TMZ 3200 (hype?)

[NB23]

HC110 contains bromide which prevents fog to appear. I've never experienced fog on my tmax3200, not even when expired by a year or two.
HC110 and Rodinal are wonderful developers and a must for expired films if Fog is an issue.

[Roger Cole]

I test some large format film, but in this case it's missing the pictorial forest for putting the sensitometric trees under a microscope. I don't care if it comes in at 400 or 40 in shadow detail testing. What I care about is how the photos look, and I like the look of TMZ @3200 better than anything else I can shoot at 3200. (Delta 3200 is a close second.) They are both far better than Tri-X pushed to anything above 1250 or so. In fact they let me make photographs on film in light that I otherwise couldn't (without going to digital) and give a classic, grainy low light film look that I sometimes want. So I use them.

If I wanted to make prettier graphs I'd just stick to the TMY-2 I use in 4x5.

[cabbiinc]

I tried TMZ 3200 once. Had the local pro lab develop it. Did not like the results. I assume that it takes a bit more care than he put into it to develop and I never tried again.

[Jim Jones]

I shot TMZ 3200 at an Exposure Index of 1600 and developed it as recommended for EI 3200. This gave adequate shadow detail and acceptable grain. TMY also looked better to me when given more exposure than Kodak recommended. Kodak and others have often stated that recommended exposure and development are merely starting points, and should be tailored to one's own preferences.