Delta3200 vs. TMZ

[ed_farmer]

I used to shoot TMZ at ISO 25,000 for portraits. It was limiting because it only came in 35mm. Has anyone had any luck doing the same with Delta3200? I would like to try in 6x7 to make larger prints.

 

Thanks,

 

Ed

[glen_h]

I have some TMZ, but it is old and not so good anymore.

 

Ilford has times for Delta 3200 at 25000 in DD-X and Microphen.

 

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/200613019405339.pdf

[Dave Luttmann]

Love to see your results Ed.

[Wouter Willemse]

I used Delta 3200 at ISO12000 (35mm film) some time ago for some night-time events, developed in Microphen. I was very pleasantly suprised. I cannot compare to the Kodak film, as I never used that.

 

I know the image doesn't look great, I rather post it for the grain (which certainly is visible, but in my view not ugly) and the tonality, where I expected worse for something shot at ISO12000. So, shooting it in a larger format one stop faster, I think it could work quite well.

Edited March 30, 2017 by Wouter Willemse

[john_stockdale2]

Using very fast film with medium format brings up some compromises.

 

If you need some depth of field, MF gives you less at the same aperture, or put another way, you need a smaller aperture to get the same DoF. Your MF lens are probably of smaller aperture anyway. Smaller aperture leads to slower shutter speed of course.

 

I have tried it once, but not pushing in the way the OP is considering. I had been taking photos of my kids with 35mm 400 speed film pushed a bit in Microphen at a wide aperture (f/1.4). I then tried Delta3200 in 120 size at a little under box speed (actual real speed is lower than box speed as you know) and the results ended up much the same (aperture f/2.8). Contrast was lower which suited me but the extra grain negated the larger format in my case. I didn't persevere. I admit that I had very good 35mm gear and I had a lot of experience with 35mm developing and printing.

[glen_h]

I suspect that this is most often true. If you are not limited by lens quality, but by depth of field, subject motion, and grain, you have more light with a smaller format camera. If you then use an appropriately slower film, the smaller grain makes up for the increased enlargement needed. An argument like that, might have led Kodak to the Disc camera with an 8mm x 10mm frame size. That assumes one can make or buy the appropriate film, though.

[john_dey]

In the 90's I used to shoot Delta 3200 with a Hasselblad. Not a very smart thing to do. The problem with low light is that it's often no light. This image was taken in very low light, I can't even estimate the ISO but its lower than 3200. Although this is a medium format image the grain is very noticeable. The negative was very thin. I just set the camera for f2.8 and 1/60 of a second. If I were shooting 35mm I could have a little more room with f1.4 and 1/30.

Marilyn&Steve 1999

[glen_h]

Yes, and the other problem with low light, is that often enough there is enough for the meter to register, but not for the actual subject. Light sources within the frame will easily do this.

 

By the way, is there supposed to be a picture to go along with the previous post?

[allancobb]

TMZ was offered only in 35mm while Delta 3200 was and still is offered in 35mm and 120. Since TMZ was (unfortunately) discontinued in 2012, it is becoming more and more scarce and expensive in the auction market. It is also quickly becoming more unusable since, because of its high sensitivity, is susceptible to fog due to prevailing cosmic radiation.

 

I'm just now starting to use Delta 3200 since my supply of 2014-expired TMZ is nearly gone. Even that supply now shows moderate fog when processed in HC-110 which has good inherent anti-fog characteristics without adding additional anti-fog agents. I have even some older TMZ dating back to 2002, which unfortunately is pretty much unusable.

 

I always thought of TMZ as magical with its gritty, moody presentation. Time will tell as I use Delta 3200 more and more if it favorably compares to TMZ.

[leo_tam1]

Allancobb - please let us know how they compare - I wasted so much of my tmz stash trying to learn the film (focusing in the dark was another skill I needed to improve on)

[ed_farmer]

Just a snapshot of an image that has been hanging around n my home for over 20 years. This is my wife, before we were married, shot on TMZ@25,000 with a Nikon 8008 body and I have no idea what lens was used. The print was made on a warm time paper from Adorana and processed in Dektol. The negative is extremely thin and require a VERY short exposure.

[glen_h]

Pretty nice. Yes, it is amazing when you can get a print from something you can't see on the negative.

 

Papers are fast today, so short exposure is usual. But with an appropriate variable contrast filter, it should be a little longer.

[ben_hutcherson]

Pretty nice. Yes, it is amazing when you can get a print from something you can't see on the negative.

 

Papers are fast today, so short exposure is usual. But with an appropriate variable contrast filter, it should be a little longer.

 

I have finally managed to dial in an 8x10 on Ilford RC VC paper that I need to print in volume. It's what I'd call a "normal" negative but I'm cropping it down a decent amount from 6x6(I think it projects to about 16x16 on the base board). At f/11 on a 75mm lens, I have it up to a 6 second exposure...

 

Suffice to say that I'm surprised at how fast this particular paper is. When I started 4x5, I tried shooting paper, but I had a terrible time nailing the exposure.