@@TheNegative Good to know! I wonder if you might get a more pleasing grain pattern with stand developing...hmm. My understanding is that's one of the perks (aside from not tweaking my wrist on inversions lol). Thanks for all your hard work!
Interesting take as always. That's gonna be a long comment but since I've used Tmax 3200 and pushed Tmax 400 to 3200 a lot this year it might interest you. I usually developed them with Tmax Dev or Ilford DDX and it never had been that dull and grainy. I wonder why you didn't use your all time favorite Xtol stock or at 1+1. It's perhaps one of the best for that in addition to the other two previously mentioned. Also, don't trust blindly Kodak's tech sheets, they usually don't are coherent regarding dev times. For instance, for pushing Tmax 400 with the Tmax Dev at 1+4 to 3200 iso the times at 24C/75F are different in the dev tech sheet (j-86) and the film one (F-4043). I wrote to Kodak about that and they replied me to trust the F-4043 times which would probably be ok... if you need 3200 iso in broad daylight. But I use pushed Tmax 400 and Tmax 3200 to shoot low key live music with pretty dramatic contrast ratio. So instead of the 8.5 minutes recommended for pushing Tmax 400, I go up to 10 and even 12 minutes if need be. I like the look you get when your exposure it's spot on. It doesn't feel like a pushed film, very few grain and a contrast that embraces the "natural" lighting of the scene. Think of a slide film - with, sadly, the same kind of exposure latitude. Tmax 3200 can give you a similar look, with a bit less contrast - or more latitude if you want to think that way - and much more grains. But not as distracting as in your video. I've found Ilford DDX ok for pushing Tmax 3200 but with Tmax 400 it will clip your highlights quicker than the Kodak Tmax Dev. Also it's way too expensive for a dev you can't reuse at 1+4. You can do that with the Tmax Dev as long as you do not push films. I am yet to try it with Xtol. You can see some of the results I got pushing Tmax films on my IG (th_cor). Thanks for reading :)
There’s been like 4 people who said they got better results, which I’m glad cause that means I’ll make a part 2. So I have to order some fresh XTOL. I am willing to give a second try in XTOL.
@@TheNegative Good to hear that you take "requests" from you audience, sorry advices :) Xtol will be my next test too. Also, it's logical you've seen people being surprised by your results. This film usually delivers if you get it right : good exposure + the adequat developer. With other stocks the developer is a matter of taste. Here it's crucial. Otherwise you'll end up having the same look as the Delta 3200 : grainy and lackluster. Anyway, have fun !
@@Thorpal yeah! I think for this one it’s pretty crucial you choose the right developer. I try to be open usually but yeah the HC version is not good for this film stock.
I shot a roll @1600, developed by Bluemoon Camera. Told them I shot it @1600, they said wont make any difference to development. Dont know what developer they use but it was no where near as grainy as the results you got.
Another great installment! Personally I severely dislike P3200. I *love* Delta 3200 shot at 2500 on MF and developed in DDX for 3200. For 35mm & ISO 1600 it's a tie for me - Delta 400 or XP2 Super, either one in 1:9 DDX stand for 45 minutes for highlights and 55 minutes if you want a bit more in the shadows. Add an extra 2 minutes fixing the XP2 :) Both are shockingly good for 1600. I haven't quite got the dilution dialed in for stand with Flic Film's Black White & Green developer (similar to Xtol) but I'm confident I can get there withc that developer too. Cheers!
It might potentially clean it up a bit if you expose it @ 800. I think this film naturally has larger grain to capture the extra light but yeah it might help.
I was never a fan of P3200, as you said, far too grainy to be enjoyable. I think Delta 3200 is the superior push film and I've had some good times with that.
I have always enjoyed the larger grain look. Great video..
Yeah I’ve heard that a lot of people enjoy it’s grainy look. Which is fine! I know some people enjoy the grit.
Lost in all the comments about the film, and of course the cat, I forgot to mention you have some great compositions you shared in the video.
Thank you! There were a couple other shots I was excited for but people ended up walking into the frame so I never hit the shutter. 😂
Another banger! 📸🎞 Was this stand developed or with agitation? lol, and that cat makes me laugh every time.
Thank you! It was normal agitation. 1:31 9 1/4 min (20C) I love that cat too! I’m glad you guys find it funny as well haha.
@@TheNegative Good to know! I wonder if you might get a more pleasing grain pattern with stand developing...hmm. My understanding is that's one of the perks (aside from not tweaking my wrist on inversions lol). Thanks for all your hard work!
@@TheNegative the cat is the best!
Interesting take as always. That's gonna be a long comment but since I've used Tmax 3200 and pushed Tmax 400 to 3200 a lot this year it might interest you. I usually developed them with Tmax Dev or Ilford DDX and it never had been that dull and grainy. I wonder why you didn't use your all time favorite Xtol stock or at 1+1. It's perhaps one of the best for that in addition to the other two previously mentioned. Also, don't trust blindly Kodak's tech sheets, they usually don't are coherent regarding dev times. For instance, for pushing Tmax 400 with the Tmax Dev at 1+4 to 3200 iso the times at 24C/75F are different in the dev tech sheet (j-86) and the film one (F-4043). I wrote to Kodak about that and they replied me to trust the F-4043 times which would probably be ok... if you need 3200 iso in broad daylight. But I use pushed Tmax 400 and Tmax 3200 to shoot low key live music with pretty dramatic contrast ratio. So instead of the 8.5 minutes recommended for pushing Tmax 400, I go up to 10 and even 12 minutes if need be. I like the look you get when your exposure it's spot on. It doesn't feel like a pushed film, very few grain and a contrast that embraces the "natural" lighting of the scene. Think of a slide film - with, sadly, the same kind of exposure latitude. Tmax 3200 can give you a similar look, with a bit less contrast - or more latitude if you want to think that way - and much more grains. But not as distracting as in your video. I've found Ilford DDX ok for pushing Tmax 3200 but with Tmax 400 it will clip your highlights quicker than the Kodak Tmax Dev. Also it's way too expensive for a dev you can't reuse at 1+4. You can do that with the Tmax Dev as long as you do not push films. I am yet to try it with Xtol. You can see some of the results I got pushing Tmax films on my IG (th_cor). Thanks for reading :)
There’s been like 4 people who said they got better results, which I’m glad cause that means I’ll make a part 2. So I have to order some fresh XTOL. I am willing to give a second try in XTOL.
@@TheNegative Good to hear that you take "requests" from you audience, sorry advices :) Xtol will be my next test too. Also, it's logical you've seen people being surprised by your results. This film usually delivers if you get it right : good exposure + the adequat developer. With other stocks the developer is a matter of taste. Here it's crucial. Otherwise you'll end up having the same look as the Delta 3200 : grainy and lackluster. Anyway, have fun !
@@Thorpal yeah! I think for this one it’s pretty crucial you choose the right developer. I try to be open usually but yeah the HC version is not good for this film stock.
I shot a roll @1600, developed by Bluemoon Camera. Told them I shot it @1600, they said wont make any difference to development. Dont know what developer they use but it was no where near as grainy as the results you got.
For the sake of the channel I’m willing to try it a second time in XTOL.
Another great installment! Personally I severely dislike P3200. I *love* Delta 3200 shot at 2500 on MF and developed in DDX for 3200. For 35mm & ISO 1600 it's a tie for me - Delta 400 or XP2 Super, either one in 1:9 DDX stand for 45 minutes for highlights and 55 minutes if you want a bit more in the shadows. Add an extra 2 minutes fixing the XP2 :) Both are shockingly good for 1600. I haven't quite got the dilution dialed in for stand with Flic Film's Black White & Green developer (similar to Xtol) but I'm confident I can get there withc that developer too. Cheers!
Thank you! My go-to developer is XTOL so it might be worth another try in that.
I’ve never used this film. It’s interesting (and maybe disappointing?) that the grain didn’t become finer when you pushed it to 1600.
My thoughts exactly! I’d be willing to give it another try in XTOL to see if that grain can be tamed somewhat.
@@TheNegative this might be naive but would exposing it at box speed create more grain or potentially cleaner?
It might potentially clean it up a bit if you expose it @ 800. I think this film naturally has larger grain to capture the extra light but yeah it might help.
I was never a fan of P3200, as you said, far too grainy to be enjoyable. I think Delta 3200 is the superior push film and I've had some good times with that.
I just ordered another roll so I can try it in XTOL, and a roll of Delta 3200. Quite a few people said they liked that one better.