john_murphy1 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 I need a film for shooting at EI=3200 in medium format. HP5 doesn't look good beyond 1600, and TMZ isn't available in 120 format. This leaves me with Tri-X, but all of my prior experience has been with 320 TXP. I don't see data (development times) listed for this film at EI's above 1250. I've never tried plain Tri-X, but I will if it is the only one I can use. Opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pok_hon_wally_yu Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Ilford Delta 3200 has a true speed of about 800 but it is designed for pushing up to 12500. At 3200, I usually develop in D-76 for 13 minutes (instead of 10.5 minutes recommended by Ilford) @ 68F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pok_hon_wally_yu Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 and for Tri-X (new version), I have done that only on 35mm... You might try D-76 for 11 minutes or D-76 1+1 for 16 minutes @68F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_murphy1 Posted October 2, 2004 Author Share Posted October 2, 2004 Pok, Those times are for plain Tri-X or the Tri-X Pan 320? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 The true speed in ISO terms is probably closer to 1000-1200 than to 800. It's considered to have the highest true speed of the ultrafast b&w films, which include TMZ and Fuji's 1600. And in a speed enhancing developer like Diafine or Microphen I'd say the true speed of Delta 3200 is closer to 1600. So getting acceptable results from what is essentially a one-stop push is not unthinkable. Delta 3200 tends to be a rather low contrast and can actually benefit from the extended development usually associated with push processing. It will give the contrast a little more snap. And since the film is already fairly grainy the little extra grain will hardly be noticeable. For best speed enhancement - 3200 or faster - I'd use Microphen as straight stock solution, altho' the 1+1 dilution isn't bad. I don't care for the results from the 1+3 dilution at all. Diafine is a very simple way to get an honest 1600 from Delta 3200. No worries about time and temperature because Diafine isn't fussy about such details. The grain is a bit on the popcorn-fluffy side but won't be bad in medium format. I didn't find it objectionable in 8x10's from 35mm. Keep in mind that Diafine isn't a push developer in the sense that we usually think of one, tho': Its optimal performance is within a fairly narrow EI for each film. In the case of Tri-X, it's 1250-1600; with FP4+, it's 250; with Delta 3200, it's 1600. For Delta 3200 exposed at 3200 and developed in Diafine, the negatives begin to look a bit thin and lacking in shadow detail as well as lacking in the beefy midtones I usually expect from Diafine-developed negs. You might want to take a browse through my photo.net folders for some other examples of pushing various films in different ways. In some cases I like a pushed film that is technically "inferior" simply because I prefer the overall look in print. For example, I find that TMY (T-Max 400) pushes very well in Microphen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pok_hon_wally_yu Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 The time is for Tri-X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silent1 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 FWIW, 400TX is also available in 120 (though not in 220), and is surely the best prospect in the Kodak line for getting to EI 3200 in that format. You can get EI 1600 with almost normal contrast from Diafine, and never have to worry about thermometers or timers other than to ensure you give at least three minutes in each bath and the temperature is above about 65 F, but to go beyond that you'll want a phenidone based acutance developer that will let you extend development with a diluted working solution, and reduce agitation to control contrast. HC-110, my usual soup, isn't a good choice beyond EI 1600 with Tri-X, as it seems to have a "ceiling", so I'm going to point toward Lex's favorite, Microphen, or Acufine, designed by the same fellow who later created Diafine. Though honestly, you could probably get there with XTOL 1:1 or 1:3, even D-76 1:1, if you prefer Kodak chemicals. Aside from Delta 3200 (which *is* available in 120, if you don't dawdle -- I gather it's on the short list to get axed in Ilford's reorganization), 400TX is probably your best bet for getting EI 3200 in 120. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 At 3200 i only used ilford delta3200(in 120 format). Processing was commercial (i.e. not myself), but i know that they used agfa refinal. In agfa refinal, this film is listed as "iso1250".<br> I really liked the results for low light shots (i.e. high contrast situation), e.i.3200, see <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2446873&size=lg">here</a> an example. Typical exposure was 1/15 to 1/30 s at f/4. These also printed very well (the scan is from a print). Highlight details are kept excellent; shadows...are shadows:) and sharpness is more than enough (TLR, but handheld with neckstrap!).<br> On the same roll I had daylight shots which turned out more murky and grainy/lower contrast. These were exposed more like e.i.1250-1600. <p> I also tried delta3200 in 35mm format - the difference is day and night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now