3200 film: looking for example shots.

[joe tarrant]

Hi.

 

A UK photography magazine recently gave away a free Ilford film with a voucher for a 25%

discount on processing the film (or any other Ilford b/w film). I've had a roll of 3200

(35mm) in the cupboard which I bought on impulse a couple of months ago and this

seems like a good moment to try it out and have it processed cheaply. Previous posts say

3200's very grainy and I have seen some examples elsewhere on the site but it's hard to

get them in one place. I was hoping some kind people might be willing to share a few

shots and to give some ideas on which filters work best. Chances are I'll be shooting it on

an SLR, so I'll have some control and I have red and orange filters. Thanks to you all in

advance.

[stephen hazelton]

On graininess: You use this film mainly when nothing else will work, so you either live with the grain or don't take the shot. On the flip side, if you WANT grain, these are good choices.

 

Filters: In line with using this film when nothing else will work, you quite often use it when you need all the speed you can get, and so don't use any filters at all. If for some reason you're out in broad daylight with the stuff, pretty much the normal B&W filters will work (some sort of filter may be required to get shutter speed slow enough for your camera!)

 

Speed: Check into the processing and try to find out what film speed they recommend shooting at. If you can't get a good answer, I recommend bracketing shots to find out what's going on.

 

I've got one or two shots from Tmax 3200 in my portfolio- wouldn't call them good shots necessarily, certainly not a good testimonial to the film. (The one with drill team, maybe another.) I'd say since you already have the film, go shoot it and find out for yourself.

[gary evans]

Here's a link to most of a roll of Ilford 3200, shot at 3200, developed in Microphen at stock solution (about 4 months old) with 3 inversions per minute for 9 minutes. Forgive the dust as these were just quick scans to get them online to share with family. I think the grain is much more noticeable on the darker pictures, as has been my experience with 3200 in general.</p>

 

<a href="http://www.gjephotography.com/March-2006/index.htm">Here</a>

[pjmeade]

Hello Joe, which magazine is doing that offer?

 

I tried some 3200 slide film 25 years ago and liked it and regularly use 3200 on my 20D.

 

Cheers. Pete

[klix]

Ilford Delta 3200 developed in XTOL (stock) for 7min 45sec @ 68deg F.

I'm sure others have their own favoritse developers. I just happen to use XTOL for most things.

 

KL<div></div>

[mike dixon]

All are examples of 35mm Delta 3200 shot at EI 1600 or 3200 and developed in Xtol 1:2.<P>

<center><Img src="http://mikedixonphotography.net/kor3girls03.jpg"><P>

<Img src="http://mikedixonphotography.net/korclub02.jpg"><P>

<Img src="http://mikedixonphotography.net/korsnowphone01.jpg"><P>

<Img src="http://mikedixonphotography.net/sarahbw04.jpg"><P>

<Img src="http://mikedixonphotography.net/tootsies01.jpg"></center><P>

I didn't use color filters with any of them.

[larrydressler]

I understand the Ilford 3200 is a true speed 1600 where the Kodak 3200 is a true 800 speed am I correct.

 

I love to shoot some things with real grain so what Dev do you prefer to shoot the Ilford with? I sure miss the old Kodak 1000 recording film pushed in d-76 or Acufine. I wish Efke would make a true high speed film with their thick emmulsion.

 

Larry<div></div>

[joe tarrant]

Pete: the magazine in question is this week's Amateur Photographer (week beginning 8

April 2006) and the offer is only valid in the UK and Ireland. The film is stuck to the cover

and it's an Ilford Delta 400 (it's on the table in front of me!). Comes with an envelope

which details costs, etc. But I'm going to send them the 3200 instead and maybe I'll use

the Delta some other time. I've plenty of XP2 and I don't imagine Delta will look that

different. I'm not that fussy. Just a hobby for me.

 

A couple of you mention developing: I send everything off. Shock, horror, I know. I'm too

lazy. B&W processing here in the UK is usually a lot dearer than processing C41 in the

usual places, though - which is why I love XP2 - and Ilford's deal on free film and

processing it themselves was a nice offer. It may get them some extra business in the

coming months if they do a good job.

 

Thanks for the shots, everyone. Please keep 'em coming! :-)

[larrydressler]

Joe

 

Well if you don't care why should I. God bless the Queen I will home process my B&W.

 

Larry<div></div>

[roger krueger]

Larry: Delta 3200 and TMZ are capable of identical max pushed shadow speed from my

testing (which is not quite the same as saying they have the same true ISO speed, but

almost)

 

The main difference I found was that there are a lot of ways to screw up processing Delta

3200 and lose shadow speed, especially by losing detail into fog if it got warm. TMZ

conversely did just fine, even in a ridiculous 15min/90F stand torture--it had a little more

fog than at reasonable temperatures, but kept all the detail. The Delta I did that to came

out nearly solid, with only a trace of image..

[larrydressler]

Rodger what did you use to push them with?

 

 

Larry

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I develop Delta 3200 in DDX. Decent shadow detail at EI 1600. Not sure about the temp comment above as I develop at 68 degrees +/- 1 degree. Temperature is very easy to control.

[larrydressler]

I just loaded a camera with TMZ 3200P. I will shoot it at the full push speed of 3200 with d-76. I mostly shoot it at 1200 in Diafine. I will see how this Tube film relates to a real push.

 

Larry

[roger krueger]

I tried Acufine, Microphen, Speedibrews, T-Max RS, and dilute X-TOL. There was really

very little difference in max speed between the five--a win for the Speedibrews, by maybe

a 1/3 stop, but it's almost impossible to get in the U.S., it really dead seriously needs

continuous agitation, and gives a very thick base density.

 

The four non-Speedibrews developers gave nearly identical max shadow speed.

Acufine was next, but didn't provide much in terms of highlight control. T-Max-RS gave

truly dreadful blowouts to get its top speed. Microphen gave the best highlight control,

but at a slight cost in grain and acutance versus my favorite, stand development (25-30

minutes, initial agitation only) in 1:1 X-TOL. The X-TOLs highlight control, while

significantly worse than the Microphen, was considerably better than the rest. X-TOL 1:2

gave the same shadow speed with a little better highlight control, but then you're getting

into territory where you need more volume of developer than would be necessary to

merely immerse the film.

 

The 90F torture was in 1:1 X-TOL.

 

The only one of the five that I'd classify as a bad choice would be the T-Max, due to the

highlight issue.

 

For me, it partly comes down to laziness--fill it and leave it is much preferred to standing

there agitating. Stand development is also really hard to screw up--I once got distracted

and left the film in 45 minutes. Looked exactly like 30 minute film. Plus, I do sometimes

push 4x5--my cheapo 4x5 tank leaks horribly, inversions just ain't happening. And the X-

TOL did give the best grain and acutance, if not by much.

[andrew robertson]

The problem with shooting in such low light is that often the shadows are quite out of

range. Preflashing or other contrast reducing techniques (especially in the development

stage) can give you serious benefits, and I have rated 3200P at 16000+ for specialty low

light applications such as photographing active nocturnal animals without a flash.

[rjacksonphoto]

Fantastic shots, Mike!

[roger krueger]

Sorry, you asked for samples, didn't you? I usually shoot Delta 3200 on 6x9, don't do too

much high ISO 35mm anymore, but here's from a show last year where they wouldn't let

me bring in my big Canon but didn't notice I'd come back with a Zorki in my back pocket

and a lens taped to my leg :-)

<br><br>

All are 30 minutes stand in 1:1 XTOL, pretty sure it's TMZ, although there's an outside

chance it's Delta 3200 (negs are packed away) These are drum scanned, there'd probably

be more highlight blowout on a CCD scanner. Also, I'm pretty sure I ran Grain Surgery on

them, and there are several layers of Photoshop tonal adjustment.

<br><br>

I was just guessing exposure with the unmetered Zorki, but looking at the shadows I'd call

the first two about EI 3200, the last one at least 10,000, maybe more. All are pretty much

full frame vertically, but cropped left/right.

<br><br>

<img src="http://www.punktures.com/photonet/SSK-26.jpg">

<br><br>

<img src="http://www.punktures.com/photonet/SSK-18v.jpg">

<br><br>

<img src="http://www.punktures.com/photonet/SSK-12v.jpg">

[brian_faini]

http://www.americanphotomag.com/article.asp?section_id=1&article_id=3453&page_number=1

 

"Ilford Delta 3200 film rated at E.I. 1600. "The light situation in the stairwell is always low, so we were shooting at, like, 1/125 second if we had full sun,"