Delta 3200

For those of you that shoot this film at 1600 (or close to that)..... what developer are you using, and how much time are you developing it for.?

Are you pretty much staying with the times recommended for 3200.?

Thank You

For those of you that shoot this film at 1600 (or close to that)..... what developer are you using, and how much time are you developing it for.?

Are you pretty much staying with the times recommended for 3200.?

Thank You

 

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/F4001.pdf

 

recommends decreased development time for condenser enlargers, which naturally increase contrast.

 

For example, they suggest exposing for 3200 and developing for 1600.

 

There are times for 400 to 6400 with some developers, and up to 25000 for others.

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/F4001.pdf

 

recommends decreased development time for condenser enlargers, which naturally increase contrast.

 

For example, they suggest exposing for 3200 and developing for 1600.

 

There are times for 400 to 6400 with some developers, and up to 25000 for others.

Kodak.? :)

I am more interested in what individuals have discovered works well for them, as opposed to what Ilford suggests in their specs.

Kodak.? :)

I am more interested in what individuals have discovered works well for them, as opposed to what Ilford suggests in their specs.

 

Oops. There was recently discussion of Kodak bringing back T-Max 3200, and I was still thinking about that.

 

From looking at the curves, I like the shape of the Delta 3200, which curves up just a little bit more on the left side.

 

Otherwise, I normally assume that the manufacturer has done many more tests than any individual photographer,

likely making measurements with densitometers and such.

 

A one stop difference is easily within the normal latitude of a black and white negative film.

 

Personally, more often it is the individual situation, especially with unusual lighting, that matters more.

First, when you consider a film like TMZ or Delta 3200, chances are high that the situation is even worse.

That you are already stretching things, using slower shutter speeds and such, than you would like.

Also, way too often, the lighting situation makes it hard to meter. There might be light sources within the frame that confuse meters.

In many situations, a little metering error doesn't cause much problem, but if you are already stretching things, it might be just enough.

 

If the situation really calls for EI 1600, maybe metering off an 18% gray card in actual lighting conditions, the subject has normal reflectance (close to 18%), normal contrast, and such, then I would choose the manufacturer suggested times. Often enough with negative film, if I have the choice, I round the aperture or shutter setting to maybe half a stop more.

 

But, as happens often enough, there are already half stop decreases: the meter said f/2.8 but the lens only goes to f/3.5. I hope to be still enough for 1/15 shutter speed, because I don't want to stretch to 1/8. I am not close enough to get good reflected readings off the subject or 18% gray card, and the subject is actually closer to 12%. I had set the meter to EI 1600, but the exposure is more like EI 5000. Then develop for the 3200 time or the 6400 time, or maybe in between.

 

I have done a lot of available light, or not quite available enough, over the years, with a variety of films.

 

I have negatives from 7th and 8th grade yearbook photography, many on Tri-X in Diafine at EI 1600, available light in the classrooms because I could do it.

 

My 5th grade teacher, available light, probably Tri-X. I am not sure when I started with Diafine, but it might be with Diafine at EI 1600. I believe with a Canon VI and Canon 50/2.8 lens (and when I was in 5th grade).

I've been using Delta 3200 for night shots, mostly at 3200 with HC110 dil. B (13-14 min @ 20 degrees C) and 6400 dil. A (13 min @ 20 degrees C), which gives a grainy look, but reasonable tonality. Also used it at 6400 and 12800 with Microphen (stock, resp. 12 min / 16,5 min at 20 degrees C), which works better - somewhat better tonality and more subtle grain.

That said, I don't use this film to get non-grainy results. I expect results to be somewhat coarse and high contrast, and try to match my subjects to fit.

 

From recollection, the below image should be ISO6400 in Microphen stock.http://www.ww-web.nl/photos/Various%202017/delta3200_fm2n_0003.jpg

 

This next one is ISO6400 with HC110 dil. A instead:

 

http://www.ww-web.nl/photos/Various%202017/2017-09_delta3200fm2_0028.jpg

Wow...that is at 6400, eh.?

The scan looks damn good to me.

What better way to hide grain, than in a Snow Flurry. :)

Thanks for posting those.

 

As you say, a person does not shoot this type of film for "Fine Grain".

Any idea of your approximate exposure time.? Looks like a fairly small aperture.?

You mention HC-110. I am about to start using Ilford Ilfotec, and shooting a roll of Delta 3200 that i have had in the refrigerator. It "expired" in January 2017.

 

BTW.....i appreciate your reasonable Size/Color/Placement of Water Marks. If anybody is considering them, this is how it is done. :)

Exposure times are probably in the 1/30th to 1/125th range, with wide apertures, from what I recall both are taken with a 35mm f/1.4, probably at something between f/1.4 and f/2.8.

Someone gave me a few rolls of Delta 3200 a while back. I shot a roll at E.I. 3200 and developed in HC110 dilution B. Grainy but sharp. No doubt my results at lower E.I. would have less grain.

Pentax ZX-5 with Sigma 28-80

 

sun and shadows, same gear as above

 

It took some experimenting to take a flash photo at E.I. 3200. I used an old Sunpak 311 with manual power ratio set at 1/16 power.

Hermione on top of "cat tower"

the grain reminds me of pushing tri-x.

 

this film a t grain?

Yes, a T grain or whatever Ilford calls it. The grain structures of the Delta films are different from the other Ilford black & white films.