Nominal Film Speed

I have read that 120/220 Ilford Delta 3200 is nominally a 1200 speed

film. What does that mean? Do you develop it always at 3200 or can

it be shot at 1600 and then processed with no special instructions to

the lab? I am confused about that.

 

Jimmy Rhyne

According to Ilford, it's truly a 1000 ASA film (not 1200, by the way) that's designed to be push-processed to 3200. It's a similar situation with T-Max P3200 (a film which, woefully, is available in 135-36 or 35mm bulk but not 120 or 220); it's actually an 800 film but it's designed to push 2 stops.<P>As far as no lab instructions: The film is labeled as 3200, therefore most labs will make the assumption that you rated it at 3200. If you shoot it at anything other than 3200, you'd better give the lab special instructions or they'll misdevelop it.<P>Finally, a question. Where do you find Ilford 3200 in 220? AFAIK it's only available in 135-36, 35mm bulk, and 120.

I found it in 120 at a local camera shop; B&H and all the other mail order places appear to carry it as well.

 

Jimmy, my test just last weekend gave an EI of 1000 when developed to normal contrast in T-Max developer using a Jobo. I may be too obsessed with grain, but abandoned the whole idea after looking at those negatives. Instead, I'm using T-Max 400, also developed in T-Max (1:7) in the Jobo, and getting an EI of 640 with *much* less grain. While your exposure indexes may vary based on your meter, etc., I suspect you'll find only the same 2/3 stop difference if you use the same processing materials and methods. In my opinion, that speed increase is not worth the loss of image quality.

 

Another point: the 120 version is cut from large rolls of coated 5-mil 35mm base stock. I liked that idea; T-Max's 4.7 mil base is very easy to handle in the darkroom. However, unlike most 120 film, the Delta 3200 appears to be totally uncoated on its back, just like 35mm products. While this is not too much of a problem in 35mm due to its smaller width, the curling in 120 is extreme. It may flatten if stored under weight. Since I was so disappointed just looking at the negatives on a light box, I haven't yet tried printing them, and so can't say whether the curl would return - - even if the weight does flatten them - - in a glassless carrier.

Christian, I just noticed you asked about 220, not 120. You're right, it's not available in 220. I suspect the thick base may be why.

some sodium sulfite added might tame the grain with certain developers..... I've found J. Hicks rec's on 3200 delta to be very good...ei 2000 in ddx 1:4 11 mins @75 f. He always prefers microphen though. If you like, post your findings at Mason's Black and white world film and proc'ing forum. Ed Buffaloe is trying to catalog the combos of this film.

 

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00327w

oops sour link, find it yourself...

I have figured out nominal speed thanks to the great answers. I have a similar question. Kodak T-Max 3200, 400, 100 all seem to have one characteristic in common, they are not true to their ISO or better stated, they have a variable EI. What the heck is EI and why is it important? Secondly, Kodak states that the EI for TCN 400 (C-41 B&W) can vary. It states that the film can be processed at 800 without push processing. I am lost! Any help?

Jimmy, let's start with ISO. That is the official speed of a film, determined by carefully controlled and standardized tests set up by guess who, the International Standards Organization. Before ISO, we had the American Standards Association in the U.S., which used the same numbering system as ISO. And there was the Deutsche Industrie Norm (DIN), which used a different numbering system. There were also several other systems for rating film speed, but ASA and DIN were the two most commonly used.

 

When you run your own tests on a film and for whatever reason, find that it works better for you at a higher or lower number than the official ISO number, that's perfectly Ok. But you can't change the ISO number, so your number is an Exposure Index, or EI.

 

So, you can take a perfectly normal film, such as Plus-X (ISO 125), and rate it at EI 100, or 160, or 80, or whatever you want.

 

You discovered an area of confusion with Delta 3200, which is actually ISO 1000. And now you've discovered another anomaly in Kodak's chromogenic film, TCN 400. The same applies to Ilford's XP2, the original chromogenic film.

 

Because these films have two emulsions, each with a different sensitivity, they have a very wide exposure range. Both are ISO 400, but are usable from EI 50 through EI 800.

 

I've used XP2 over the years, usually rated at EI 200. The lower the EI, the finer the grain it produces. Ilford has just released XP2 Super. I think they should have kept the marketing 'droids away from it and simply called it XP3.

Since I hadn't done so in quite a while, I recently shot some HP5+ at EI 1600 and, to try something new, developed it in DD-X 1:4.

 

As with Microphen, its "real" speed is EI 640, so that's a 1 1/3 stop push.

 

Delta 3200 at EI 2000 in Microphen or DD-X is a 2/3 stop to maybe one stop push.

 

The difference was a real eye-opener! The HP5+ was _tremendously_ finer-grained and sharper. Shadow density was so close that any differences were essentially negligible. The curve shape of HP5+ is dead straight, lacking the pronounced shoulder of Delta 3200, so it probably wouldn't be all that wonderful in a high-contrast situation.

 

So where am I going with this? Well, I got so wrapped up with fast films beginning with TMZ that I forgot all about pushing a slower film a little.

 

While Delta 3200 can of course be pushed to astronomical EIs and yield usable negs, EI 1600-2000 is pretty much the speed at which it looks decent. To shoot it at that speed, though, we may be giving up way too much overall quality.

 

Something to ponder...

<<Since I hadn't done so in quite a while, I recently shot some HP5+ at EI 1600 and, to try something new, developed it in DD-X 1:4. As with Microphen, its "real" speed is EI 640, so that's a 1 1/3 stop push.>>

 

A question for John: Do you get that "real" speed for HP5+ in DD-X using Ilford's times?

Thanks for all the info. I know this response is nearly a year later than the original post but a new question has come up. I have shot both Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak TMax 3200 with some interesting results. I once shot a high school football game with a roll of each and sent it to Kodak via a mailer. Both films were rated at 1600 and shot with existing light. The Ilford blew the Kodak away! The TMax was about 1 stop underexposed and this was Kodak developing Kodak film. I recently sent one roll of each to another lab. This was a college basketball game so flash was prohibited. I shot both at 1600 and the Ilford came back about 1 stop underexposed and the TMax was totally kicking and awesome! What gives? Are both of these films that tricky to develop? I have never figured out the whole deal. I am starting to think that I will rate each at 1000 or 1250 and see how that works out. Once again, I am a freelancer so I do not do my own darkroom work. I just cannot figure out what to do. It seems that neither film is really stable. Any comments to this old thread will be appreciated as this is a problem for me.