Surely you jest - HC-110 will increase grain size.  Gives a mushy
oatmeal-like grain to my mind when used with 35mm.

You could try Microdol-X 1:1.  After that it would be mix-your-own
and experimenting with odd formulae - an activity that will take
up much time and yield little result.

July 3, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

I love TMZ, although I don't use it much. I
actually like it's grain pattern, somehow. I
think I'm influenced by my portraitist's love
of shadow detail, and TMZ really has the
ability to look into the shadows. I hate the
look of pushed film  (well, prints made from
pushed film...), and I consider it quite a
stretch to call TMZ an EI 3200 film, or even
1600. I prefer to set my meter to 800 for
this film. And even at that "low" rating, it
is far faster than the 200 I set for Tri-X
and TMY (Kodak T-Max 400).

I develop TMZ in Xtol. This film will never
be 'small grain', but it seems OK to me when
exposed at its real speed (which I would say
is 800 or even 640) and developed in Xtol.
I've used the development parameters
specified by Kodak for undiluted Xtol, but I
think experimenting with the various
dilutions of this developer would be useful,
too.

Just to repeat myself, I think the most
important factor is the EI at which TMZ is
exposed. Developer choice is second, and I do
not think D-76 would be a bad choice, either.
To me, the fact that you are not satisfied
with results from D-76 indicates you are
using the film at an inappropriate EI,
probably too high.

As an experiment, expose part of a roll at
the EI you've been using. Expose part of the
same roll at EI 800, develop as usual in the
developer you like best so far, and compare.
My guess is you will prefer prints made from
the denser negs (i.e., the ones made at the
lower EI).

It's possible the negs will be quite dense,
because in effect they are being over-exposed
and developed as if they were under-exposed.
However, I doubt they will be unprintable. In
fact, I think the final prints from them will
be better than the usual prints made from
this film at higher EI. The dense negs will
demand longer enlarger exposures, and maybe a
bit of a shift in technique  (reduction in
contrast set on the enlarger, most likely),
but I'm willing to bet they will be very good
prints in the end. The knowledge gained from
this experiment will tell you how to adjust
development so it's more appropriate to the
exposure.

Sorry if I'm puncturing balloons; I just like
TMZ at lower EI, and I think the high EI
recommendations from the manufacturer are
actually meant for specialized applications
like surveillance work where considerations
like shadow detail or grain are not relevant.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

I wouldn't soup TMZ (T-Max P3200) in HC-110.  In fact, I wouldn't
soup any T-Max in HC-110.

While I do not have extensive experience with TMZ and different
developers, I have had good (to my eye) results with Xtol.  I'd
normally process in Xtol diluted 1+1, but you might try full-strength.

Dana

I would like to thank you all who have taken the time to reply.....from
what I am gleaning I think that my "problem" with 3200 is that I am
shooting at 3200. so be it. I shoot in the streets at night and
somewhat hesitant about giving away the extra stop. After revisiting
some of my negs I realise that in the blacks of the prints (clear on
the neg) I am getting a "scolloping" effect which may not actually be
grain per se. It seems to come and go between batches of film......more
investigation required. anyway thanks again all. cheers!
sam

Try Paterson FX-39. T-Max 3200 is a grainy film. To get the best
results, expose it at EI 800 and develop to print properly on grade 3
paper..