Pushed Tri-X vs. Pulled Delta 3200

[eric_reid]

Here's another film speed question: I'm shooting in a low/available

light jazz club. What will be the primary difference in look between

Tri-X pushed to 1600 vs. Delta 3200 pulled to 1600. Developing will

be done by a third party pro lab (not by me, so I can't get too deep

in to development time, solutions, etc). Thanks in advance for your

responses.

[mike dixon]

The Delta 3200 will have much, MUCH better shadow detail.

[al_kaplan1]

Regardless of what it says inside the film box Tri-x needs extra development at 800 and you're really just gaining highlight and middle tone density at 1600 with thextended development time. There's nothing left in the shadows to push. Delta 3200 and T-Max 3200 are okay at 1600. I'd do a test before shooting something important, but less than normal development might give you flat results. It's a good idea to do a test with any new film/developer combo. Also, ask your lab what their experience is with Delta 3200. They're the ones most likely going to have to print your negatives. I've gotten good advise from labs.

[nikolas]

Having tried both, I personally prefer Delta at 2000 (Developed in DD-X). I find it gives better shadow detail.

I love Tri-X, but usually shoot it at 320.

[paul_harris]

I have a fair amount of pictures taken with both those films at EI1600 and above. You can see some if you click my name below. I do my own processing, however. When I first pushed TX to 1600 I used D-76 and got extreme contrast, etc. Now I use Xtol 1+1 and I like the look of it. For Delta 3200 I have used Xtol up to EI 3200, but now use Microphen, stock, using John Hicks' times on unblinkingeye. com- up to EI 6400. You will just have to ask the folks at the lab what they do, and with a little experience, you can decide what you like. For me, having shot TX and Delta side by side in the 1600-2000 range, I feel the following: TX- finer grain, more contrast, weak shadows, but _with care_ you can get a surprising amount. Delta - better tonality, bigger grain. I don't worry too much about a really robust tonal range, but if you are getting "chalk and charcoal" with either one of these, something is wrong. Also remember that it ain't daylight in there! There is a long history of heavy pushing of B&W film under these conditions, and people are used to the look.

[psychophoto]

I've tried Delta 3200 and TMZ pulled to 1600 a number of times with different developers but I just haven't liked the results as much as what I get by pushing TX to 1600. With the kind of stuff shoot at EI 1600, I've generally found the lack of shadow detail to be a mostly moot point. And realistically, you've got enough shadow detail at EI 1600 to make it work. You'll have more information in your negatives with a faster film like Delta 3200 or TMZ at 1600, but for me this is outweighed by the tonality I get with TX at 1600. I just like the way it looks. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/909405">Here's</a> an example of a shot done with TX at 1600. Nikon F4 with 105/2.5 (sorry! I'm only a Leica-wannabe at this point!). But anyway, I develop for 16 minutes in HC-110 dilution B at 68F. I have yet to be disappointed by the results.

[scott_eaton]

I pretty much agree with everything Paul said.

 

I can get EI 1250 with Tri-X (classic) in Acufine, but that's as far as it goes. Grain and detail is amazingly good (better than any 1600 speed B/W film) and highlights OK, but shadow detail takes a pounding.

 

HP-5 pushes better than Tri-X in my experience and MUCH better than Tri-X pro.

[furcafe]

Why not try Fuji's Neopan 1600?

[will_wilson]

I love both films. Delta 3200 is definitely better in the shadows, but I just get more feel with TriX pushed to 1600. I find the TriX has a more distinct look with the 3200 having a more bland overall tone. But if you do your editing in Photoshop the 3200 is definitely the way to go, because it just seems to capture more information on film, and you end up with more options post shoot.

 

Feel free to check out my music folder for some examples. I shoot most of my concert stuff wide open at 1/60 with a Rolleiflex 2.8f. Keep in mind that some of those shots are heavily edited in PS or during printing.

[kajabbi]

I agree with Will. Pushing a film increases contrast but offers NO increase in shadow detail. Use Delta 3200 to begin with and increase the contrast in your computer/darkroom. The original negative will have the detail you need and you will be able to control the way you want the image presented.

[steve_wiley2]

Ultra-high speed films have actual ISOs of around 1000-1200. They are designed to be push processed without major gains in contrast. Most users report good results with these films when shot at EI 1600 because they are using the film at close to it's true ISO.

 

If you want to push Tri-X, try souping in a compensating dev such as XTOL a 1:2 or 1:3. Don't expect a gain in shadow detail past 2/3 to 1 stop, though. D76 straight is the classic push dev and probably what some of the great jazz shooters like Francis Wolff and William Claxton used.

 

Whichever film you decide to use, shoot a test roll and have the lab judge it before running the balance of your film.

[ed_berger]

I shot quite a bit of Delta 3200 pulled to 1600 with decent results but after trying Delta 400 pushed to 1600 (developed in XTOL 1:1) I never went back!

[andy_piper2]

I agree with about everything above - but need to add that Tri-X at 1600 will be SHARPER than TMax 3200, as well as having less grain.

 

When it comes to sharpness and grain, there is no subtstitute for starting out with smaller silver crystals (400) - when it comes to true film speed there is no substitute for starting out with BIG silver crystals. (3200)

[rick_koo]

Eric-

 

If there's any question about whether EI 1600 will be enough speed for the venue, then I think Delta 3200 would be the better choice. I've often pushed it to 6400 (I develop in XTOL 1+1 and print out to 5x7) and am quite happy with the results. Shadow detail obviously suffers and grain goes up with the push, but I don't find either objectionable and the tradeoff for a higher shutter speed is worthwhile to me.

 

Regards,