 Pam |
Kodak TMZ 3200 In a recent answer to a member's question someone stated that Kodak TMZ 3200 is only rated at ISO 800 and must be push processed. I find the answer rather confusing. I process my own film and if I were to "push" process this film past the "standard" manufacturer's recommendations I would have totally unacceptable negatives. If the film is loaded in the camera and the camera reads the ISO as 3200 why would one give advice to "push" process the film? I understand push processing a film due to low lighting considerations but if the film is rated at ISO 3200, the camera accepts this ISO automatically and lighting allows the photographer's chosen shutterspeed and aperature why would you recommend push processing the film?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
See http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf or http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.jhtml?id=0.3.8.20.4.4&lc=en for Kodak's technical information on T-Max P3200 and their other T-Max b&w films. P3200 does not have a DX-coded canister. When you use it you have to manually set the ISO rating, else your camera will default to ISO 100 or 400. It is nominally ISO 800 (or 1000 depending on developer used), but it is very versatile with respect to exposure and developing. It can be pulled to ISO 400 or pushed as high as ISO 6400.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pam |
I beg to differ. When I load my camera, 3200 ISO reads out on the LCD panel. I have a Canon EOS 1n 35mm camera. My old camera is a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 which also reads out 3200 ISO when the film is loading, so you have pretty much both ends of the spectrum in camera quality. In respect to shooting this film, I have handheld the camera (the old Rebel) at 1/45 with the aperature open at 4.0 shooting at night with just a small spot light on a sculpture. Not only did the film perform the way I had expected but the shots were phenomenal. I know that if the film was rated lower such as 400 ISO or even lower as you state then I sure wouldn't have been able to hand hold the camera as I would have needed to decrease the shutter speed (that particular lens only opens to 4.0). This is especially confusing to amateurs and can result in some very poor photos that wouldn't have been had they checked their camera's ISO reading when loading. So, again, why are you recommending to push the film?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
If the cans are DX-coded for ISO 3200, then I appologize for my wrong answer. It's been a couple years since I used P3200 and the last time I used it the ISO had to be set manually. The information on the film's ISO and push processing come from Kodak's instructions for use of this film. See the links I gave above.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Norbert Maile |
This is an old article, but I am curious how it has all turned out. I suspect that the reason it worked well, was that you exposed it at 3200, and your lab developed it as 3200 also. Some labs would have just gone ahead and developed it as 800, thus ruining you film.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
regarding the original question, just shoot 3200 at 3200. If you don't like the inherent grain of 3200 developed regularly, then if can pull process it at a lower iso and get a slightly smaller grain and lower contrast. As far as what the other person meant that got you confused, maybe they meant that with machine developing tell them to develope it like push processed 800. Because the normal developement times listed on a box of 3200 are longer than the usual 6-7 minutes for other black & white. And 7 minutes is listed as the developing time for 3200 shot at 800.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Norbert Maile |
I went to Kodak's web site and was surprised what I found. They stated that the 3200 film,was actually a 800 film that could be pushed to 3200 or more. This wouls create a grainy photo though, and at 800 it was very smooth.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Norbert Maile |
I went to Kodak's web site and was surprised what I found. They stated that the 3200 film,was actually a 800 film that could be pushed to 3200 or more. This wouls create a grainy photo though, and at 800 it was very smooth.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||