Kodak really isn't in a position to lose money on products. Just like Techpan and HIE, not enough people used the product for it to be profitable. I mean, come on, Kodak dropped all of E6! And at my local store, the supply of Kodak 120 E6 is still pretty large. Sure, I'm stocking up for what I can, but the product just isn't moving off the shelves. Isn't that the biggest indicator of why a manufacturer would drop a product?
Originally Posted by Dismayed
(Not that I bought much of Kodak 3200, as I've always been primarily a MF-LF photographer)
When the E6 cancellation hit I bought up some E100G from Freestyle. It showed one of their "low inventory, call for status" messages so I did. They had something like 30 or 40 rolls, I forget now, but said they usually sold about 10 rolls a month. (This was 35mm.) Ten rolls a MONTH, for what is probably the second largest film seller in North America, certainly among the top few. No wonder they canned it.
I have 10 35mm rolls for $50 plus shipping if anyone wants them. Exp 2007
I shot 3 rolls of E6 in 35mm today, of course it was fall leaves so that may be half of the e-6 I would use in a year.
I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville
Now that TMZ is gone, next question: is it possible to make Ilford Delta3200 look like TMZ? I'm thinking about high contrast here mainly.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by rhmimac
The two are fairly different contrast wise; the Delta 3200 exhibiting fairly low contrast in most conditions. The TMZ has more of a normal contrast, comparable to Tri-X, and its grain is significantly finer than that of D3200. Both have their place, but are very different films.
But D3200 is delicious - beautiful texture in both 35mm and 120, with a tonality that is beautiful, and finally resolution that is a lot higher than you might think (on par with FP4+).
If you want something that looks like TMZ, it's best to use Tri-X shot at about EI 400 and processed in something like FX-37 (mix yourself), Paterson FX-39, Neofin Blue (Tetenal), or maybe even Kodak DK50 (mix yourself, but it isn't as sharp as the others).
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
Oh this is bad! I had good uses for kodak TMZ 3200! What a bad start to the afternoon! :'( I ordered a few rolls a week or so ago, need to stock up when I have the money. The shadow detail was always good with TMZ 3200 at low light levels. Ilford Delta 3200 or kodak TMAX 400 i hope can fill the gap : - (
I guess it was no longer profitable to make, with few buyers :-(
Ah well, shit happens :/
OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
Rolleicord Va: Humble.
Agfa Isolette III: Amazingly simple, yet it produces outstanding negatives.
If it's just shadow detail at low light levels you're after, I think you'll be pretty happy with Delta 3200. It doesn't look like TMZ, but it does work very, very well to at least 3200 and some have reported 6400. There are examples in this thread.
Originally Posted by jm94
If it's speeds around 3200 you want, I'd suggest forget TMY. Delta 3200 is going to be far better IME, though definitely with more grain. I don't have any experience with TMY at 1000-1600 (I like Tri-X at 1250 in Diafine.)
T-MAX P3200 (TMZ) discontinued
Has anyone shot tri-x 400 at EI 3200 and pushed it to there? And compared that to the p3200 or delta 3200? I'd be interested to hear the results.
The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller