Delta 3200 vs T-Max 3200

Has anyone done a side-by-side comparison of these two films,

especially in Tetenal or Paterson developers, available in Europe?

I tried both films rated at ei:1000 processed in d-76 stock to print

on grade 3 paper. Sorry, I have never used Paterson developers.

 

T-max has noticably sharper grain. Delta 3200 produces

perhaps a more appealing tonal range with a softer, slightly finer

grain. I dont think d-76 is the ideal developer for these films in

terms of fine grain or film speed but it does a pretty good job

overall.

 

Next roll of either film will be processed in calbe A49 1:1

which I have found to be a noticable improvement over d-76 for

APX-400 in 35mm in terms of grain and tonality. I expect it to

have similar benefits with the faster films.

 

In medium format delta 3200 is nice in microphen stock.

I used TMZ for years then switched to Delta 3200 -- I was one of the first to try pre-release material.

 

Delta is about 1/3 stop faster (ISO 1250 in Microphen), somewhat sharper, and rather grainier (the price you pay for speed...) It is also a great deal nicer tonally.

 

I'd use Ilford DD-X or Microphen, or Paterson FX-50. Speed is very much a matter of personal taste. I have rated both as high as 12,500 but nowadays I generally stick to 3200 as I seldom need much more. They also deliver excellent quality when over-exposed, or at least, rated at the ISO speed. Some of my books (co-written with my wife Frances Schultz)-- Quality in Photography, Rangefinder and Perfect Exposure -- have images shot on one or both films.

Roger...it's great to see you, a don of B&W photography, participating is photo.net's forums.<P>I enjoy you comments here as much as both you and your wife Frances articles in Shutterbug.<p>And a question...could you share your dilutions, times, temperatures for Microphen & D3200 (@1250/1600 & 3200).<p>Tkx for everything over the years!

Ditto Jim Vanson's request, Roger - I'd like to hear some of your times/temperatures for Delta 3200 rated faster than 3200 (in whichever developer you prefer - I use Microphen).

me too Roger. Thanks!

Well, I used to shoot Delta for a while, but I prefer the TMZ developed in T-Max..i like the contrast it gives, the violent grain and the contrasted tones it gets...after many tries I've found this combination the best for my needs, But I'll be glad to hear other opinions..

 

Really good forum!

I have shot both of these films and I much prefer Kodak T-Max 3200 for it's look and

grain structure. I use Kodak Xtol undiluted and i use an E.I. of 1000. As a starting

point for processing use the time indicated for an E.I. of 1600 on the Xtol processing

chart.

Regarding Roger Hicks contributions to these forums, I am a bit troubled by the book

plugs. It's great that he is willing to share his knowledge and experience with the rest

of us and I certainly don't mind if another contributor to the forum reccommends one

of his books as a source of information but I do not think that authors should be

using these forums to promote their own books. This is the third book mention by

Hicks I have come across in the last two days.

Would it be better somehow if I plugged Roger's books (which I occasionally do anyway)?

 

The fact is, photo.net enjoys the benefit of the membership of many well experienced folks. We also have a continual influx of newbies. We shouldn't assume that everyone knows the bona fides of a Roger Hicks, Michael A. Smith, Patrick Gainer, Sandy King, Kerik Kouklis, et al. If an occasional plug is made by them or by someone else on their behalf, I think the forums can survive the hype.

I'm particulary interested in how they compare to one another, rather than just how they are used. I have had betetr luck so far with the Kodak product, but I have not experimented too much with the Ilford.

I prefer Kodak TMZ as well. The material may have more contrast, but given the situations we tend to use high speed B/W films this is usually a good thing. The combination of the lower contrast of Delta 3200 and it's rather fluffy grain structure never have appealed to me much. The good shots I see coming from Delta 3200 are usually studio type sittings.

 

Acufine or Diafine are the only two developers I like with these films if I'm trying to get beyond EI 800 with them.

Oooh -- putting me on the spot! A fair trade for the book plugs...

 

OK: Microphen stock at 20 degrees C, 68 degrees F

 

3200 -- 8' in a CPE-2 (continuous agitation) so call it 9-1/2 minutes with intermittent agitation. My original test was at 9 minutes (manual) and this needed grade 3+.

 

6400 -- 11' in a CPE-2 so maybe 12-1/2 or 13 minutes in a hand tank.

 

12,500 -- Sorry, I can't find my notes. I'd guess (and half remember) 16 minutes in a CPE-2, 19 minutes manual.

 

25,000 -- Likewise, no notes. Probably 20 minutes in a CPE-2, equating to 23-24 minutes manual, though I'd be inclined to work at 24C, 75F and give 2/3 to 3/4 the time -- 13 to 15 in the CPE-2, 16 to 18 manual.

 

Note that for constant contrast, toe density will be higher (and edge effects reduced) with extra agitation, so CPE-2 and manual figures are not totally interchangeable.

 

I should also add that my timing, etc., tends to under-develop -- something about the way I take temperature readings (before and after development), time (on adding the dev/on adding the fix -- I don't normally use a stop bath) and so forth. Frances (who does all the printing) tells me that Ilford Multigrade dev is significantly softer with MG Warmtone than Kodak D-163. You may therefore find you get similar results with up to 10 per cent less development. Or you may prefer more. This is alchemy we're talking about, not science.

 

The above is why manufacturers recommend that you conduct your own experiments. I sometimes think that we shouldn't be given film speeds or dev times AT ALL -- we should have to establish them for ourselves. Shoot the first roll at -2 stops, -1 stop, ISO, +1, +2; develop; see what paper grade we need. Then adjust dev times until the negs print on our favourite grade. Should take at most 3 rolls to be close enough.

 

Nowadays I normally use DD-X. It's more expensive than Microphen, but a lot more convenient and the speed loss is negligible. I use the Ilford times plus about 10 per cent (see para above for why).

 

As to the plugs, thanks, Lex. My reckoning is that if I answer the question as best I can, instead of just saying 'Read the Book', I can probably be forgiven. I love photography and I'd cheerfully do it for nothing but as it's my livelihood I can't afford to. And thanks to the others too who wrote kind words.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

I just realized -- nothing on LOWER speeds.

 

That's because I don't dev for shorter times. The main reason for under 3200 with Delta 3200 for me is when I use my Olympus Pen W and HAVE to over-expose in bright daylight thanks to a limited shutter. It just pushes the neg further up the curve and I like the tonality.

 

Those who prefer TMZ have a perfectly good case. At extreme speeds, maybe TMZ is better: it's more 'in your face', probably because of the fierce contrast and aggressive tonality. But I very seldom need more than 3200 (my fastest 35mm lens is f/1.2, my fastest 120, f/2.8) so I rarely push it that much any more.

 

My own reasoning was:

 

TMZ is brilliant, but the tonality is not too good at any speed, so I might as well push to the limit.

 

The tonality of Delta 3200 is so much better at 3200 that I'll forgo the extra speed. Actually, it's probably no worse at 6400 and 12500 than TMZ. I just like it so much better at 3200.

 

But it's all personal choice.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Roger, thanks for the information on Delta 3200 and T-Max 3200. I have very much enjoyed your books and articles. Many of us are indebted to you for your contributions to this craft. B&W photography is a pretty small niche market for publishers. My guess is that the amount you make off of the books wouldn't buy a nice used Leica! Please continue to publish and participate on this form, I always learn something valuable.

 

Steve

Have spent time with both, but really prefer TMY up to about EI 4000. I'm getting 4000 from TMY developing in X-TOL 1:1, 5 inversions every five minutes, 75F, 30 miunutes total time. Only use Delta 3200 now when I need 12,500+ (using same times). Have found that both 3200s look awful in D-76--for the same final print size, 35mm in X-TOL has only the slightest bit more grain than 6x7 in D-76. Have mostly abandoned TMZ as I shoot much more 6x9 than 35mm.

Excuse me, I do not understand this: TMZ is said to have more contrast then Delta 3200. I control contrast by changing development times. Then it shoud be possible to get the same contrast from any two films, only at different ISO ratings. Doesn't this mean that a lower contrast film could be pushed further, without contrast going out of control?

Latest results with TMZ, at EI 800, attached

Here's a small section. The film is quite sharp if you hold the development for about EI 800. I used FX-39 1+14 dilution, 7.5 minutes, 20C.

One very important difference between these 2 films is that Delta 3200 is available in 120 size, and T-Max 3200 is only available in 35mm size. I shoot 120 Delta 3200, both 6X6 and 6X12, and the resultant large negatives cannot be compared to 35mm T-Max 3200.