« Snapshots | Main | Podcast! (Or: Podcast?!?) »

Wednesday, 28 February 2018


Kodak Alaris, the imaging division of the old Kodak that was spun off to satisfy the demands of the UK pension fund, has continued to produce both black-and-white and color films...

Well, not quite. While Kodak Alaris does produce color printing paper, it only markets and distributes films manufactured by Eastman Kodak Company.

...Properly used it has visible but pleasant grain structure that can be quite moderate...

"Properly used" for me would be if it were to become available in 8x10 sheets. That would render the grain structure invisible in contact prints and make my large view camera vastly more usable indoors. :-)

In case anyone's interested, here's the new film's data sheet:


You could also say this for digital camera:
"The number of pictures that actually need high resolution to either function for their purpose or look good is very low."

Apropos of grain, micro detail, and sharpness, in his book The Digital Print [p. 110], Jeff Schewe recommends adding some artificial grain after applying noise reduction to digital images: “I realize it may seem counterintuitive to add grain after reducing noise, but the noise-reduction algorithm tends to leave an image with an artificial lack of micro detail. . . . The addition of the grain gives the final sharpened and noise-reduced image a more ‘photographic’ appearance.”

Mike, This is what makes TOP so great.
From the latest digital to old revitalized film.
With lots about lenses (and comments from users) in between.


The book: Team Zebra: How 1500 Partners Revitalized Eastman Kodak's Black and White Film-making Flow is the story of how tabular grains were developed into the new T-Max product family.

A good read.

Man, Kodak just cannot give up on the whole film thang....no wonder they have to resort to projects like this to pay pensions for a company they ran into bankruptcy from sheer incompetency, complacency, and greed for short-term earnings. The same executive behavior destroyed Detroit and the American auto industry during the 2008 financial crisis as well.

If I sound jaded, well, sorry, I am. I survived one too many corporate "acquisitions" in biotech where retiring executives wanted to "cash out", sold off multi-billion dollar biotech companies, and left their shareholders, and most importantly, their employees high-and-dry.

I've seen the execs of these new biotech companies come in, and while paying themselves $30-40 million dollars in yearly compensation, simultaneously lay off hundreds of employees (they would call it an "action") in the same year just to "meet their numbers". They destroyed the careers of many of my friends and brillant scientists in the process.

I've come to the conclusion from working in the corporate sector my entire scientific career that the primary motivation of executives in the majority of North American companies is not making a significant contribution to society, which is what W. Edwards Deming said they should be focused on, it was the creation of executive personal wealth.

Contrast this to many Japanese companies, who missions statements and actions are fully consistent with making meaningful contributions to societies in which they do business. Fujifilm, for example, spent millions of dollars recovering, restoring and returning hundreds of thousands of family photographs to the survivors of the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami.

[And Mazda deliberately accepts competitive disadvantages just to remain devoted to the social welfare of the city of Hiroshima, which the company is deeply committed to.

An expression I read recently is that capitalism is "stripping the copper piping" out of the old America now...just ravaging it for salvage value. Unfortunately all too true to too many cases. Our local grocery chain is about to go into Chapter 11 here after an exploitative new owner stripped value out of it. And then what does the town do for groceries? It's the only decent store in the town. --Mike "don't get me started" Johnston :-)

However I should add that Kodak Alaris is just the film company now. Not part of Kodak. "Kodak Alaris is a manufacturer and marketer of traditional photographic supplies, hardware and software for digital imaging and information management, and retail printing kiosks. The company is headquartered in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire." (Wikipedia) There are now two separate companies that share the Kodak brand and trademarks, and it's Kodak Alaris that is bringing back P3200.]

Excellent post! I used to resort to these types of Xtreme ISO film stocks when working with cinematographers who thought it was clever to light their movie sets with 60 watt light bulbs...

And we think Photoshop is hard to master.

Nice job, Mike.

Today was another example of why I read TOP every day.

Personally, I have no interest in shooting film anymore. Once upon a time, I did the whole chain from expose, develop, print. I tried it again a few years ago, just for fun. It wasn't (fun). I will never buy or use the film Mike is writing about today - I am extremely confident of that.


The point is - even though the topic was not and is not of interest to me - Mike's post is so well done and so informative, I couldn't stop myself.

I felt compelled to read the entire article. Now this is parked in the attic of my mind next to so much other knowledge I've absorbed but am not likely to ever have a practical use for.

And that, I think, is the difference between a writer (Mike) and so many other hacks.

@ Mike Johnston said: "Beware other peoples' developer recommendations—you never know what qualities other people are looking to emphasize." So....ignoring that advice, can you please share your development protocol for P3200 shot at EI 1000 and souped in straight D76? That will at least give me a reasonable starting point, and I have generally liked the BW photos you have previously posted.

Also this--what are your opinions on the differences and similarities between P3200 and Ilford Delta 3200?

Lastly, the issues you raise regarding how the same negative looks different printed on enlargers with different light source types reminds me of a similar issue I have been wrestling with in my present hybrid workflow. For BW I have been shooting and developing traditional BW film and then scanning it into the digital world where I work with the images and then print them on an Epson P800. I've been trying to learn the best way to expose and develop BW film if the intention is to scan it rather than print it with an enlarger. Trying to translate the zone system "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" into the hybrid analog/digital world. I think the goal should probably be to do my best to capture as large a range of tones as possible on the film, go for a linear flat scan, and then make contrast adjustments in PS. Would love to hear from you and the TOP commentariat on this point.

Good to see this film return. I enjoyed using it for a project where I photographed musicians jamming on Friday nights at the local barbecue joint, c.2003-6 or so.
It was a revelation when the film first appeared c.1990, as it made low-light photography so much easier. Far better than pushed Tri-X or the old 2475 Recording film.
I suspect that there was some demand, and available time in the coating room schedule, so why not bring it back?
I don't expect to shoot any of it now, but more choice is good, and it helps keep jobs in my old home town.

The interesting and moving comment from Stephen Scharf (and extensions from Mike) made me, again, think of John Maynard Keynes:
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”

Very useful post. I finally bought a digital camera (a Monochrom) after Kodak discontinued P3200, and it runs rings around the film at EI 1600 and higher in terms of grain and resolution. But the film has a unique look that I look forward to seeing again.

The salt mine story has a basis - I must have heard it from a couple of Kodak product reps, and I think it has been published in a few places. The film is susceptible to cosmic radiation (it comes from Way Out There) over a relatively short period of time, which is why it always had such short shoot-by dates on the package.

I remember a Kodacolor fast film, 1600 I believe, that had muted colors and that very same grainy/sharp look. I loved it.

In fact, grainier films look sharper than fine-grain films...

Kodachrome 200 was a great example of that. Even pictures taken with the non-ASPH Leica Summilux-M 35/1.4 wide open looked pretty sharp on that film.

I doubt I'll be lucky enough but this gives me hope that maybe one of the classic old slower films (Plus-X? Double-X?) might come back into production too.

Plus-X, Tri-X & P3200 make as interesting a trio to play with as a 28mm, 50mm & 85mm lenses do.

I did love this stuff - not as much after I came across Neopan 1600, and then Ilford's Delta 3200 won my high-speed heart - but golly, P3200 was great. It was locked up at The Maneater, the student paper at The University of Missouri-Columbia, as we otherwise shot bulk loaded Tri-X. P3200 was a luxury and prize, especially as it usually meant high-profile concerts and the like. I have a print of Keith Richards onstage and his skull ring is sharp - like you say, perhaps not high resolution, but you could cut yourself on it.

I shot the last rolls available in town at The Maneater's 60th reunion - makes me smile that new photogs will have the chance to curse at this stock still:)

Very interesting. This is an example of why I like to visit this site - I learn something new each time. Any chance Kodak will reintroduce a fine-grain film like the old Panatomic-X? Please?? Finally, are any of Dick and Sylvia's articles from Photo Techniques available anywhere that you know? I'd like to read some of them.

Gee this almost makes me reconsider my extreme dislike for T-Max.
I may even buy that Zebra book, I think business case studies are great reads if done well. Sort of like Les Misérables; more fun to read about than live through.

Digital cameras have only one "ISO speed*" which indicates how many photons each individual photoreceptor can receive before it is full. This usually corresponds to the lowest E.I. rating on the camera.

ISO** 12232:2006 covers this and it is a real hairball compared to the film standards. My understanding is that the film ISO standards were so widely misunderstood that the digital version tries to replicate that misunderstanding with five different standards that produce different results. But that's ok because ISO charges $100 to read them and everybody makes up their own system anyway.

*in the film ISO sense

**I received a box of business cards when I worked at cisco that proclaimed that I was ISO 9000 compliant but the cards misspelled cisco.

"my copy is out in the barn alas"... I can almost hear the chewing from here.

When I saw the image of the film roll, I said to myself,- "what's Mike up to now"! Reading the post made me think of going back to film. I really can't afford to do that, I'd need to have my old OM-1 checked out, and more then likely, repaired. And ideally I'd need space in the basement for a darkroom; all this from seeing that film cassette and reading your post!
It would be fun.
And yes James, I heartily agree with your comment!!

1. Ahh, the Ilford XP2 negative with an LPL 4500 enlarger combination. I taught B&W darkroom for over 10 yrs and recall one student who was not terribly diligent but who would consistently produce at least technically competent prints exceedingly easily using the XP2/LPL combo, the XP2 accomadating all sorts of exposure errors (esp over-exposure) and the LPL eliminating all the dust and scratches on the negs from bargain priced drugstore C41 processing (the enlarger BTW, had perhaps rather come down in the world having been donated to the darkroom by the late Arnaud Maggs. I used to imagine all the images of his that had flowed through that piece of gear.)
2 Personally I found push processing Ilford HP5 was a good way to get a faster film for low light situations, certainly less grain than pushed Delta 3200 or TMZ. D3200 and TMZ did seem to be very good at "taming" the high contrast you might find in available light situations (stage shows etc) to the extent that if you use them for "normal" contrast scenes it is hard to avoid an overly flat print unless you push process.
3 Not sure why the post is an Open Mike/off topic one??


Back in the day I shot this picture on TMAX 3200 and then developed it pushed one or two stops for a unit on HUGE GRAIN in a B&W class I was taking.


The grain and the snow mix nicely.

Later on I made a 5 or 10 foot long print from this piece of film in the poster printing part of the same class. I never kept that print though due to lack of space. Probably the one picture I printed in my life that literally had grain as large as my fist.

@ Severian

I took to digital like the proverbial duck to water back in the late 1990s, and I was sure I would never shoot film again, too. And I would have bet a year's salary I would never, ever endure the tedium of developing the junk at home again.

And then this past summer I was seized by a sudden, utterly inexplicable obsession to buy a 40-year-old 6x9 Mamiya rangefinder. And, inevitably, a month after that I was tapping a Paterson developing tank on my bathroom countertop, for the first time in 25 years.

I'll never say never again is what I'm sayin', again.

I'm excited that there's a new film being released but I wonder what it's going to do to the market share of Ilford's Delta 3200 or vice versa.

Ditto what Severian said ... I’ve not seen a topic yet, when given the Mike Johnston treatment, that wasn’t interesting to the last word.

Great to read this. A Kodak rep stopped by the newspaper one day and handed me a half-dozen rolls of film that had minimal markings. He gave me some basic info on developing and off I went. Eventually I began shooting more P3200 than anything, about 40 rolls a month, and about 30 rolls of Tri-X, (Never really liked T-max 400.) I would shoot the P3200 at 800 and develop in T-Max RS developer. To me, it looked sharper, with finer grain than Tri-X. The tonality looked like Tri-X at 200. I had no qualms about shooting it in daylight. When I really needed the speed, like for night high school sports, I'd shoot it at 6400 and soup it in Diafine. It was pretty darned good, with much more shadow detail than I ever saw with Tri-X at 1600. It was, for me, a game changer. The only problem was when I didn't believe the 6400 exposure readings my meter gave me (an old Sekonic incident meter) and overexposed by a stop. Then the grain and sharpness went all mushy. When we started printing 4-color, it was back to shooting Fujicolor 1600, and pushing that in the C-41 color processor. Great memories, and now those old P3200 negs scan pretty well, too. Digital changed all that, of course. Now I crank the ISO to 6400 without a worry.

If I do say so myself I was very very good with TMAX 3200 and yes I did shoot it at 3200 if need be. I found ALL TMAX suggested developing times too long and that included the 100 and 400 speeds.

I was at an early TMAX Kodak shindig in NYC when it came out and I mentioned to a Kodak guy that the suggested 10 minutes (vague memory) for the 400 was too long and that 8 minutes was ideal and that was for use with a Cold Light enlarger light source. He agreed, they printed times that were too long. The suggested times were never changed though.

They were excellent films if handled correctly.


On the night of August 1, 1970, shot the Powder Ridge festival at night. Since the power was cut off to the festival, lighting was only a bulb here and there powered by a handful of small portable generators. Nikon with a 28mm f/2.5 Vivitar shooting wide open. Not enough light to either focus or get a meter reading. Some of the images actually came out! Film: P3200 and processed in Neofin Blue (I think) for close to gamma infinity. Looking forward to shooting some P3200 once again.

Dick and Sylvia were very helpful when one had questions. Easy to talk to and with more knowledge than anyone around on B&W film and processing.
With Kodak Alaris pushing things a bit maybe they can be persuaded to once again produce B&W paper. Kodabromide would be nice. Medalist would be nice. AZO would be especially nice. Given the parent company's handling of its demise it would be good to see the paper return.

T-Max P3200 was a wonderful addition to our newspaper darkroom when it arrived in the 90's. Pushing Tri-X (in replenished 1:1 Microdol-X) past 1250 ASA had always created contrasty highlights and dull quarter tone with no shadow detail, along with a boulder field of grain that could make your subject look enigmatic and moody, but mostly just looked a bit rough and lumpish.
T-Max when used at 1600 or even pushed to 3200 didn't make great looking photo-prints either, but when printed on newsprint they looked amazing. It's as if the extended density range of T-Max with its flat look, spidery grain and detailed image was the perfect match for the 100 lines per inch dot-screen of newsprint. The bland but detailed photos just seemed to bite down on the image after going through the press. Probably due to the short tonal range of newsprint printing along with a high 'dot-gain' of the litho processing. For those unfamiliar with the term, dot-gain is the resulting increased contrast in the highlights to quarter tones and the three quarter tones to shadows, when an image is converted to a dot image with a halftone screen.

Hello Mike, this is the best report on the web about this film being brought back to life. When I was a photography student and thought I was going to be the next Jim Marshall I spent a lot of time and money on learning how to use this film and get the results I wanted and was happy with. I used tmax developer and rated the film at 1600 and pre flashed the paper before printing to help with the highlights. I was never happy with the results from the ilford alternative as the grain just looked different as did the contrast even when altering developers. I hope that some of today's photography students who like band photography get to have the same fun! Will I buy a roll or two? Who knows as I don't go to gigs anymore but I could try take some pictures of my sons.

"Careful photographers run their own tests." — Fred Picker

Good advice! And it's always what I've doe. I'm not saying that Mike doesn't know what he talking about. I'm saying that No-one knows what works best for different photographers and clients in all situations.

When P3200 first came out I was working in a university media lab doing about 2000 prints a month by hand on two D5 enlargers with a Beseler roller transport processor. The B&W film submitted to the lab was hand processed in small tanks by a military trained photographer in T-Max developer. I don't recall if it was the regular T-Max Developer or the RS (replenishing) version of the developer. In any case, the initial published Kodak processing times were too long to fit negatives shot in average contrast light on grade 2 paper, and everyone was assuming that P3200 was actually E.I. 3200. In short order I had the lab manager post a 2X enlargement of the section of the Kodak Tech Bulletin stating the actual 800 ASA film speed (highlighted in yellow) at the drop-off window. I also worked with the film processing person to find a workable shorter "grade 2" development time. It took quite a while to educate the photographers about the actual characteristics of P3200.

For my own work I preferred a compensating developer with the T-Max (tabular grain) films, including the P3200, in order to tame the long straight line into something more closely approximating a Tri-X style "shoulder" in the highlights. I would only use the T-Max developer with very flat lighting. Treated with a compensating developer at E.I. 800, P3200 was a very nice film. I especially liked T-Max 100 in Rodinal diluted 1:100 with a touch of sodium sulfite added. It came close to Panatomic-X. Shooting it today, I'd probably start with seasoned and replenished Xtol developer.

To follow up on Chris Kern's point (I was going to say the same thing)

One "trick" for digital photography when shooting JPEGs intended for black and white film emulation is to convert the JPEGs to a non-compressed form (e.g. TIFF) before passing the image to film emulation software like Silver Efx or DxO FilmPack. The grain added will be "full resolution" over the previously compressed image.

The same idea works when scaling up images from smaller output cameras. Scale up first then add grain. Not a big issue today but I'm sure "vintage digital" will make a comeback along with the older processing techniques.

The overlay of the simulated grain is noise not only adds to the appearance but it also stimulates stochastic resonance in your visual perception (so making the image appear sharper).


It's equivalent to dithering (except you expect to see the dither when adding grain).

Quoting Mike's quote, '"...The company is headquartered in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire." (Wikipedia)'.
Which, coincidentally, is the town where people in the UK used to send their Kodachrome for pre-paid processing, if I recall correctly.

I don't have special memories about Kodak 3200 except the grain. But I would like more about the Kodak Alaris issue and if they can make some good film and scanners.

It amazes me how much knowledge about the film process, and all of its complexities, is just sort of sitting latent. So much historical knowledge and technical skill that very quickly became unneeded. A shame.

Kodak is now a crypto company!

I own many puts.

Don't consider this to be OT, or OM. Interesting post.

Good knowledge...that's what old geezers are good for!

I shot a lot of Kodak Ekiapress color film. PJ100, PJ400, PJ 800 and PJ800 E.I 1600 http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e116/e116.pdf

After Kodak dropped Ektapress I used Fujifilm Press 400, 800 and 1600. I tested some Fujifilm Press 1600 at E.I. 3200, but it had huge grain. The last brick of film I ever bought, about ten years ago, was Fujifilm Press 400.

I bought a roll of Tmax 100 when it new, 1989 approximately, exposed it and then couldn't find anyone locally who was prepared to develop it. I found it again about two years ago, had it developed and not surprisingly, it was badly lacking in contrast. The pictures however were still quite reasonable and an old friend whose picture holding an enormous blackfish was amongst them was very pleased to finally see evidence he could display to his family some 27 years later.

As a kind of New Years resolution in January I finally tossed the last of my frozen film stock. Most of it was years expired and there is zero reason to revisit chemical photograhy. Just the thought of again having to work with a single ISO setting for 36 frames makes my eyes roll. Nope, backward is not forward.

[I think I'll allow this, because you're a good commenter, but normally I wouldn't—this is what I call an "imported argument." See the official Comment Guidelines for my thoughts about those. I'm my own editor, and I'm pretty self-indulgent, but even *I* usually deep-six my rants, when they burst the dam and come out. :-) --Mike]

Was on my way to downtown Tokyo today on my sadistically over-crowded, late-as-usual train, as I have done for the last 18 years, when I read this post. I thought darn, I knew it was not good to keep exposed film long before developing, but I did not know the effect would be so noticable. Gotta get mine out of the freezer and developed.

But as I read down the comments, I became befuddled as to how a discussion of Kodak film could warp into another version of Fujifilm magic and the old 80s style greener grass image of Japanese corporations. I mean, having recently been made redundant for the third time in 10 years by yet another large Japanese company perhaps you’ll forgive me about not buying this gentle, caring souls fantasy version of capitalism in Japan. It has been my experience that Japanese don’t buy that stuff either.

However, no doubt Fujifilm did a nice thing for folks whose photos were damaged in the 3/11 quake and tsunami up in Tohoku. No doubt the publicity they received (and the tooting of their own horn about it) was nice for them too. At that time, my then (Japanese) company was doing some work with a California-based company’s Tokyo branch that for months after the quake purchased needed goods and supplies for folks up in Tohoku and encouraged its local employees to volunteer to drive the material up on weekends and distribute it. They also paid for and supported a lot of programs especially for children affected. As far as I know, they did not publicize it outside the company. I wonder which was more immediately useful? I wonder why one so publicized what they did, and one did not?

Japanese corporations give back to the community do they? More so than corporations in other countries? How do we know? Read about it in company-promoted publicity? Some shallow Forbes puff-piece? A drop-in journalist’s interview?

How did Olympus pay back its community and shareholders? What was it that W. Eugene Smith photographed in Japan and how was he paid back? (Sorry, history. Things like that would never be possible today, I am sure.) Well, Mitsubishi did pay the family of a young mother killed by a tire that fell off of one of their trucks. $40000. Yes sir, that’s what the life of a young mother is worth to them. What is Mitsubishi’s mission statement anyway? To lie about and cover up defects for decades? Oh, and how is TEPCO, the architects of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear meltdown, paying back the society that it does business in?

Prime Minister Abe has been trying to get companies to raise employee pay in vain hopes of reaching his 2% inflation goal. How have Japanese corporations been doing with that? Specifically, how has Fujifilm been doing? Wouldn’t increasing employee pay be contributing to the society they do business in? Or have they, like the majority, begun to rely on part-time and contract workers who they can easily shed during hard times while keeping their “seishain” (permanent employees, the vast, vast, vast majority of whom are males) while being able to claim that they don’t lay off people---only seishain count--- like those mean Americans?

Contributing to society? Does that include women and minorities? How is Fujifilm doing with hiring and promoting women to real positions of authority? How about other companies? I don’t mean just giving a few women titles, but actual authority? How about diversity, and hiring non-Japanese as full-time permanent employees and as managers with authority over Japanese employees? Gosh, I cannot figure out why my first wife, also Japanese, refused to work for any Japanese company. She’d would only consider foreign companies. Was there something she didn’t understand? My second wife has no choice, but, lordy lordy, she has no delusions that Japanese companies are some sort of special entities devoid of greed, incompetence, and dishonesty.

Mazda. I am happy to see that the company is so loyal to Hiroshima. Wonder if there is not something about its business environment that would let it operate at a competitive disadvantage in such a competitive environment as the auto industry? It seem like some other companies would eat its lunch. If not domestic, then foreign. Like US auto----oh, wait, they don’t have much presence in Japan. Well then, how about possible direct competitors alike Hyundai---oh, wait....

Sorry, here I am in a 1980s debate that has not changed in nearly 4 decades now. All I can say is that if you, while walking across the grass behind Tokyo Midtown on your way to Fujifilm Square, think it is greener than the grass back home, you ain’t noticing the crabgrass and the weeds filled with pit vipers that exist everywhere in every society.

End of rant that could have gone on in much more detail for a hundred pages. Lucky for anyone who actually read this one.

Next: No, the book “The Book of Five Rings” of Miyamoto Musashi, has nothing to do with Japanese management nor much of anything else in modern Japan.

Didn't see a need for P3200 myself, as I was more than happy with Tri-X pushed to 9600 (or beyond) and developed with Ethol UFG developer, which kept the grain from growing too much at the expense of spending forever agitating the film in the tank (over an hour, IIRC - but I diluted the UFG to get even finer grain than using it 1:1).


"Silver halide crystals "migrate" in the emulsion after exposure, and many films that are allowed to sit for long periods of time after exposure lose contrast and edge sharpness and the quality of the grain can become "mealy."

I was about to completely cut off developing duties to Dwayne's in Kansa after a batch of various rolls came back with a very pronounced mottled effect that couldn't have been the result of the cameras because they were all different shot at different times, when reading what Mike says opened a possibility to what that happened. What they did have in common was that I saved them all– some more than a year– to gather up a send to Dwaynes all at once. Then effect what very similar to what Mike describes.

Back in the mid-60's when I was first learning how to print I found myself jumping from one darkroom to another around town. The enlargers I used included a Chromega, and Omega D2v and a Focomat Ic. My home enlarger was a federal with a cold light head.
It was a real education about the role the light source in an enlarger plays in image quality.
The enlarger in the darkroom I now have but rarely use is 23cXL Dual Dichro and it suits me fine as I am (or was) a diffusion kind of guy.
Among the enlargers that have found their way into my basement storage clutter is a cherry Focomat Ic I got at a yard sale 20 years ago. Maybe I should dust it off, shoot a few rolls of the new P3200 and let the grain god sing.
Alas, happy talk I suspect.

Don't shoot with it at E.I. 3200. :-)

While I haven't used T-Max 3200 yet, my experience with Delta 3200 at ISO12800, developed in Microphen, are quite good. Sure it's more grain, and a somewhat harsher contrast, but in my idea useable, and the grain and contrast can help getting a certain atmosphere. Sure it's not a look that works for everything, but at times it's quite right.
So my view, ISO3200, I'd sure try it, and beyond it too....

What was your experience with 2475
I used a bit of that way back when but mostly stuck to tri x & HC110 E.I. Less than 400

I'm curious if this return of P3200 uses the new "small run" system Kodak is developing for Ektachrome. They are adding a new set of much smaller mixing vessels to the film production line to make smaller batches of film, and the revival of Ektachrome is clearly the test vehicle.

The old system required making multiple master rolls of film, where the new one will make one master roll without waste.

Lot of Kodak films got discontinued because they couldn't sell the minimum batch size through the sales pipeline before it got short-dated/expired. With a smaller minimum run, films like P3200, Plus-X, Ektachrome all become feasible again.

Yes, the "salt mine" story is true, as told to me by a former Kodaker (actually my father-in-law) - there are lots of those around here. Kodakers, that is.

As I recall he didn't use the term salt mine, but rather simply 'caves' to guard against radiation. I will check with him Saturday, but I believe he stated the caves were in Colorado, and not limited to TMZ, but other films where aging the emulsion needed to be halted so that the professional batches would be at spec.

it's unlikely that Kodak will bring back b/w photo paper, as they shut down (and presumably demolished) their paper mill c.2007. That was several years after first moving paper production to Canada and then to Brazil, and then discontinuing all their papers.
I used 2475 Recording film a bit in the late '70s. Faster than Tri-X but big, mushy grain... P3200 was a big improvement.

Developed one roll TMZ 3200 EI 1600 with Rodinal 1+50 for the grain.
Have a scanned negative if you are interested.

The comments to this entry are closed.