Ilford 3200: "False Advertising"?

I'm somewhat inclined to believe that Ilford's "Delta 3200 Professional"

engages in a bit of false advertising: Short of searching the data sheet for

thw word "ISO" (maybe it's in small print somewhere on the packaging, too), one

would have no way of discovering that the film, indeed, bears an ISO rating of

1000, not 3200. Yes, "real world," I'm sure it works just fine when rated at

3200, but this doesn't change the fact that the box, the data sheet, the roll

of film -- everything hints that it's a 3200-speed product. What do you think?

There is no false advertising with Ilford 3200 film.

 

If you look on the film itself it states the film is EI 3200. EI or exposure index is not necessarily the films actual speed, but is the speed it should be set at when using it.

 

Ilford actually state the film has an ISO rating of between 1200 and 1600. They also sate it's been designed specifically to be pushed to 3200.

 

If Ilford said it was 3200 ISO film then yes that would be false advertising, but because people assume the the number on a film box is always a ISO/ASA rating and not EI, then that's hardly their fault.

 

Basically it works great at 3200 EI and they never say it's anything else. The packaging is not misleading since the film is actually designed to be pushed to 3200 ISO. If that were not the case, you may have a point.

Ross, Delta 3200 can't be pushed to ISO 3200. It's ISO rating is firmly fixed at 1000, and no amount of pushing will change that. Also, Ilford do not "actually state" that the ISO speed is "between 1200 and 1600", they state quite unequivocably in their PDF data sheet, that it has an ISO rating of 1000. ( Although, since Ilford don't publish their sensitometry curves labelled properly in Lux/seconds, only in some vague "relative log exposure", then there's no way for us to easily verify that for ourselves.)

 

Personally, I have to agree with Arjun that Ilford's box labelling is misleading, since the convention is to put the ISO rating on the box.

 

Kodak and Fuji are no less guilty of this deception by packaging their 800 ISO films as 3200 speed products as well. And using the phrase "Exposure Index" as a getout is no excuse for this shabby behaviour. We have an ISO standard for B&W film speed, so why not use it and be honest?

 

It took over 100 years from the invention of photography to arrive at a unified standard for emulsion speed. Now if we're just going to ignore that, and let manufacturers make up any old number and stick that on the box, then we might as well throw our lightmeters in the bin and let Messrs Hurter, Driffield, Watkins, Weston and Adams spin merrily away in their graves.

it's the same for TMAX 3200 and Neopan 1600 which are actually ISO 1000 films, that push well

Don't forget Konica 3200 color C-41. Another ISO 800 film with the number 3200 in the name.

It is clear enough until one reads discussions about the film on Photo.net :)

 

A question...

 

I exposed my first rolls of this film over the last couple of nights, rating them 3200. I plan to develop it in accordance with the data sheet (spiral tank, DD-X, 9 1/2 minutes). The sheet says that the film works best at EI1600-6400. As a matter of curiousity, does anyone know what happens when one rates this film at its ISO (1000) and develops it for that speed (Ilford says 7 minutes at EI800)?

At its ISO rating, it has very low contrast and looks rather flat and dull. I think it looks best at EI 1600, and it still looks very good at EI 3200.

 

If you want to assign blame for the "false" advertising of high-speed b&w, it should be directed towards Kodak. They started it with TMax P3200.

Thanks Mike. I'm doing some stuff in fairly low light, using HP5+ pushed two stops. I rather like the look, but thought that I'd try Delta 3200 and compare. I'll now try Delta 3200 at 1600.

The Delta 3200 will give you much richer shadow detail than the pushed HP5+, but it will also have more grain. I also like the look of pushed HP5+ if I'm going for a harsh, gritty feel--despite the bigger grain, Delta 3200 looks "smoother" at 1600.

"At its ISO rating, it has very low contrast and looks rather flat and dull."

 

Sounds like it's a good thing that they don't call it Delta 1000 :)

Hi Ruairidh, when I process Delta 3200, I have had best results increasing the processing time by around a third. I am at work at the mo', but I will try and upload a couple of photos to demonstrate my results.

 

Steve

Cool, I would love to see them.

Its an iso/asa 800 to 1600 film; depending on the age of the film. Base fog increases with age; radiation; exposure to gas jumes. Iso drops as base fog increases. Amateurs and consumers like BIG numbers; thus peak horsepower on vacums, electric chains saws, stereo amps, fast films are what folks crave!

Yet another reason I love Polaroid 667 or Fuji FP-3000B pack film. The large format print (3.75" x 2.88") is true ISO 3200 and can be scanned to provide excellent enlargements up to 4x (15" x 11.5").

<p>

It can be shot with a cheap pack film camera using in camera auto-exposure (f/8 is the fastest lens though) or a Polaroid 195 (f/3.8) which is fully manual. Alternatively you can load this film into a Polaroid 405 back for any 4x5 press camera and shoot that way.

<p>

The Fuji stuff is superior in my opinion and the prints look awesome. See here:<p>

 

<a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/426190300_5d4a75ab01_b.jpg">Wedding Shot with Flash</a><p>

<a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/404219945_16dbfdd64b_b.jpg">Extremely Low light interior shot - handheld on Speed Graphic</a><p>

 

I've found that in bright light the grain size actually gets smaller. In low light with longer exposures the grain size grows. I like this a lot because I can use this film for all different scenarios.

<p>

My 2 cents.

There is also the assumption by the film maker that your camera operates up to factory specs and emulates the film maker's expectations for exposure. There is the assumption that all the other processing variables and compromises are exactly like the controls the maker used for testing. After all that, management hands it to marketing and legal departments to spin it for profit and liability. McDonald's "Quarter Pounder" is not true either, considering the ads & wrappers! :-)

From the data sheet:

 

EXPOSURE RATING

The recommended meter setting for DELTA 3200

Professional is EI 3200/36, but good image

quality can also be obtained at meter settings from

EI 400/27 to EI 6400/39. It can be used in all

types of lighting.

DELTA 3200 Professional is particularly

recommended for exposing in the range

EI 1600/33 to EI 6400/39. It can be exposed at

ratings up to EI 25000/45, but it is important to

make test exposures first to ensure the results will

be suitable for the intended purpose.

DELTA 3200 Professional has an ISO speed rating

of ISO 1000/31? (1000ASA, 31DIN) to daylight.

The ISO speed rating was measured using ILFORD

ID-11 developer at 20?C/68?F with intermittent

agitation in a spiral tank.

It should be noted that the exposure index (EI)

range recommended for DELTA 3200 Professional

is based on a practical evaluation of film speed

and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO

standard.

Yep, Kodak's fault. They started the whole thing with "Super XX film" which really was not "super" at all.

 

My goodness, if you can't just set your camera's auto exposure meter to the number on the box and simply shoot away, then who can we believe in?

 

Next someone will be trying to tell us that politicians and used car salesman are attempting to color the truth.

Ross, I understand your point about it's not actually being "false advertising," but that's why I placed the phrase in quotation marks, to imply that it's "like false advertising": misleading, if not quite illegal. I agree that people tend to look at the number on the packaging and assume that it's indicative of the film's speed, and I'm sure that Ilford, too, knows this; the fact that, knowing it, they put "3200" on the box, is what I find misleading. I'm not saying that the film won't deliver good pictures when rated at 3200, just that it seems a little wrong to me to stamp that number on the packaging, and leave the actual ISO rating (which is stated to be 1000, not "between 1200 and 1600") hidden in the data sheet.

 

Also, yes, Kodak seems to do this sort of thing, as well (and they may, indeed, have started it), with its "T-Max p3200" film, which, when developed in T-Max developer, is supposed to be ISO 1000; when in "other" developers, ISO 800.

 

If the goal weren't to "mislead," at least a little, I'd imagine that the packagings of these products would read the actual ISO numbers, and boast, in perhaps smaller print, the degree to which the film can be pushed and still deliver fine results. The goal, however, is -- I feel -- to mislead, and that's why we have 1000 films that come in boxes with big bold font that reads, "3200."

 

As for Fujifilm's Neopan 1600, I believe it actually is 1600-speed film; that is, its ISO rating is 1600. Of course, that would make it the fastest black-and-white film (of which I know) currently on the market -- faster than both Ilford's and Kodak's competing products. Also, it, too, can be "pushed" successfully, to 3200, and beyond.

<i> I'm not saying that the film won't deliver good pictures when rated at 3200, just that it seems a little wrong to me to stamp that number on the packaging, . . .</i><P>

I take it as the manufacturers indicating the intended use, not the ISO.<P>

 

<i> As for Fujifilm's Neopan 1600, I believe it actually is 1600-speed film; that is, its ISO rating is 1600. </i><P>

Nope. In the <a href="http://www.fuji.fi/documents/13/neopan_1600_AF3608E.pdf">data sheet</a>, Fuji makes it clear that 1600 is an EI, not the ISO.

I'd love to hear the people who are harumphing about the fact that Delta 3200 is 3200 explain why it should be, as they apparently believe, Delta 1000, and why, failing that "correction", the people who run Ilford are guilty of fraud.

 

As a new user of Delta 3200, I'm not having a lot of trouble figuring it out.

 

So what, exactly, is the problem :)?

Fujifilm's Web site states that Neopan 1600 is an "ISO 1600" film.

Pete.

 

I regularly refer to the over rating of a film and its subsequent over development for compensation as pushing from one ISO to another. This, obvoiusly isn't litterly the case as most photographers know. But usually people know what I'm talking about, photographers that is. That and one is all but actually changing the light sensitivity of the film itself. I hope you're not too upset that my terminology isn't obvious enough for you.

 

As for Ilford actually stating the film is ISO 1000, they do, I obviously have older literiture:

 

"DELTA 3200 PROFESSIONAL allows photographers to take pictures under difficult conditions including fast action and poor lighting. With a measured speed of up to ISO 1250 (up to ISO 1600 when developed in ILFORD Microphen developer) the film has been designed to be 'push' processed to achieve its nominal speed of EI 3200."

 

Arjun,

 

If I'm totally honest, I thought Delta 3200 was ISO3200 until you made this post and I went of to look into it. So I agree, it is misleading a little. However the info is there for one to check, that said I've never had an issue with the film and it maybe that it's designed in a way to look like real ISO 3200 film. I don't know.

 

The stuff after all looks great at EI 3200, it says it's EI 3200 and anyone who doesn't know about home developing of film, or overrating will see 3200 on the box and get to shoot at really low light. I may never have overrated for years until I understood it and a lot of my 3200 shots would have been missed.

B&W films really are no faster than old Royal-X and 2475 recording films of 4 decades ago. The only thaing that is better is less grain; not actual film speeds. B&W film speed peaked almost 1/2 century ago. In that era an elctrolux XXX vacuum was marked 110 volts; 660 watts. Todays folks want BIG numbers; thus a 6amp vaccum at wallyworld often has;1,2,3 Horsepower decals; to fill folks craving of BS specs. Both 1/2 century old elctrolux XXX and a new goober vac can read the same wattage on a Weston 300 wattmeter.

"Fujifilm's Web site states that Neopan 1600 is an "ISO 1600" film."

 

That is true.

 

Well, a calculation based on Fuji's own characteristic curves suggests that Neopan 1600 has an ISO speed of between 1000 and 800 for development in SPD using ISO 6 criteria. Maybe it is Fuji who have the false advertising. As has been pointed out a few times in this thread, both Ilford and Kodak are honest about the speed ratings that would be achieved by Delta 3200 and T-Max P3200 if ISO methods were followed.

 

Best, Helen

That's true and Kodak P3200 has a legitimate film speed of 800!

 

In both cases, the film is so low in contrast that it can be over developed for elevated film speeds. I prefer Ilford 3200 in Straight D76 being guided by Ilford's developing information. All you do is to process for 1 stop more speed than you are shooting, NOT because that film speed isn't legitimate, but because you need the extra contrast, it is really flat (3200 process at 6400, etc).

 

In addition, I prefer Ilford because the contrast and horrible grain are out of control in P3200 as I see it. Also, Ilford 3200 is available in 120 permitting us to use much less enlarging.

 

Lynn