Old 02-23-2018   #81
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,900
Me, too!!!

I'm in... so happy to see this film!

***note to Kodak... please make this film in 120 too!!!
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #82
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,900
So, what developer would work best with this new film and what development time?
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #83
bayernfan
Registered User
 
bayernfan is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 715
in the FAQ document:

"Q. Will you expand to support medium format?
A. Possibly, depending on the level of demand.*But initially it will be available in 135 format only."

ATTN FILM SHOOTERS: BUY BRICKS, GET OTHERS TO BUY BRICKS.

Let's get this made in 120.
__________________
M_V instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #84
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave lackey View Post
So, what developer would work best with this new film and what development time?
TMax or TMax RS if you want speed.

Xtol for real ISO speed (800-1000) with best tonality.

Works in almost anything once you dial it in.

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #85
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,900
Thanks, guys, very helpful!!!
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #86
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,284
I'm also a big fan of TMZ in T-Max developer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #87
newsgrunt
Registered User
 
newsgrunt's Avatar
 
newsgrunt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,157
I will be pulling my DevTec heater from the storage box and souping, as I have in the past, in TMax developer at 100˚f. Will need to find dev time again but it's a start. Y'all might wanna invest in a small sous vide heater cuz TMZ looked best (for myself and other photojs of that era) when cooked at that temp. ymmv of course
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #88
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,450
Now I can quit buying very expired rolls of Tmax p3200 off of ebay, at inflated prices, simply because I like it more than Delta 3200, which I also use.
What a nice surprise.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #89
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
 
davidnewtonguitars's Avatar
 
davidnewtonguitars is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Beaumont, TX
Posts: 1,363
Ok, I'm eating my words and I'll be buying some, though I don't see why they can't spool up some XX also.
__________________
Leica M2 / 7artisans 35-f2 / Canon 35-f2 ltm
http://davidnewtonguitars.squarespace.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #90
pixelated
Registered User
 
pixelated is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: NE U.S.
Posts: 58
My preference is medium speed films, but I too, will buy some, just because.
Having it available in 120 would be lovely though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #91
gnuyork
Registered User
 
gnuyork is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
I'd like Plus-X to come back. I like its tonality and contrast. And it's sharp and fine grain enough. And I don't think they could go wrong by selling XX in 36 exposure rolls! There is certainly enough interest here! They can keep T-Max for all I care.
Yes. Bring back Plus X! T-max. I shoot it, but it's OK, Plus X was stellar.

I have 0 interest in 3200 speed T max.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #92
bayernfan
Registered User
 
bayernfan is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
Now I can quit buying very expired rolls of Tmax p3200 off of ebay, at inflated prices...
yes, i can't wait for these fresh emulsions to nuke the expired film prices on ebay. cold stored ektachrome is going for stupid money.

don't go buying tmz or ektachrome on ebay! (at least in 135).
__________________
M_V instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #93
finguanzo
Registered User
 
finguanzo's Avatar
 
finguanzo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: EWR
Posts: 929
So was Ilford 3200 not an option over buying expired Kodak 3200?
__________________
some pictures
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #94
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,755
Agree with getting this in 120, though neither it nor Neopan 1600 have ever been available in that size. But with TMZ, weren't there issues with radiation and this film in the past? I seem to remember some lore about this stuff being stored in a salt mine underground so that background radiation wouldn't get to it. I imagine that 135 cartridges are a little more protective than backing paper.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #95
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by finguanzo View Post
So was Ilford 3200 not an option over buying expired Kodak 3200?
It was an option, the most sensible option, but they are not identical films as the test above shows. Some people prefer the Ilford, some people prefer the Kodak. Up until today, if you preferred the Kodak, you were out of luck. If you prefer the Ilford, nothing has changed. Win, win.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #96
GarageBoy
Registered User
 
GarageBoy is online now
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 762
I love this film, but my bricks kept expiring before I figured out what to do with it. This is my second chance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #97
Oren Grad
Registered User
 
Oren Grad is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oren Grad View Post
I don't have any inside information. But from the clues, the responses to the chatter and their overall product and R&D "footprint" right now I think the likeliest bet is a fast color negative film.
This is one of those times in life when I'm very happy to have been proved wrong. I'll be in line to buy some new TMZ when it arrives.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #98
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnuyork View Post
Yes. Bring back Plus X! T-max. I shoot it, but it's OK, Plus X was stellar.

I have 0 interest in 3200 speed T max.

I'm really with you here. PX, original TX 400 and FX would have been much better choices. Max 3200 wasn't that good a film to begin with and how much was actually used compared to FX, TX and PX. Who uses 3200 routinely?

A typical Kodak bad decision IMO.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #99
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
Agree with getting this in 120, though neither it nor Neopan 1600 have ever been available in that size. But with TMZ, weren't there issues with radiation and this film in the past? I seem to remember some lore about this stuff being stored in a salt mine underground so that background radiation wouldn't get to it. I imagine that 135 cartridges are a little more protective than backing paper.
It's true that Kodak stored it in salt mines due to fogging from cosmic radiation. I had a pretty good stash of Ilford delta 3200 in my freezer. It was always frozen and when I tried a roll that went out of date by only a few years it was so fogged it was unusable. I tested several rolls with the same results and just tossed it in the trash.

These high speed films are very sensitive to environmental radiation and won't keep much beyond the date without excessive fog.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #100
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua's Avatar
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 46
Posts: 1,025
I would say this may be a fluke from Kodak. Don't take me wrong, I like TMZ but don't really expect to use it much. When I need something like this, I usually push HP5+, It gives useable results.

I think TMZ made sense on its time, because it was used big for sports, night events, etc. Today, I'm not very sure it still make sense, because digital have become good enough at these ISO speeds.

I expect to get a few rolls for the fun of it, but I don't think I will make it one of my staples, mostly because it is a sensible film and it doesn't keep well after expire date.

Hope for the best

Marcelo
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #101
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 42
Posts: 3,932
Bah. So it's TMZ. In 35mm.
Boring. Hopefully this is just a little beginning blip on a new wave of film resurgence from Eastman Kodak. I don't think it is going to do much to help poor EK though.
I like Delta 3200 for that fast emulsion and use it in 120. I love it. Kodak TMZ, not at all. I just don't like Kodak's T grain emulsions for 35mm work but would use the hell out of it were it motion picture stock.

Back to experimenting with EK-5222 and figuring out other ways to shoot in the dark with slower emulsions. I'm thinking of using EK-7222 and pushing it in my favorite HC-110. The only downside to this is that it is a negative and I'll have to telecine it to actually view it, not good old fashioned projector reversal.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #102
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
if its plus-x I'll crap my pants.
Thank god it's tmax 3200...

Still really exciting for the film community. I've been a happy camper today with the news.
__________________
Tumblr Youtube
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #103
bayernfan
Registered User
 
bayernfan is offline
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
Back to experimenting with EK-5222 and figuring out other ways to shoot in the dark with slower emulsions. I'm thinking of using EK-7222 and pushing it in my favorite HC-110. The only downside to this is that it is a negative and I'll have to telecine it to actually view it, not good old fashioned projector reversal.

Phil Forrest
Have you looked into a low-contrast cinema developer like D-96?
__________________
M_V instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #104
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
It seems individuals are not taking this announcement very seriously. Most responses are (jokingly I assume) about reviving long dead formulations that have zero chances of seeing the light of day again (Kodachome, Plus-X, etc.). I mean are people really going to jump for joy if its Portra 800 or T-Max 3200, or will it be "that's nice, I may buy a few rolls to try out", which is hardly a sustainable response.
Ilford already makes a fantastic 3200 film. I see no need for this Kodak film and will keep buying Ilford.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #105
Pentode
Registered User
 
Pentode's Avatar
 
Pentode is offline
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 188
While I'm not likely to use a whole bunch of TMZ personally, I think any addition of a new film to market or resurrection of an old film is good news for film photographers.

It means there's still a market for the stuff and it means that other emulsions have a chance of returning or new ones surfacing.

I'll still buy some and play with it a bit, but it gives me hope for other things turning up instead of just watching the films I like slowly disappear.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #106
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Good news.
Period .
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #107
Guy Pinhas
Registered User
 
Guy Pinhas's Avatar
 
Guy Pinhas is offline
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by newsgrunt View Post
I will be pulling my DevTec heater from the storage box and souping, as I have in the past, in TMax developer at 100˚f. Will need to find dev time again but it's a start. Y'all might wanna invest in a small sous vide heater cuz TMZ looked best (for myself and other photojs of that era) when cooked at that temp. ymmv of course
Would you mind expanding? Super curious and interested!!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #108
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by x-ray View Post
PX, original TX 400 and FX would have been much better choices.
You think competing with themselves and all the other 100-speed films, along with a basically duplicate SKU, would be better?

I am positive EK will sell boatloads more TMZ than any of those. I would bet there are more young people shooting film right now regularly who weren't even born yet when Panatomic-X was discontinued, than the supposed market for it from those who want it back.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #109
bluesun267
Registered User
 
bluesun267's Avatar
 
bluesun267 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 217
I'm not that excited about TMZ3200. In its first run I believe I shot two rolls over a period of 20 years. But now that it's back I'll give it another try to see if it can be developed to look anywhere close to the beloved Neopan 1600. Delta 3200 certainly didn't. I'm liking the samples I'm seeing in this thread.

Anyone with more TMZ experience have advice on its similarities/differences vs Neo 1600...what developers work best in that respect, etc?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #110
J enea
Registered User
 
J enea is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 154
i actually prefer tmax 400 pushed to 1600 in xtol over both of the 3200 speed film, ilford and kodak.

my guess is that the 3200 B&W film was the easiest film to get up and running, so thats why they brought it out as ektachrome release is delayed from original announced date. maybe its gonna be delayed again, but i hope not
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #111
ABrosig
Registered User
 
ABrosig's Avatar
 
ABrosig is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Torrington WY USA
Posts: 304
Yea, but the original TX400 was such a beautiful film. Once Kodak reformulated several years ago, it just wasn't the same.

I'm indifferent to the announcement. Shot a ton of P3200 back in "the day" for night/indoor sports. It was good enough for print reproduction on newsprint (which is basically paper towels) but never had tons of luck printing. Grain the size of marbles.

If you love the stuff, glad for you an old friend is back. Me, not shooting film the same way I was - working mostly with rangefinders at EK XX/Ilford Delta 100 and letting the exposures fall where they may. Might pick up a couple rolls to play with, but probably nothing serious for me.

Now, if they want to bring Kodachrome back and reopen a couple of labs . . .



Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
You think competing with themselves and all the other 100-speed films, along with a basically duplicate SKU, would be better?

I am positive EK will sell boatloads more TMZ than any of those. I would bet there are more young people shooting film right now regularly who weren't even born yet when Panatomic-X was discontinued, than the supposed market for it from those who want it back.
__________________
You can teach just the basics, reading, writing and arithmetic in schools, but without art, there is nothing to read and write about.

http://andrewbrosigphotography.blogspot.com/
http://instagram.com/andrewbrosig
http://www.andrewbrosigphotography.com

In hoc loco sum
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #112
newsgrunt
Registered User
 
newsgrunt's Avatar
 
newsgrunt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Pinhas View Post
Would you mind expanding? Super curious and interested!!!
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #113
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABrosig View Post
Yea, but the original TX400 was such a beautiful film. Once Kodak reformulated several years ago, it just wasn't the same.
I have no experience with older formulations. I do know that one of the best photographers I know uses nothing but current-production Tri-X and his tonality and the overall look of the film is phenomenal. I'm sure you and others are correct, that it "isn't the same," but I also doubt it matters much outside of the need to recalibrate.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-23-2018   #114
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesun267 View Post
I'm not that excited about TMZ3200. In its first run I believe I shot two rolls over a period of 20 years. But now that it's back I'll give it another try to see if it can be developed to look anywhere close to the beloved Neopan 1600. Delta 3200 certainly didn't. I'm liking the samples I'm seeing in this thread.

Anyone with more TMZ experience have advice on its similarities/differences vs Neo 1600...what developers work best in that respect, etc?
TMZ doesn't look anything like Neopan 1600. It's much faster, has a different tonality with a longer toe and straighter density curve with less shoulder, and a completely different spectral response.

If you want a film that looks like Neopan 1600, HP5+ in DD-X is most similar, and has a base ISO speed of 640, similar to Neopan 1600.

Leica R6, 80/1.4 @ 1.4, Neopan 1600 @3200, TMax 1+4


Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #115
ABrosig
Registered User
 
ABrosig's Avatar
 
ABrosig is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Torrington WY USA
Posts: 304
Blast from the Past 005 by Andrew Brosig, on Flickr

Blast from the Past 004 by Andrew Brosig, on Flickr

Original Tri-X, pushed 1600, don't remember for sure, but probably D-76 1:1
Attached Images
File Type: jpg PastWork_Stones03.jpg (22.3 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg PastWork_Stones05b.jpg (16.0 KB, 5 views)
__________________
You can teach just the basics, reading, writing and arithmetic in schools, but without art, there is nothing to read and write about.

http://andrewbrosigphotography.blogspot.com/
http://instagram.com/andrewbrosig
http://www.andrewbrosigphotography.com

In hoc loco sum
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #116
Hogarth Ferguson
Registered User
 
Hogarth Ferguson's Avatar
 
Hogarth Ferguson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 636
In my mind, with digital cameras going up to 802000 iso now (Pentax k-1ii) it makes sense to release a high iso film for people who are trying film out, so I do not see it as a fluke.

I'm excited about it, even if people are being debbie downers.
__________________
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #117
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogarth Ferguson View Post
In my mind, with digital cameras going up to 802000 iso now (Pentax k-1ii) it makes sense to release a high iso film for people who are trying film out, so I do not see it as a fluke.
Much agreement here. I would really like to have PlusX back, but Ektachrome and P3200 are both better choices for 2018 because they each fill a gap in Kodak's current offerings with minimal cannibalizing of their other products. And it's hard to argue against P3200 in the age of high ISO digital offerings. It's just fun to shoot in low light.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #118
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawarden View Post
Much agreement here. I would really like to have PlusX back, but Ektachrome and P3200 are both better choices for 2018 because they each fill a gap in Kodak's current offerings with minimal cannibalizing of their other products. And it's hard to argue against P3200 in the age of high ISO digital offerings. It's just fun to shoot in low light.
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #119
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 42
Posts: 3,932
I've got a few very fast lenses for my 35mm systems which, I'm willing to bet, many serious photographers also have. The reason to have those large apertures is to gather light and use the lowest film speed possible to reduce grain. I have no problem using a 400ISO film pushed a stop and wandering around at night using a lens with f/1.2 or f/1.4 max aperture. If I want to do so with my medium format system, I have to use Ilford, which I'm going to do. So personally, this reintroduction of TMZ is not a factor at all. I'm sure many will shoot it but not me. If EK releases it in 120, then count me in. I don't know how many folks feel and shoot the same as I do but there have to be a significant number.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-24-2018   #120
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
You think competing with themselves and all the other 100-speed films, along with a basically duplicate SKU, would be better?

I am positive EK will sell boatloads more TMZ than any of those. I would bet there are more young people shooting film right now regularly who weren't even born yet when Panatomic-X was discontinued, than the supposed market for it from those who want it back.
Kodak had products for decades that competed with other of their products for decades. One example, TX400, TXP320 and Royal Pan 400 ( not to be confused with Royal X pan). Many of us that were dedicated TX400 users went to Ilford when new TX came out in 2006. 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. TMax films are totally different than PX, FX and original TX. Tonality, grain structure, color sensitivity and sharpness are completely different. IMO theres a reason to have both as does Ilford with Delta 100 And 400 as well as HP5 and FP4.

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.

My bet is there'll be very little of TMZ sold. It wasn't a general purpose film in the beginning and won't be now. IMO it wasn't as good as pushing HP5 in Acufine. Time will tell but I'll bet it's pulled from the market in a couple of years.
  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 15:24.


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.