Ilford Delta..

So that leaves us with Ilford Delta 3200 (for those of us who shoot 3200 or faster).

why worry?

Who cares about stopping production of such a niche product. When there are so many excellent digital alternatives that, frankly, do a better job, why would anyone be shooting on 3200 film anyway?

Why worry?

Because digital is driving a mass of mediocre photographers. Why use ISO3200 film? Because film still has greater depth and if colour film also greater depth of colour. If film was so useless why are so many cameras trying to simulate film colours and many sensor characteristics are compared with or try to emulate film? Particularly in what concerns noise characteristics.
There are many out there that use film and particularly high speed films for a specific look. I am not always trying to get a grainless image. Digital turns the nice contrasty grain into much with noise reducation algocr@p. Simply put, you can't beat a photochemical natural reaction with something based in 0s and 1s with very limited bit depth. Maybe one day when quantum computing comes to cameras, for the time being, film gives you reality digital gives you convenience.

Why worry indeed!

"why would anyone be shooting on 3200 film anyway?"

Because some photographers actually take time to learn the craft of photography and are able to distinguish the important differences between film and digital.

What an irritating comment that troll left.

Digital vs analogue

I'm old enough to remember the complaints that digital sound lacked vitality and would never truly replace vinyl for true enthusiasts. I don't see many analogue recordings produced now though...
Like it or not the market prefers digital for many reasons, and that's where the future lies as lack of investment will eventually kill chemical photography.
I recall working for Kodak in the early 90's when it was a dominant force in photography; now it's largely irrelevant to most photographers, pro or amateur.

If you liked it then you should have bought it.

I shoot quite a bit of film still across 135, 120 and 4x5 formats and this doesn't bother me too much simply because I don't have much use for a 3200 film.

If I did, I'd most likely be using the Ilford alternative anyway.

Where I can see it being a bit of a pain is in night street photography, and with the Moriyama/Klein exhibition at Tate Modern I could see a fast but grainy film gaining a bit more popularity again. However, the argument to use the Ilford still stands, or shoot Tri-X 400 at 1600 with a Noctilux then push it.

Maybe use D76 at 1:3 to develop some Tri X shot at 3200 and see how that works out. If Kodak don't discontinue the chemistry. But then again, you've always got Ilford ID11 if that happens.

Another one bites the dust...

Sad. I ordered some. I love film. I shoot digital too since it is convenient. I prefer film though... especially medium format. I hope Tri-X doesn"t go!!

To Peter

Peter:

Some of us don't shoot digital at all, as a choice after seeing the benefits with film. It's a free world, and the choice is up to each and every one.

The P3200 is a great emulsion, and very useful in bad lights, developed right it's not as grainy as many may think it'd be.

Awful slow zooms

John speaks up for film users but I feel that the demise of this film maybe on account of the dreadfully slow zoom lenses that seem to be everywhere now.

Toby:

How do you mean?

That people shooting film now don't use this emulsion anymore because they have lenses with max aperture in the range of f/4 - 5 ?

I don't follow..?

And in my experience, most people shooting film are most probably very aware of what lenses to use for low light, even if having the benefit of 3200 iso emulsions..

Sad Day

Another sad day. Kodak has lost it's way. Sad how a brand can be destroyed. 3200 film was there for a reason. It was not an every day film for most film users. Sad day.

Use Delta

Ilford's Delta 3200 is far better than T-Max anyway, so its no big deal. Try it, you'll like it...

Roots

Kodak should go back to their roots and produce a digital point and shoot that you use and send to Kodak, the pictures can then be viewed on a relevant themed page on their website and offer a range of products from your pictures. This camera should cost no more than £10 and be re-usable. Great for weddings and drunken parties.

not a real loss

if you've ever compared developing times between t-max 400 and 3200, they were virtually identical, so i always believed that 3200 was just 400 in a different cartridge.
still, it's sad to see kodak dropping film stocks when there's still so much good film can do for photography. and you can never get a perfect B&W print from digital--you have to shoot it on film to get it right.