Delta 3200 @ 1600

[david_love2]

<p>I just did a session with a model, shooting Delta 3200, rated at 1600 and 2:8...when it was all finished my camera showed f6:8. If that is true, then I underexposed by at least two stops...I can either develop in DDX as if I shot correctly, or, if I did actually shoot at 6:8, then the negs will be developed at two stop under...If I develop at times for 3200, then I am either under by one stop (if I actually shot at 6:8), or two stops over, if I actually shot at 2:8...so if I develop at times for 1600, I will either be right on, or two stops underexposed...if I develop for times for 3200, then I will either be two stops over (if I shot at 2:8) or one stop under (if I shot at 6:8)..my question is.....is it better to underdevelop, or overdevelop delta 3200 in ddx...anxiously waiting your reply.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>You're in voodoo territory here, with this much miscalculation and underexposure. I'd be less concerned with how many stops, etc., and concentrate more on the exposure conditions.</p>

<p>What was the lighting like in terms of dynamic range? Contrasty, flat or somewhere between?</p>

<p>What about the subject contrast range? What was the model wearing - light or dark? What about the model's skin tone - light or dark?</p>

<p>How will the photos be reproduced? For web use only? Scanning and digitally printed? Conventional darkroom optical enlargements?</p>

<p>This is a compromise no matter how you approach it. With some films I'd suggest avoiding going overboard with extended development. But Delta 3200 is a low contrast film that's very forgiving of high contrast lighting, subject matter and extended development.</p>

<p>I'd suggest developing it as if it were rated EI 3200. I don't use DDX so you'll need to figure that out for yourself. In Microphen stock solution I'd develop for 10-12 minutes. That's longer than the recommended time but because it tends to be a low contrast film a little extra development won't hurt anything in most cases. I would make an exception for extremely contrasty lighting, in which case 8-10 minutes would be more appropriate.</p>

<p>Finally, if this roll is of absolutely critical importance, <em>do not develop it yet</em>. Put it in the fridge or freezer - it'll keep for a few days before the latent image deteriorates. Get another roll of Delta 3200 and expose it identically - same "miscalculation" (this time, deliberately), same underexposure, same lighting, same subject contrast range. Process the test roll and evaluate it before committing to the important roll.</p>

<p>Do this soon because the latent image of badly underexposed film deteriorates rapidly - within a month the roll will suffer noticeable loss of latent image in whatever shadow detail might have been recorded.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Incidentally, <a href="http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=26"><strong>Ilford's website</strong></a> offers a useful discussion of push processing techniques and the reasons for considering lighting/subject contrast range in addition to the usual thinking in terms of the number of stops of underexposure and compensatory extended development. This factor is often overlooked in discussions about push processing.</p>

<p>This is possibly the main reason you'll see widely and wildly divergent recommendations for push processing. Unless you know the lighting conditions (sunny daylight, overcast daylight, nighttime under moonlight, nightclub or stage lighting) and subject contrast (dark skin in white dress, light skin in black turtleneck, etc.), my suggestions or those of anyone else might not help with your specific situation. What works for one person suggesting, say, stand processing in Rodinal at 1+200 for two hours, may work only within a limited context - for example, if the film wasn't badly underexposed (also taking reciprocity into account) but scene lighting was extremely contrasty.</p>

<p>Same goes for the reproduction techniques. A good scanner can handle thin negatives more gracefully than most optical enlarging techniques; and vice versa. There are some situations where conventional darkroom optical enlargements from a skilled tech can produce better results than most scanners, especially with extremely contrasty negatives and blocked up highlights.</p>

 

[bgelfand]

<p>This is not an answer to your question, but a question about your question.<br>

When you wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Delta 3200, rated at 1600 and 2:8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What does the 2:8 mean?</p>