T-Max 3200? Images? Opinions?
Old 01-16-2010   #1
kshapero
Starting to get it.
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 10,008
T-Max 3200? Images? Opinions?

Just started working with Kodak's T-Max 3200 ISO. Any images shot with it? Any experiences?
__________________
Akiva

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2010   #2
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,236
I absolutely LOVE Tmax 3200! I buy it 20 rolls at a time because I go through it so fast. I usually expose it at EI-1600 and develop in tmax Developer. I've tried D-76 and Xtol and did not like either. Xtol was finer grained than Tmax but the tonality and shadow detail were worse and D-76 was grainier and poorer in tonality than Tmax.









  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #3
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
There's a mixture of TMZ P3200 and Delta 3200 in the Low-Light module on the site (along with other things too): http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subsc...0lowlight.html. We prefer the tonality of Delta 3200, ideally (as Chris says) at 1600-2000, or at most 2500, developed as for 3200 in DD-X, but if the light's low, we'll push it to 6400 and beyond. These two pictures are P3200 (NY) @ 12,500 and Delta 3200 (pool players) @ 6400.

Cheers,

R.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Pool players.JPG (52.0 KB, 114 views)
File Type: jpg Drummer NYC.JPG (111.5 KB, 108 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #4
varjag
 
Posts: n/a
I quite like it. Neopan 1600 feels not much more sensitive than Tri-X; Delta 3200 grain is quite harsher. TMZ is grainy, but it's not mushy even pushed quite high. Here's one at EI about 10,000, processed in stock Microphen:

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #5
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
 
Juan Valdenebro's Avatar
 
Juan Valdenebro is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Barcelona and Colombia
Age: 48
Posts: 4,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by varjag View Post
I quite like it. Neopan 1600 feels not much more sensitive than Tri-X; Delta 3200 grain is quite harsher. TMZ is grainy, but it's not mushy even pushed quite high. Here's one at EI about 10,000, processed in stock Microphen:

Nice shot!

Neopan is slower than both, and D3200 grainier and a bit faster than Kodak's.

Cheers,

Juan
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #6
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,676
My experience has been like Chris'. I use it like an ISO 1600 film. My personal preference is for Neopan 1600, at that speed, but I am going through a phase where the specific grain of all the Neopan films is something I really enjoy.

GREAT photograph varjag! Absolutely classic. Care to share any details of the moment?

Ben Marks
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #7
[email protected]
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,000
Benjamin Marks,

When you said " I use it like an ISO 1600 film.", does that mean that you set your exposures settings as-if you are using an ISO 1600 film. What about devepment process, do you develop it normally like a 3200 film ?

I ask this question because I use XP-2 machinewash C-41 film most of the time and I am totally alien to the other films.

thanks

raytoei
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #8
marke
Registered User
 
marke is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,109
I'm another one of those who exposes Kodak 3200 @ 1600. It seems to be the best choice for when you need a high speed film and still maintain IQ. I adjust development time as required.
__________________
- markE

Leica MP & M3
Summilux 50/f1.4, Summicron 35/f2.0ASPH, Elmar-M 50/f2.8, VC-CS 25/f4

Leica IIIfRD
Summitar 50/f2.0
http://www.pbase.com/marke
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #9
marke
Registered User
 
marke is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,109
An incredible shot!

Please, some background.

Quote:
Originally Posted by varjag View Post
I quite like it. Neopan 1600 feels not much more sensitive than Tri-X; Delta 3200 grain is quite harsher. TMZ is grainy, but it's not mushy even pushed quite high. Here's one at EI about 10,000, processed in stock Microphen:

__________________
- markE

Leica MP & M3
Summilux 50/f1.4, Summicron 35/f2.0ASPH, Elmar-M 50/f2.8, VC-CS 25/f4

Leica IIIfRD
Summitar 50/f2.0
http://www.pbase.com/marke
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #10
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,236
Set Tmax 3200 at 1600 and develop for the time Kodak says for 1600.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #11
kshapero
Starting to get it.
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 10,008
Good stuff


Tmax 3200 shot at 1600
__________________
Akiva

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #12
wjlapier
Registered User
 
wjlapier's Avatar
 
wjlapier is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,733
Higher ISO photos in B+W have caught my eye and got me thinking lately. I'm curious to know what you high ISO shooters think of pushing tmax 400 or trix to 1600 and above--it's what I have in the freezer as of now? Up to 12800? Right now I have D76 and Rodinal--any suggestions for developing time at 1600, 3200, 6400 and 12800?

Some really nice photos so far.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #13
kshapero
Starting to get it.
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 10,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjlapier View Post
Higher ISO photos in B+W have caught my eye and got me thinking lately. I'm curious to know what you high ISO shooters think of pushing tmax 400 or trix to 1600 and above--it's what I have in the freezer as of now? Up to 12800? Right now I have D76 and Rodinal--any suggestions for developing time at 1600, 3200, 6400 and 12800?

Some really nice photos so far.
I have tried it and never been very satisfied with the results. Kind of a wash look. But I am not an expert developer and haven't tried it in years. others may have it down.
__________________
Akiva

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #14
newsgrunt
Registered User
 
newsgrunt's Avatar
 
newsgrunt is online now
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,188
In the past, always shot it box speed and processed in Tmax developer bumped to 100° F. Can't remember the time but it was a golden combo.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #15
3js
Registered User
 
3js is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjlapier View Post
Higher ISO photos in B+W have caught my eye and got me thinking lately. I'm curious to know what you high ISO shooters think of pushing tmax 400 or trix to 1600 and above--it's what I have in the freezer as of now? Up to 12800? Right now I have D76 and Rodinal--any suggestions for developing time at 1600, 3200, 6400 and 12800?

Some really nice photos so far.
I have had very good results with T-Max 400 pushed to 1600, devtime +4 min and temp +2 C but I use the T-Max Dev, which is designed for pushing. Ok you can use other devs too, but I would not use Rodinal, resusts are poor, lots of grain, no shadow detail. Pulling down T-Max 3200 and Delt 3200 will show more grain, but if that is what you are after, fine.

For higher ISO like 6400 I use Delta 3200, works just fine. Never gone above that.

Hope this helps.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #16
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
 
Juan Valdenebro's Avatar
 
Juan Valdenebro is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Barcelona and Colombia
Age: 48
Posts: 4,354
Rodinal is not for T grain films.

My experience for speeds above 1600 (no film is that fast) is that for real pushing and shadows loss, best tones for me are D3200 and DD-X, but I can shoot comfortably at 1600 and 1.4 with Tri-X in very low light...

Cheers,

Juan
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #17
kshapero
Starting to get it.
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 10,008
BTW, what is fastest C-41 color and/or BW film sold today?
__________________
Akiva

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #18
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,136
Personally I like TMZ better than Delta 3200, which I find rather too flat. However I accept that the true speed of D3200 is actually higher than TMZ and also that in some low light situations it's good to have a film that hasn't much contrast (because the lighting has).



Leica M5 with 35mm pre-Lux. TMZ rated at 1600 in Ilford DD-X 1+4, 11min @ 20.5C
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #19
kshapero
Starting to get it.
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 10,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrence View Post
Personally I like TMZ better than Delta 3200, which I find rather too flat. However I accept that the true speed of D3200 is actually higher than TMZ and also that in some low light situations it's good to have a film that hasn't much contrast (because the lighting has).



Leica M5 with 35mm pre-Lux. TMZ rated at 1600 in Ilford DD-X 1+4, 11min @ 20.5C
damn nice shot.
__________________
Akiva

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #20
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
 
Juan Valdenebro's Avatar
 
Juan Valdenebro is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Barcelona and Colombia
Age: 48
Posts: 4,354
Yes, damn nice, Lawrence, and your post said it all about those films.

Cheers,

Juan
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #21
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
 
Juan Valdenebro's Avatar
 
Juan Valdenebro is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Barcelona and Colombia
Age: 48
Posts: 4,354
Delta3200 and Superia1600, but for color I prefer Portra800 pushed.

Cheers,

Juan
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #22
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
 
SolaresLarrave's Avatar
 
SolaresLarrave is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: DeKalb, IL, USA
Age: 60
Posts: 7,499
I've shot Agfa APX at ISO 1600 and souped it in T-Max. Very little grain, nice contrast. Otherwise, I tried T-Max 3200 at box speed, but souped in D-76 and that made me abandon it: grainy, ugly, poor detail, excessive contrast... However, hearing what Chris said, I may give it another try.
__________________
-Francisco
Check out
My Leica M4-2 Blog and/or
My Nikon D700 Neophyte's Guide
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #23
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaresLarrave View Post
I've shot Agfa APX at ISO 1600 and souped it in T-Max. Very little grain, nice contrast. Otherwise, I tried T-Max 3200 at box speed, but souped in D-76 and that made me abandon it: grainy, ugly, poor detail, excessive contrast... However, hearing what Chris said, I may give it another try.
Yeah, try it in Tmax Developer or even Xtol. D-76 sucks for this film. Xtol is ok, Tmax Developer is awesome.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #24
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juan Valdenebro View Post
Rodinal is not for T grain films.

My experience for speeds above 1600 (no film is that fast) is that for real pushing and shadows loss, best tones for me are D3200 and DD-X, but I can shoot comfortably at 1600 and 1.4 with Tri-X in very low light...

Cheers,

Juan
Tmax films work nicely in Rodinal, though I think the 3200 is not the best in it. I have done A LOT of Tmax 100 in Rodinal with gorgeous results.







I've only experimented a little with Tmax 400 in Rodinal. Results were very sharp but tonality was harsh, not as smooth as you get with Tmax Developer or D-76 with Tmax 400 (D-76 sucks for Tmax 3200 but is gorgeous with the 400).



I would like to try again using a shorter developing time and a little more exposure. The sharpness and grain looked really cool.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-17-2010   #25
marke
Registered User
 
marke is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3js View Post
Pulling down T-Max 3200 and Delt 3200 will show more grain, but if that is what you are after, fine.
Shooting T-Max 3200 anywhere below EI 3200 is not pulling it. It's nominal speed is EI 1000. Anything above that is actually pushing it.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4016/f4016.pdf
__________________
- markE

Leica MP & M3
Summilux 50/f1.4, Summicron 35/f2.0ASPH, Elmar-M 50/f2.8, VC-CS 25/f4

Leica IIIfRD
Summitar 50/f2.0
http://www.pbase.com/marke
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2010   #26
varjag
 
Posts: n/a
Mark, Juan, Benjamin - thanks!

Yes D3200 is a bit faster than TMZ, but at the cost of grain. This is just too much a compromise for me, even with high-speed films. But it seems to work for many people here. As I believe Roger once wrote, color film is a science, BW is alchemy

The shot itself is from presidential elections in Belarus back in 2006, which were recognized by OSCE as rigged. The people are protesters who went out in the blizzard despite threats of violence. I remember snapping the shot instinctively when the crowd exploded with laugher. Easily the best of mine from those sad four days.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-18-2010   #27
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,627
D3200 in Xtol 1+1 or so controls grain nicely. can produce wonderfully subtle results with nice sharp tight grain. I have 20x24s from D3200 in this developer that are lovely. The grain is there on inspection but its really not obvious unless very close and the overall tonality is amazing IMHO.

Rating Neopan 1600 any more than 640 is pushing it. Ditto D3200 for above 1200. Funny old thing, one is a stop faster on the packet than the other and this matches reality, only both are much slower than box speed.

PS Dilute Xtol gives every bit as much speed as DDX according to my tests with several films (incl TriX, Neopan 400, D3200, Neopan 1600 etc). The Xtol look is gentler and the DDX look a bit rougher and more traditional. Take your pick.

Am I right in thinking that Tmax 3200 is not actually T grain but actually a traditional emulsion? IMO that tends to result in more sparkle and less smoothness of grain if comparisons between other films hold true at this speed. I am now settled on Neopan 1600 for 500/640 and D3200 for 1200 and up so the Tmax is in no mans land for me really. On the subject of Neopan 1600 vs pushed TriX/HP5 there is no question which has the higher true (shadow) speed and its the Neopan 1600. Might give the Tmax 3200 a go if Kodak keeps it on!

Last edited by Turtle : 01-18-2010 at 23:55.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2018   #28
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,728
Mike Johnston over on TOP has put down some thoughts on TMAX P3200 here. Including E.I. and development.

Mike was a beta tester for Kodak's T-grain films.
__________________
Lynn
just give me good light and a roll of film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2018   #29
joeswe
Registered User
 
joeswe is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnb View Post
Mike Johnston over on TOP has put down some thoughts on TMAX P3200 here. Including E.I. and development.

Mike was a beta tester for Kodak's T-grain films.
The link doesn't work for me.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...-and-darkroom/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2018   #30
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
 
Canyongazer's Avatar
 
Canyongazer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 541
I never liked TMax3200 altho agree with the "shoot at 1600" school of thought. Theoretically , you're overexposing a stop although many maintain shooting at 3200 is underexposing a stop. Kodak was optimistic ... perhaps the marketing department?

I found it gave blown highlights, blocked shadows, poor sharpness and grain that looked like you printed on sand. Worse yet, the grain was mushy, not sharp edged Rodinal/TX type.
Crazy highlight/shadow problems were made worse by the contrasty lighting frequently found in "available darkness" venues.

In photography there's no such thing as a free lunch...to get an extra something here, you gotta give something there. :-)

Eight years after this thread was active changes perspective a lot. In 2018 a pedestrian digital camera will give far superior results at 1600 and beyond. (yes, yes, "To me, to me!")

OTOH, APX 100 at E.I.64 ...bliss.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2018   #31
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 79
Posts: 6,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canyongazer View Post
I never liked TMax3200 altho agree with the "shoot at 1600" school of thought. Theoretically , you're overexposing a stop although many maintain shooting at 3200 is underexposing a stop. Kodak was optimistic ... perhaps the marketing department?

I found it gave blown highlights, blocked shadows, poor sharpness and grain that looked like you printed on sand. Worse yet, the grain was mushy, not sharp edged Rodinal/TX type.
Crazy highlight/shadow problems were made worse by the contrasty lighting frequently found in "available darkness" venues.
I think that 3200 is meant to be a push speed and not the native speed of the film, which is probably about 1000. This is what people have said, and I have found it to be true when I've used it. And I believe the same goes for Ilford Delta 3200. So 2000 would be a one stop push, and 3200 a 1 and 2/3 stop push. A speed increase developer like T-Max will supply a 2/3 stop (or so) speed increase, and then an additional stop is achieved by using the development time given for the 3200 exposure index. But since this represents a push achieved through increased development, it probably explains the blown highlights you've noticed. And shooting it at 3200 would indeed be an underexposure, possibly accounting for your shadow problems.

So I believe that using it at a somewhat lower exposure index, somewhere closer to its true native speed, perhaps at 1600 together with development in T-Max or DDX or Microphen would help to minimize your highlight and shadow problem, as well as keeping the graininess down a bit!
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2018   #32
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 70
Posts: 2,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canyongazer View Post
I never liked TMax3200 .....

I found it gave blown highlights, blocked shadows, poor sharpness and grain that looked like you printed on sand. Worse yet, the grain was mushy, not sharp edged Rodinal/TX type..
Whether one likes, or dislikes, this film seems to depend on whether one considers the above to be a bug or a feature.

Understanding those two viewpoints would seem to explain the inability to find common ground on the “best” shooting speed, developer and processing regimen for p3200. Best for what?

Some people want a fast film they can use in low light at higher shutter speeds, but which looks as close to Tri-x at 400 as they can get.
I would guess that this group is the group that tends to not love this film, because it can be disappointing if that is what you need, even if using the developers that give you the best chance at achieving that, like, perhaps, Tmax.

Others want something which doesn’t look like everything else, and doesn’t attempt to. One person’s blocked shadows and blown out highlights is another person’s desired high contrast. Fine grain isn’t necessarily what everyone wants for every photographic goal, every time. There are more appropriate films out there for that. There is nothing wrong with a Daido Moriyama esthetic if that is what you want, and you won’t get that with e.g. Pan F.

Shoot p3200 at 3200, develop in stock D76, doubling down by shooting it with a half frame camera and enlarging the heck out of it. In other words, some people feel that the most enjoyable way to use this film is to embrace the suck. Are-bure-boke, it can be excellent for that, if used that way, if that is what you want on that particular day, or night.

I would suggest that reading threads on how best to expose and process this film will tend to be confusing, unless the reader understands exactly what the poster was trying to make the film do.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2018   #33
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
 
Canyongazer's Avatar
 
Canyongazer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 541
"...a bug or a feature..."
Nicely put, Larry!

CG
__________________

Bunch of Nikon and Fuji X digital stuff
introspection.zenfolio.com

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2018   #34
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 899
I really like Delta 3200 developed +1 stop with DD-X. I see no need for P3200.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2018   #35
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,477
Is this reintroduction 35mm only, or will they be producing 120? I've been shooting some Delta 3200 in my old Makinas III's recently. Has been a lot of fun so far. I rate Ilford at EI 800-EI 1000. Now I have to decide on a developer for the first few rolls.
I have plenty available; DDX (although it's getting kind of old, looks ok?) , or Microphen, maybe TMAX? Never used TMAX.
__________________
“The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”
― Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2018   #36
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
Whether one likes, or dislikes, this film seems to depend on whether one considers the above to be a bug or a feature.
That post was a really good analysis, Larry. Thanks. Double down with half frame, you say...
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-06-2018   #37
ultra8
Registered User
 
ultra8 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshapero View Post
Just started working with Kodak's T-Max 3200 ISO. Any images shot with it? Any experiences?
It´s a great Film! We have wrote a short blog article with sample pictures about this film. You can read it here:

https://www.meinfilmlab.de/en/tmax3200d3200/

But maybee Henning Serger can give some more deeeeeper Infos about this film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-18-2018   #38
ABrosig
Registered User
 
ABrosig's Avatar
 
ABrosig is offline
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Torrington WY USA
Posts: 305
Just bit the bullet and bought 10 rolls TMZ and a jug of TMax developer. We used to use only TMax Dev. at a paper I worked at, but that was years ago and I haven't worked with it since. Any recommendations? It's for a project I'm working on; planning (hoping) to shoot inside a sale barn during a sale. I'm thinking 3200 ISO; some on here saying develop at 6400 ISO time, others saying shoot and develop box speed. I honestly can't remember how we did it at the paper (it's been at least 20 years with the old formulations - I don't know if they've been changed with the re-release.) I'd love to hear some additional thoughts.
Thanks
__________________
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 03-18-2018   #39
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 44
Posts: 9,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABrosig View Post
Just bit the bullet and bought 10 rolls TMZ and a jug of TMax developer. We used to use only TMax Dev. at a paper I worked at, but that was years ago and I haven't worked with it since. Any recommendations? It's for a project I'm working on; planning (hoping) to shoot inside a sale barn during a sale. I'm thinking 3200 ISO; some on here saying develop at 6400 ISO time, others saying shoot and develop box speed. I honestly can't remember how we did it at the paper (it's been at least 20 years with the old formulations - I don't know if they've been changed with the re-release.) I'd love to hear some additional thoughts.
Thanks
Tmax Developer was always the best developer for Tmax 3200. Right before TMZ was discontinued, I decided to try some other developers. Nothing came close to the tonality and shadow detail that Tmax Developer gave. It is also the best developer I have tried for Ilford's Delta 3200.

Don't develop at a longer time; use whatever times Kodak recommends for the speed you shoot. That always worked perfectly for the original version and I'm willing to bet it will now, too. Kodak's developing times are usually spot-on. A longer developing just gives you more contrast.

I can't tell you what developing times to use. Kodak has probably changed them for the new film, so my old tested times will no longer be accurate, and I have not yet tried the new stuff.

If you can, shoot a test roll before using it for an important project.
  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 18:46.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.