Delta 3200 in Ilford DDX developer

This past weekend I exposed a roll of Delta 3200, which I processed

last night in Ilford DDX developer, which Ilford touts as their best

developer for this film. The dilution used was 1+6, time 8 minutes @

20C/68F. The density and contrast seem about right. Ilford suggests

1+4 for 7 minutes, which is of course too much.

 

The results, based on visuual inspection of the negatives with a

loupe, are scarcely different from FX-39. Speed seems to be about the

same. I was hoping for an increase over FX-39, but there is no

observable difference.

 

I may have time to print a couple of the negatives tonight.

 

Since the Delta 3200 film is grainier than Fuji Neopan 1600, and not

significantly faster, I doubt that I will continue to use it. For 35mm

users, there are better choices.

 

Kodak T-Max P3200 is a little finer-grained, and Fuji Neopan 1600 is

quite a bit finer-grained. All three films reach about EI 650-1000

when processed to normal contrast. Since no ISO 400 film really rises

above 320 (in my testing), these other films do have a role.

 

The Fuji Neopan 1600 seems to be the clear winner in fineness of

grain, but the speed reaches only about 650-800.

 

The Kodak T-Max P3200 reaches about 800, but is grainier than the Fuji

Neopan 1600. Delta 3200 reaches about 800, but is clearly grainier

than the Kodak T-Max P3200 and much grainier than Fuji Neopan 1600.

 

I simply do not understand Ilford's approach in designing this

material. It is clearly inferior to Kodak and Fuji in graininess, and

negligibly faster.

 

My evaluation of these films is as follows:

 

Fuji Neopan 1600

Speed: 650-800

Grain 5

Sharpness: Very good

 

Kodak T-Max P3200

Speed: 800

Grain 7

Sharpness: Very good

 

Ilford Delta 3200

Speed: 800-1000

Grain 9

Sharpness: Good

 

Ilford Delta 400

Speed: 250-320

Grain 3.5

Sharpness: Excellent+

 

Ilford HP5 Plus

Speed: 320

Grain 3.5-4

Sharpness: Excellent

 

Grain ratings based on 1-10 scale.

If you decide to abandon your 1-10 grain rating in favor of something more accurate and objective, Kodak and Ilford publish grain values for their films. I have not conducted the tests that you have, but based on your findings, I'd say that Delta 3200 is still the best fast film because it's the only one available in 120. I'm sure the unfavorable comparisons you observed would disappear and reverse in prints made from 6x9 Delta 3200 negatives. Of course, if one has only 35mm as an option, one of the other films might be more favorable. What I'd like to see is a fast sheet film. It seems to me that a film used for contact printing could tolerate the grain associated with fast films and offer a compelling alternative to films like Tri-X and HP5+. Unfortunately, these things are driven by market considerations and not my personal preferences. Many of the LF and ULF photographers that I know about use slow film, as the work they do is not as sensitive to duration of exposure as my portraits are. At present, my best bet for low light photography is Delta 3200 in 120; the fastest/biggest film made.

Jay:

 

You are correct about the choices in 120. But in 35mm, which I use, there are certainly more, and given those, I have been extremely impressed with Neopan 1600 in Acutol. It absolutely trumps Delta 3200, with <i>at most</i> a 1/2 stop difference.

I found the Ilford time way too short.

My time for Delta 3200 @ 3200 in DD-X 1/4 is 11 minutes 30 seconds.

Speeds are mentioned in my write-up. The ISO speed of Delta 3200 is close to 800, not 3200.

In DD-X, I'd put the speed of Delta 3200 closer to 1200 than 800.

 

Grain aside, I prefer it to Neopan 1600 for low-light shooting because it handles high-contrast situations so admirably. Neopan 1600 is great stuff for daylight street photography, though -- it looks a lot like Tri-X, with about another stop of useable speed. Nevertheless, for handheld photography at night, Delta 3200 is practically all I shoot; having tried the various high-speed films, nothing beats this stuff. It delivers terrific tonality even at EI 2000. I'm sure Neopan 1600 and TMAX p3200 are sharper, but I personally don't care, since sharpness has never been as important to me as other aesthetic qualities.

Andrew:

 

The resemblance between Neopan 1600 and Tri-X is uncanny.

 

As far as I can see, there is nothing that Delta 3200 does any better than T-Max P3200, to which I believe it is distinctly inferior. I prefer the other Ilford films to their Kodak counterparts, but not in this instance.

 

The Neopan is very ticklish about development. I like Acutol with it very much. 1+14, 7.5 minutes @ 20C/68F.

 

For me, the Neopan 1600 comes in as a clear winner if you need speed above what the ISO 400 films offer (EI 250-320).

 

In my testings, it shows about a stop more speed than HP5 Plus.

 

I cannot actually see myself using either of the '3200' films for normal applications. I plan on using some of the Delta 3200, because of its grain, for a special project.

 

The attached images show the difference between Delta 3200 and T-Max 3200.

The attached images show the difference between Delta 3200 and T-Max 3200. See attached.

Ooops, wrong one.

Delta 3200 pic:<div></div>

Nice, Andrew, but would it have been better on TMZ or Neopan 1600? I believe so.

Is it just me, or does this "test" miss the whole point of using Delta 3200 (or TMZ for that matter)?

 

I don't think many people buy these films to shoot them at EI 800 or so. I know when I use Delta 3200, I expect to shoot under conditions where I have to expose it at at least EI 1600, and often EI 3200 or even 6400. That's what it's designed for. If you need that much speed, the relevant question is: what film gives the most pleasing combination of contrast, grain, sharpness, and tone for your subject, lighting, and taste?

 

Certainly nobody is suggesting that any of these films can meet the ISO definition of speed for 1600, much less higher. And if all you want is EI 800 or so, then Delta 400 or Tri-X or something else will probably give better overall results than Delta 3200, TMZ, or Neopan 1600.

 

Am I missing something?

I have had nice results with TMax developer with Neopan 1600.

Shawdow detail is retained at 1250 EI.

 

Very like TRI X, put Im dont think I could push TRI X to 1600.

 

delta 3200 also is not so fast in Tmax dev but I havent tweaked with the dev times yet.....

 

Thanks for sharing...

I guess my point is that most people evaluate the EI they need and then choose the best available film for that EI, instead of picking a film and figuring out its true ISO speed and then using it at that speed. When you take what I think is the more normal approach, and you <I>need</I> EI 1600, 3200, or even higher to get the shot, what's your best option?

Of course you're right, Dave. Ilford doesn't call it Delta 3200 because they don't know its actual speed. It's actually very flat at its nominal E.I. of 800-1000, and designed to build contrast through push development to 3200 and beyond. I know from personal experience that Tri-X 320 will push to 1600 and look beter than Delta 3200, but that's about the max for TXP, while D3200 keeps going. I admit that I haven't had the same high-quality results as other Delta 3200 users, but I haven't used that much of it either. I've seen some really nice work with it though. I'll keep using it in the rare instances that I need that kind of speed, and eventually I'll get a handle on it.<div></div>

Jay and Dave:

 

I am interested in normal contrast negatives, not pushing. I developed all these films to normal contrast and found little real speed difference among them, but a great deal of difference in the grain.

 

Ilford knows well that the speed of Delta 3200 is about 1000± 1/3 stop, but since Kodak calls their film '3200', they have to do the same thing to be competitive. It is really a disservice.

Dave Redmann , mar 10, 2004; 07:00 p.m.

<i> Is it just me, or does this "test" miss the whole point of using Delta 3200 (or TMZ for that matter)?

<p>

 

I don't think many people buy these films to shoot them at EI 800 or so. I know when I use Delta 3200, I expect to shoot under conditions where I have to expose it at at least EI 1600, and often EI 3200 or even 6400. That's what it's designed for. If you need that much speed, the relevant question is: what film gives the most pleasing combination of contrast, grain, sharpness, and tone for your subject, lighting, and taste?<p>

 

Certainly nobody is suggesting that any of these films can meet the ISO definition of speed for 1600, much less higher. And if all you want is EI 800 or so, then Delta 400 or Tri-X or something else will probably give better overall results than Delta 3200, TMZ, or Neopan 1600.<p>

 

Am I missing something?</i><p>

 

I think so. The point is exactly the reverse of what you have stated. I was interested in determining which is the best film that is faster than the ISO 400 films (which are only 250-320). That film is Neopan 1600.

 

All of these films are between ISO 650-1000.

 

I would never use a film at 6400 unless that was the ISO.

I think more like Dave. D3200's true speed is 800 - 1000 but it's not made to shoot at that speed. It's shoulders very quickly and produces flat negatives at 800. But if you push it to 1600 it reaches a nice sweet spot. It is meant to be pushed. If you want to shoot something at 800 then you're better off with TMZ or D400 with a slight push. TMZ doesnt shoulder as violently as D3200 so it looks good at 800.

The negatives at 800 are normal-looking. See attached image exposed on Delta 3200. Printed on condenser enlarger with filter #2 1/2 on Ilford MG IV.

<B>Re whether Delta 3200 at EI 800 is flat or normal-contrast:</B><P>

 

I'm sure it depends in part on development etc. That said, I don't think we can really evaluate its contrast from a scan of a print of an artificial light shot--just too many variables. I tend to think that any true test of whether a film is flat has to be based on spot-metering the scene, shooting, developing, checking the negs with a densitometer, and comparing the separation the spot-meter found to that which the densitometer found.<P>

 

<B>Re which film is 'best':</B><P>

 

Hans, if you don't like or need to shoot higher than EI 800, and you like whatever for that, more power to you. But I think it's a bit unfair to make a blanket statement that Neopan 1600 is better than TMZ is better than Delta 3200, at least when that statement is based on shooting shooting then at EI 800, because most people shoot these when they need and use EI 1600 or higher.<P>

 

Do you concede that your "test" is a subjective one applicable mainly (if not only) to the somewhat unusual practice of shooting these films at EI 800 or so? If so, then we do not disagree.

Dave:

 

Whether others feel the need for speeds greatly in excess of 1000 is of no importance to me. I have tested Delta 3200 extensively, in side-by-side conditions with TMX and Neopan 1600. The speeds are all roughly equal (800 ± 1/3 stop) when developed to the same contrast, using FX-39 for the TMZ 3200 and Delta 3200, and using Acutol for the Neopan 1600.

 

Thus, given that I am going to use them at about 800, which is the best? It proved to be Neopan 1600 in Acutol. FX-39 is too agressive for it.

 

If people use these films above their true speeds, they are missing out on some wonderful reults....

Compare this to the photo of Lauren:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=17001284

"Speeds are mentioned in my write-up. The ISO speed of Delta 3200 is close to 800, not 3200."

 

Maybe, maybe not. What it is is a film that is designed to give a result if you use it at 3200asa.

 

If I want 800asa, I'll use tri-x or Tmax400.

Gareth schrieb: <i>Maybe, maybe not. What it is is a film that is designed to give a result if you use it at 3200asa.<p>

 

If I want 800asa, I'll use tri-x or Tmax400.</i><p>

 

Sorry Gareth, that is simply not the case. You must subtract about 1/2 stop of exposure from the ISO speed in the case of the ISO 400 speeds, if you want the best results possible.

Well Hans maybe you better write to Ilford and tell em they got it all wrong.