it many years ago. Grain like boulders. Not what people usually mean when they say TMZ in HC-110 or whatever gives you "grain like boulders". I mean *real* boulders, the kind you can catapult against your enemy's fortress to breach the walls just before you launch your invasion across the moat.
Use a superior siege weapon, the Trebuchet
__________________
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #21
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
Nothing Kodak does in the film division will save the company. It is too small a part of their business as a whole. While I am not interested in TMax3200, I know some people are, and I am happy for them that they have their film back. Same with Ektachome.
Kodak is a zombie company, a dead man walking. They are seeing a disastrous drop in revenue and a even worse date in 2019 when they need hundreds of millions of dollars (that they do not have today) to pay off their preferred stock holders.

It is going to get much worse for Kodak before it gets better, assuming it ever does.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #22
Robert Lai
Registered User
 
Robert Lai is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,627
Way back in 1984 (that Orwellian year), I tried Kodak Royal 1000 color negative film. It was truly awful. Gigantic sandpaper grain. Washed out colors. I regretted using the stuff for an important event.

Since then I've gone to the opposite extreme. I had great days with Tech pan, shooting with ISO 12, and doing my own development in the Tech Pan developer. Contrast was always hard to tame though.
Kodachrome 25 for color .

Tried Pan F. Still a problem with high contrast with Ilford Pan F.
Worked very well in Ilfotec DDX.

So far, I'm in love with the look from Rollei's RPX 25.

Since this Kodak film was reintroduced, I've started to wonder what it may be useful for. So, I've pre-ordered some rolls of that, as well as some Delta 3200.

After more than 30 years, it's worth trying something again - high speed film, that is. And, exploring its possibilities with an open mind.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #23
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
It won't. They took it off from production because it was not purchased enough.
These days with f1.1 and 1.4, 1.5 lenses available for moderately low price, it is going to be dead product as soon as novelty factor dies within few months time frame.

Releasing 3200 film on the year time then daylight is increasing in most of the countries for Kodak market shows how lost they are.

I don't need this film even for six bucks. I could get close enough result even with Kentmere 400.
The old P3200 was much..much cleaner, sharper, and just plain prettier than K400 and I like K400 (for edginess/grittiness not detail).
If this new film is the old film, folks will be happy.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #24
john_s
Registered User
 
john_s is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 839
If you're interested in a comparison of Delta 3200 and TMax 3200 have a look at

http://www.butzi.net:80/articles/theater.htm

You'll have to use the wayback machine as Paul Butzi's web site seems to not be up.

The take-home message is that he found the shoulder of the Delta a disadvantage when taking photos in high contrast situations such as on stage.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-2018   #25
joeswe
Registered User
 
joeswe is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Releasing 3200 film on the year time then daylight is increasing in most of the countries for Kodak market shows how lost they are.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #26
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
Kodak is a zombie company, a dead man walking. They are seeing a disastrous drop in revenue and a even worse date in 2019 when they need hundreds of millions of dollars (that they do not have today) to pay off their preferred stock holders.

It is going to get much worse for Kodak before it gets better, assuming it ever does.
Hi,

could you please give a valid source for ".....date in 2019 when they need hundreds of millions of dollars (that they do not have today) to pay off their preferred stock holders."

Thank you very much in advance!

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #27
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
I'll be surprised if this is affordable here in Oz. 100 Tmax is currently sixteen dollars per roll here!
Good god that's ridiculous!!!! I feel for you man. Those prices are simply awful. I hate digital but I think given that price I'd have to go that route.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #28
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
Hi,

could you please give a valid source for ".....date in 2019 when they need hundreds of millions of dollars (that they do not have today) to pay off their preferred stock holders."

Thank you very much in advance!

Cheers, Jan
Kodak was recently downgraded by two analytical firms and inside one of the reports was the information that preferred stock issued by Kodak had to be repurchased in 2019 at $17.50/share if the price was below that level (it's currently $6.xx/share). The conclusion of the downgrade was a statement of a near certain second bankruptcy. The stock plunged hard after these reports came out of course.

That report seems to be behind a paywall now so I can't reference it here. I am still looking for a free copy of it and will return here to post it if I am successful.

Edit: While searching for the above report, I found a different one, one that is sadly even more bleak about Kodak's future than the original one I referenced. Here's a snippet.

"Kodakís results and significant negative guidance revisions are not the result of an industry-wide slowdown; they are symptomatic of poor execution, an uncompetitive product set, and lack of operational visibility. Kodak shareholders are underwriting an increasingly vulnerable credit profile. In an S&P report following 3Q17 results, downgrading the rating on Kodakís credit to CCC+/Outlook negative, the agency noted diminished liquidity reserves, low covenant headroom and estimated recoveries of ~65% for the senior bank debt in the event of a default. 36 For retail equity investors unsure of the implications of that statement, it means that S&P sees so little value in the company that even the most senior of creditors will not be made whole and the equity is worthless."

"In our leverage and free cash flow forecast, we conservatively assume cost-saving measures succeed in keeping operational EBITDA flat and free cash flow improves from 2017 but remains negative. Even with this relatively optimistic set of assumptions, we estimate Kodak will violate its senior secured leverage ratio covenant of 2.75x by 1H19."


This is from a 21 page article that gives THE most thorough analysis of Kodak's financial metrics I have ever seen. In no instance does any metric look positive. Kodak's cash flow situation is absolutely dire. They need hundreds of millions of dollars to break even and their cash flow is trending downwards, not up.

That is why we are seeing this Kodak Coin scam. The situation is so desperate that anything that can generate revenue is being tried, despite it having almost no chance to succeed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #29
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 659
Conclusion:

Every groundbreaking innovation that captures market fascination has talented developers who apply the technology in a thoughtful manner. It also has imposters, looking to trade on the promise of the technology without any legitimate chance of delivering. Kodak has licensed its brand to the latter. As a result, the story behind the rise in its shares, which couldn’t have been scripted any more bizarrely, will not have a Hollywood ending. ICO proceeds and distant royalty revenue will not be enough to avoid equity dilution or a credit event. Eventually, possibly as soon as the next time Kodak reports earnings, a share price levitating on the hopes of blockchain technology will give way to the gravity of dying, old-world fundamentals.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #30
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,686
@ Ted Striker:

Thank you for the information.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #31
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
@ Ted Striker:

Thank you for the information.

Cheers, Jan
I wish the news delivered was more positive!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #32
Oren Grad
Registered User
 
Oren Grad is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogarth Ferguson View Post
Use a superior siege weapon, the Trebuchet
Will add one to my kit!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
...Diafine. Flat negs.
Yes, this too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #33
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
 
hipsterdufus's Avatar
 
hipsterdufus is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ferndale, MI
Posts: 883
@Ted

Isn't this film being produced by Kodak Alaris, which is a totally separate entity from Kodak USA? I don't think that that Kodak USA's financials have anything to do with Kodak Alaris.

In this article, it mentions that it is being made by Kodak Alaris.
__________________
-Eric K.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #34
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is online now
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 42
Posts: 3,904
Here we go again.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #35
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipsterdufus View Post
@Ted

Isn't this film being produced by Kodak Alaris, which is a totally separate entity from Kodak USA? I don't think that that Kodak USA's financials have anything to do with Kodak Alaris.

In this article, it mentions that it is being made by Kodak Alaris.
Eric- Kodak Alaris does not produce ANY film. They market Eastman Kodak's film. Eastman makes all movie and still film but only sell the movie film. Alaris markets the still film that Eastman makes. Unfortunately for Alaris, they are tied directly to the fate of Eastman at least with regards to film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #36
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
 
hipsterdufus's Avatar
 
hipsterdufus is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ferndale, MI
Posts: 883
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know that.
__________________
-Eric K.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #37
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
Conclusion:

Every groundbreaking innovation that captures market fascination has talented developers who apply the technology in a thoughtful manner. It also has imposters, looking to trade on the promise of the technology without any legitimate chance of delivering. Kodak has licensed its brand to the latter. As a result, the story behind the rise in its shares, which couldnít have been scripted any more bizarrely, will not have a Hollywood ending. ICO proceeds and distant royalty revenue will not be enough to avoid equity dilution or a credit event. Eventually, possibly as soon as the next time Kodak reports earnings, a share price levitating on the hopes of blockchain technology will give way to the gravity of dying, old-world fundamentals.
Perhaps we should start a new thread on this, but I wonder what happens after they go belly up? Is everything liquidated?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #38
john_s
Registered User
 
john_s is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by p.giannakis View Post
In my experience, there is no risk. I only use 400 iso film when I travel abroad and in many cases my gear will get multiple x-ray scans. I never noticed anything that would imply that it was affected by the x-ray.
I wonder if the scanning of parcels in the post is similar to that given to carry-on luggage on the one hand, or check-in luggage on the other. There are reported to be big differences between the two.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #39
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
 
Fixcinater is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Portales, NM, USA
Posts: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
It won't. They took it off from production because it was not purchased enough.
These days with f1.1 and 1.4, 1.5 lenses available for moderately low price, it is going to be dead product as soon as novelty factor dies within few months time frame.

Releasing 3200 film on the year time then daylight is increasing in most of the countries for Kodak market shows how lost they are.

I don't need this film even for six bucks. I could get close enough result even with Kentmere 400.
Have you ever used Kodak's 3200?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2018   #40
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,555
This thread has taken a disturbing twist. Normally when someone predicts the demise of Kodak we all laugh and move on and tell ourselves that Kodak will continue on no matter what because after all didn't they put the power of photography into the hands of the average person who wasn't necessarily a photographer ... all those years ago. In many of our minds, (depending on your age) they are all but immortal.

Suddenly I'm not convinced!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  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 06:52.


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.