Very fast films

I have just finished testing of Ilford Delta 3200, Fuji Neopan 1600,

and Kodak T-Max 3200, developed in Paterson FX-39.

 

The winner is the Kodak film. It offers finer grain and more true speed.

 

Kodak TMZ =1000-1200. Time is 7.5 minutes in FX-39, 1+14 dilution.

 

Ilford D3200 = 800-1000. Time is 8.5 minutes in FX-39, 1+14 dilution.

 

Fuji Neopan 1600 = 650-800. Time is 8 minutes in FX-39, 1+17 dilution.

Hans, have you tried Tri-X in Diafine? I wonder how it would compare with the others as far as grain & shadow detail go? The speed would be as fast as any you have listed.

I am familiar with the principles of divided development and those materials. These films will, however, out-perform that combination for most purposes.

Kodak may beat the others in terms of grain but I've found the most pleasing of the high speed B&W films, in terms of tonal smoothness, is Ilford 3200 shot at 1000 and developed in Xtol 1:1 for 1600. I never liked the tones of Kodak 3200 at any speed I tried it.

Richard:

 

The Kodak film seems to have a very long toe, which can be good or bad depending on the circumstance. As a general-purpose outdoor film, this charactersitic is not that useful, but under harsh interior lighting it can be of definite value. I used the PMZ last night to photograph some indoor sports and it was quite successful. A previous attempt with the Ilford material was not as successful.

Thanks, Hans. Well, that makes perfect sense I used it for low light landscapes, scenes at dusk and such. Thanks.

Richard:

 

What did you not like about it in that context?

I'm a TX-Diafine user, and get good results from it in available darkness.

 

But no, there's no film speed increase. A Zone 1 test shows the film is still at EI400.

 

But since there's strong highlight compression, photos do not have the classical 'pushed' look. But no shadow detail, either.

Dear Hans,

 

Ilford's own tests find maximum true ISO speeds (in speed increasing developer such as Microphen) of 1000 for TMZ and 1250 for Delta 3200. They also find Delta to be larger grained: as they say, you can't have something for nothing. Of course results will differ in FX-39, but I am still slightly surprised at your finding TMZ to be faster.

 

Although I cannot do full ISO tests -- I do not have standardized light sources, for a start -- my *comparative* tests second their view that Delta is 1/3 stop faster. I much prefer the tonality of Delta, so I can live with the grain.

 

In my experience, Neopan 1600 is much slower -- maybe 650 or at best 800 -- and (once again) the finest grain. But at that point I prefer HP5 anyway: only 1/3 stop slower at most, and better tonality.

 

Do you have trouble with FX-39 going off quickly? How do you keep it after opening?

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Roger:

"Ilford's own tests find maximum true ISO speeds (in speed increasing developer such as Microphen) of 1000 for TMZ and 1250 for Delta 3200."

 

The Ilford film has clear areas where the Kodak film has density, when developed to similar contrast in FX-39. I have not yet made prints, but judging from a series of exposures from 1/2000 at f/8 to 1/60 at f/8, the difference was obvious. The Kodak film has more latitude as well. Both the heaviest and lightest exposures had more detail.

 

"They also find Delta to be larger grained: as they say, you can't have something for nothing. Of course results will differ in FX-39, but I am still slightly surprised at your finding TMZ to be faster."

 

I am surprised as well. The results are unambiguous, however.

 

"Although I cannot do full ISO tests -- I do not have standardized light sources, for a start -- my *comparative* tests second their view that Delta is 1/3 stop faster. I much prefer the tonality of Delta, so I can live with the grain."

 

I have not printed them, but the Kodak has a long toe that may present a peculiar look under outdoor conditions, but under harsh light it excels.

 

"In my experience, Neopan 1600 is much slower -- maybe 650 or at best 800 -- and (once again) the finest grain. But at that point I prefer HP5 anyway: only 1/3 stop slower at most, and better tonality."

 

My testing has shown the difference between Neopan 1600 and Delta 3200 to be almost non-existent, perhaps at most 1/3 stop. I have found about 1 stop difference between HP5+ and Neopan 1600, which makes the latter quite useful for outdoor work, where TMZ would look a bit peculiar. The Neopan has a curve much more like Tri-X, which would make it far less useful for indoor sport work, where I think the TMZ would be the first choice, by a wide margin.

 

As in all things, there are trade-offs, but I cannot see the advantages of Delta 3200 for any of my work. It is neither the fastest nor the finest-grained. I can see myself using either the TMZ or the Neopan, depending on the nature of the work to be done. Since the Neopan is MUCH finer-grained than the Delta, and only about 1/3 stop slower, I can see no reason to use the Delta.

 

Here's how I rate them:

 

HP5+. EI 250-320 Grain: extremely fine

 

Neopan 1600. EI 650-800 Grain: very fine

 

Delta 3200. EI 800-1000 Grain: medium fine-coarse

 

TMZ P3200. EI 1000-1250 Grain: medium fine

 

 

"Do you have trouble with FX-39 going off quickly? How do you keep it after opening?"

 

No, it seems to be more robust than Acutol. I refrigerate it after opening. It works faster than Acutol, by about 15%.

 

Hans Beckert

Dear Hans,

 

Thank you very much for your reply - clear proof of alchemy perhaps! Of course Ilford has a financial interest in presenting its products under the best light but I have to say that reasonably diligent tests at a constant G-bar (insofar as I can determine it) of about 0.62 give me a higher speed for the Ilford material -- which is a LOT faster than Fuji Neopan 1600 on my figures (about 1/2 to 2/3 stop).

 

I have often used both TMZ and Delta 3200 under extremely harsh lighting and my opinion is the exact opposite of yours on tonality -- but equally, I do not use FX39 with either. And with Neopan, I have yet to be happy at all. What works for one does not necessarily work for another!

 

Thank you also for your notes on FX-39. I shall consider refrigerating it, and perhaps also using Tetenal Protectan.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Roger Hicks , dec 23, 2003; 03:19 p.m.

Dear Hans,

"...I have to say that reasonably diligent tests at a constant G-bar (insofar as I can determine it) of about 0.62 give me a higher speed for the Ilford material -- which is a LOT faster than Fuji Neopan 1600 on my figures (about 1/2 to 2/3 stop)."

 

I develop for a condenser enlarger, to a lower contrast (probably G-bar 0.45-0.55), and that may be a factor. At these times, the inherent sensitivity of the film is much more of a factor, and perhaps Ilford's film is really intended for 'pushing', because it certainly is slower at this contrast.

 

"I have often used both TMZ and Delta 3200 under extremely harsh lighting and my opinion is the exact opposite of yours on tonality -- but equally, I do not use FX39 with either. And with Neopan, I have yet to be happy at all. What works for one does not necessarily work for another!"

 

This is peculiar. The T-max film shows considerable compression in the shadows, whereas the other films have a steeper contrast in the shadows. Note the attached image, in which the shadow area (lower center, in the near part of the parking lot) shows a kind of soft, grey contrast, not a blank, detail-less void. This is of course of great value in photographing something like indoor sports with typically harsh overhead lighting. It really digs into the shadow areas.

 

I do not believe the developer is a factor in this. It should be neutral as far as tonal issues, especially since this developer is optimized for tabular grain films: a technology that these two films share. I did run some Delta 3200 through Acutol, and the speed seemed even lower, by about 1/2 stop.

 

"Thank you also for your notes on FX-39. I shall consider refrigerating it, and perhaps also using Tetenal Protectan."

 

What is that?

This shows how fine-grained the TMZ is. This is a section.

Protectan - propane + butane AKA expensive gas lighter refuel.

 

Use it sparingly - a 1~2 second swoosh inside the bottle, with a thin tip, and close immediatelly.

 

It's fairly safe, but flammable, so be careful.

Images

 

Delta 3200

 

1/1000 @ f/8

T-Max 3200

 

1/1000 @ f/8

Following up, I should add that the 1/1000 @ f/8 image on the T-max 3200 was usable, while the same exposure on the Delta was weak and thin in the shadows. That may not be visible in the scans. This exposure represents approximately EI 1000-1250.

 

From this trial, it appears that the Delta 3200 probably requires a solvent developer such as Microphen. FX-39 may not be best-suited to it. The Kodak material is fine-grained enough not to need it, and the results with FX-39 are impressive.

An image made using TMZ of boys playing lacrosse.

After some more trials, I have concluded that there is little or no practical difference in speed between these three films. All are within 1/3 stop of each other, at about 800, in FX-39 or Acutol.

 

The Ilford is much grainier than the others and should therefore be used only with a solvent developer, preferably of phenidone composition, such as Microphen. With acutance type developers, the grain is excessive.

 

Kodak TMZ is probably the most versatile, and can be developed with either acutance type or solvent type, as the grain is not excessive with FX-39.

 

The real surprise is Fuji Neopan 1600. It is noticeably finer-grained than either of the others, and responds well to Acutol at 1+14 dilution for about 7.5 minutes. FX-39 is too potent for this film, which has an inherently rapid development, creating high contrast all too easily. Acutol's compensating action is stronger than FX-39, which is an inherently contrastier developer.

 

So, my reccomendations are:

 

Finest grain: Neopan 1600. This film looks very good in Acutol, and just a bit grainier than HP5+.

 

Highest grain: Delta 3200

Most versatile: T-Max 3200

 

I would not use Delta 3200 in anything but a solvent developer unless very grainy results are desired.

 

The attached image was made at 1/1000 sec at f/8 on Neopan 1600, and developed in Acutol 1+14 for 7.5 minutes at 20C/68F.<div></div>

Here is the Neopan in a small section

Here is the Delta 3200 in a small section