120 Delta 3200

[max_barstow]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I normally work with Tri-X in Rodinal, in 35mm (so am not averse to a bit of grain!), and have just moved up to a Rollei; in MF, I'm thinking a 3200 speed film might give more acceptable results.</p>

<p>What I would like is advice about developing, so recommendation of developers and times etc. Images taken on Delta 3200 would be very nice if it all possible, specifying developing method. I'm used to high acutance, relatively grainy prints, and it would be nice to emulate something of the Tri-X with Rodinal 'look', if it all possible; how would the film go with Rodinal? I'm guessing badly, but I'm open to all suggestions.</p>

<p>Thanks, Max</p>

[max_barstow]

<p>One thing I forgot to mention/ask about, is pushing other, nominally slower speed films to EI1600 or higher; how does Tri-X do at 3200? Again, examples would be greatly appreciated.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>You'll get grain, but there's not much character to the grain of Delta 3200. It will never be sharp or edgy like Tri-X or 2475 Recording. <br>

To get the "3200" speed, you want a speed enhancing developer, such as Ilford DD-X or Microphen. Even then, if you expose at EI 3200, use Ilford's EI 6400 times, or the negatives will be very thin.</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>I've never pushed another film but the few times I tried Ilford 3200 film pretty much match what John says. Not much character. It was as if you had an image, then put a noise layer on top of it. The noise wasn't tied to the image at all and was independent of light or shadow. Not what I was after at all.</p>

[max_barstow]

<p>So what about Tri-X at 3200?</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I have some Tri-X MF pushed in Acufine to 1600 in my files but after looking at them I tell you even enlarged the grain in minimal. I will see about pushing some higher but if you want sharp gritty grain with MF you may need to enlarge a smaller portion of the negative.</p>

[max_barstow]

<p>I don't want grain particularly, just acutance and high-speed for bad lighting. And I never crop!</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>I regularly push Neopan 400 to 3200 with xtol. Here is an example from last week end.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4092/5000733571_15cb091e48_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This was at 7am and I find the higher exposure ratings help minimize the effects of shallow DOF.</p>

<p>I find Xtol pushes the best and gets the sharpest image possible. I post soak the film in a selenium bath (1:3) for 5 mins to boost the density by half a stop. I find neopan high enough in contrast to push fine, but I have had good success with TMY and HP5+. Unfortunately I only have 2 rolls of Neopan400 in MF left, so it's pretty much gone for me now.</p>

<p>I have tried the faster films and I just don't like them. Too much grain when compared the results I get otherwise.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Here's a close-up scan from Delta 3200. Scanner was a Nikon Coolscan IV, so the resolution is 2900 pixels/inch at the film.<br>

Perhaps the grain isn't that bad, really.</p>

<div></div>

[tim gray]

<p>Delta 3200 is about ISO 1000-1200. Tri-X is ISO 400. So you'll get about a stop to a stop and a half more in the shadows with the Delta 3200 compared to Tri-X at pretty much all exposure ratings.</p>

<p>I'd always take the faster film if you are pushing. Every little bit help.</p>

[max_barstow]

<p>Having done some more reading (and thinking) I reckon ISO1600 is the highest I'm likely to need. I've also decided to try out Xtol for EI400, at 1:1 dilution. Kodak say 8mins is good for this, but that sounds a tad low. Also, what about using xtol for developing at EI200 and 800? Does it push and pull well in this developer? Would I be better off trying something like Acufine or Microphen for EI800 and 1600? Thanks</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Ilford Delta 3200 is actually an ISO 1000 film. I have a roll waiting to be processed and I will be interested to see how it compares to some Delta 400 which I used at EI 800.</p>

<p>I think it will be similar.</p>

[chuck_pere]

<p>In my limited experience I have found that Delta 3200 seems to have a lower contrast highlight response. This helps very much in printing high contrast pictures. Low contrast pictures needed a higher grade paper to look right. </p>

[christopher_m]

<p>Grain is quite noticeable even at 1600, but not too distracting. <br>

120 Delta 3200 at ISO 1600 from a Rollei w/ Tessar. Developed in D-76:<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4061/4715423231_c12ff86e15.jpg" alt="" /></p>