opinion on Ilford Delta 3200

[brambor]

I an attempt to get tmax 3200 I have somehow impulsed myself into Ilford Delta 3200. Could anyone please comment on this film and perhaps post some sample shots? I use hc110 for developing.

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

I think Delta 3200 and HC-110 are a great combo.<br>

I get some pretty decent results out of it. Here are some shots with it developed in HC-110. Shot on MF, though.

<br><br>

<img src="http://elaisted.com/ljprev/go-like-hell-4.jpg">

<br><br>

<img src="http://elaisted.com/ljprev/go-like-hell-2.jpg">

[brambor]

those look grand. I'd be happy to get similar results.

[feli]

I rate it at 1600 and develop it in DD-X. Looks a lot like Tri-X at 400. You could also use XTOL. Supposedly the true speed of this film is around 1200asa.

[ben z]

Sorry I don't have anything here to scan (staying with relatives halfway to Florida until after hurricane season) but I've used delta 3200 quite a little and have been reasonably happy with it. I used to use DDX but switched to Microphen because being a powder it stores easier for me. I rate it at the full 3200. Anything less and I'm inclined to shoot Fuji 1600 color neg and convert it to b&w in PS, it seems less grainy and contrasty.

[frederick_muller]

How does Delta 3200 compare to Neopan 1600? I picked up a roll of Neopan 1600 the other day and haven't had a chance to try it out yet. I had tried Delta 3200 previously, rated at 3200, and was pretty disappointed with the grain. I shouldn't have been surprised I guess, but I'd heard that it was finer grained than the old Kodak 2475 recording film I'd used a long time ago.

[btipton]

Delta 3200 is one of my favorite films. I usually shoot it at 1600 and develop it as though I shot it at 3200 to give its contrast a boost. It can be kind of flat otherwise. In the past I used straight D76 to develop but lately I've been using DDX. I've found Fuji Neopan 1600 to be very sharp but its contrast seems harder to control. If shooting in very flat lighting I like the Neopan and under very contrasty situations the Delta 3200 is my choice. (Most low light situations involves high contrast situations.)

Good luck!!

[frederick_muller]

Here's a shot from an experimental roll of Delta 3200. It's harsher and grainier than other examples I've seen posted here ...<div></div>

[kris]

Delta 3200 is an excellent film IMHO. I shot quite a lot of Delta 3200 but never try TMax 3200.

<p>

<a href=http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/4737/BW-LA-01.jpg>One</a>, <a href=http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/4737/BW-2005-05-18-R1-26.jpg>Two</a>,

<a href=http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/4737/BW-MI1-05.jpg>Three</a>,

<a href=http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/4737/BW-MD6-09.jpg>Four</a>,

<a href=http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/4738/BW-2005-05-18-R1-23.jpg>Five</a>

[Uhooru]

I usually shoot it at 1600 and like it very much.

[Rob F.]

I also find that 1600 is about the practical limit for Delta 3200. I haven't tried it yet in Microphen, but I have some on the shelf ready to mix pretty soon. I like it at 1250 in T-Max developer. I think its true speed is 1000, with anything higher being a push.

[feli]

Neopan 1600 has more contrast than Delta3200. Delta does a better job of holding on to shadow detail, at 1600 and up. Neopan's true speed is around 640asa.

 

feli

[magumi]

The above responses reflect my experience too - Delta 3200 is excellent at 1600, developed in Microphen or DD-X at times Ilford recommends for 3200. I prefer DD-X to Microphen. Watch out for underexposure with this film, even half a stop can enhance the grain. Of course, you can also do that intentionally.<div></div>

[magumi]

Grain (partially) off. Please note that the pictures look much grainier than in print, due to a bad scan, i.e. like a 18x24 cm or even 20x30 prints.<div></div>