MF advantage with Delta 3200?

[nico_.]

After two rolls of Delta 3200@1600 in DD-X I have found not much

advantage compared to 35mm. The grain is of course a lot smaller

compared to 35mm but I didn't find the tonality to be much better.

Handling differences between MF and 35mm and faster lenses for the

latter (= use of slower film) make it hard for me to see a point in

further using this film in MF. I'm using a Mamiya 6 (slow lenses!) and

hardly ever enlarge more than 10x10. I would be interested in opinions

(and pictures) of others who have used this film in MF.

 

Thanks, Nico

[frankl]

I've shot a good bit of Delta 3200 @ EI 1600 (processed in d76 1:1), and i definately can see great tonality and more resolution than when I shoot this film in 35mm. I took this shot a while ago with my Rolleiflex, and in my 10x10 print you can even see the dust on the floor! I wouldn't say the scan does the print justice, as usual. <P>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=811648&size=md"><p>

<i>Osgoode Hall, oldest building in Toronto</i></center>

[trooper]

I recently tried a roll in an RF645. I had forgotten that I had some in the freezer and decided to give it a try w/Diafine as I had just read of someone's positive experience with the combo. I don't tend to use much high speed film and am a bit uncertain of things when I'm using T grain films in general. I was pleasantly surprised at the easily printed negatives that I ended up with (I did 8 X 10's) and the decent grain structure. I shot at 2400 and it was quite liberating to shoot at some of the apertures and shutter speeds that this sort of speed allows. I'll feel confident to use the same combination when I need the speed in the future.

[lex_jenkins]

It's true that if we don't print larger than 8x10 or so there's little advantage to medium format.

 

I don't usually try to use my MF gear in the same way as I do my 35mm. With the latter I do a lot of casual photography using fast film and push processing. With MF I take my time, usually work from a tripod and prefer slow, fine grain film. So naturally I usually see major differences between an 8x8 from my MF negs and an 8x10 from my 35mm negs.

 

Recently, tho', I've been experimenting with faster films in MF and, like you, have noticed little advantage over 35mm in moderate enlargements.

 

However last week I did some theatre photography in 35mm and can see a definite advantage that MF might have had. I need to print big, at least 11x14, preferably larger, to open up detail in the darker recesses of a complex stage area. Makes me wonder whether I should reconsider my approach to theatre photography.

 

FWIW, the main advantage I see to using Delta 3200 for really difficult lighting situations is the film's low to moderate contrast. Helps keep everything in check. The tricky bit is restoring some snap to the images in print, otherwise the film can look flat and lifeless. I often prefer to push a 400 film to 1600 and use a compensating developer to keep contrast in check. The negs are already snappy so there's often less work needed during printing, tho' shadow detail is often lost. It's a compromise I'm usually willing to accept.

 

BTW, Ed Buffaloe has posted some info about using Delta 3200 in MF on his website, unblinkingeye.com. He's a real darkroom wizard - lots of valuable info there.

[nico_.]

Thanks to everyone for the responses so far. I do love Delta 3200@1600 developed in DD-X in 35mm. After seeing benefit of the large negative with other films it seems I expected too much from the 120 version. Although I do love the grain in 35mm I suppose I'm spoiled by XP2 in 120. I had hoped for a more "textury" and smooth feel like XP2 gives. But of course these two films are worlds apart... Part of my dissapointment probably comes from attempting to do low light shots just the way I do with my Nikon. The Mamiya 6 is just such a handholdable camera ;-)

[lex_jenkins]

Nico, you might also consider trying another developer with Delta 3200. I recently got some excellent results from it in Diafine at EI 1600. It was a gamble because there was no existing data that I could fine for Delta 3200 in Diafine. But it worked out quite well. Good shadow detail, nice tonality, moderate contrast but not flat. Of course the tricky part is finding Diafine, since some mail order outfits like B&H won't ship it. I have to order it through a local dealer.

 

My previous efforts with Delta 3200 were in ID-11 at various exposure indices and dilutions, but all were flat and lifeless.

 

While DD-X is a speed developer it may not necessarily be the best chemistry for Delta 3200, at least when exposed at or near its true speed (considered to be around EI 1200).

 

Anyway, I'm encouraged enough by my recent results in Diafine to try Delta 3200 in 120, something I'd never have considered before.

[eric friedemann]

It is an interesting observation. I found that I would rather shoot XP-2 @ E.I. 200 in a Nikon with a 28mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.4 than shoot a Mamiya 7II with a 65mm f/4.0 or 150mm f/4.5 and have to jack the E.I. up on Delta 3200 120.

 

That having been said, it is kinda cool to shoot the MF 3200 @ E.I. 1600 and develop at E.I. 3200. You get amazingly sharp details with bigish grain.

[jay_.]

You can't milk much more tonal range out of Delta 3200 in MF, but as you say, the grain--probably the most annoying characteristic--is much less evident in prints.

[nico_.]

Thanks for the hint Lex. It seems though Diafine is not being sold in Europe and shipping from the US too expensive. As I wrote before, I have had some beautiful negs from 35mm Delta 3200 at 1600 in DD-X so I hoped for something similar in 120. After all I still consider myself a beginner in B/W film development since XP2 is so handy and versatile. For the time being I don't want to confuse myself with too many films and developers. Gotta keep on trying to make it work...

[john_sparks1]

I had about given up on Delta 3200 until I tried it in Tmax RS developer. The grain is much smaller than DD-X or Microphen (the most commonly recommended developers fro Delta 3200) and the highlights have more contrast. I had previously found Delta 3200 to have dull, lifeless highlights. I exposed it at E.I. 1600.

[christian deichert]

"After two rolls of Delta 3200@1600 in DD-X I have found not much advantage compared to 35mm. The grain is of course a lot smaller compared to 35mm but I didn't find the tonality to be much better."

 

I guess I must be missing something. Why would the same emulsion have a different tonal range if the only difference is changing the size of the negative from 24x36mm to 54x54mm?

 

Anyway, I love using 3200 in 120, rated at 3200 or even at 6400. I recently enlarged a portrait crop of a photo I shot with 120 Delta rated at 3200 to 16x20 and was very pleased with the results. So was the friend who asked for the print. The grain was noticeable, but that was part of the effect I was going for.

[Jochen_S]

Ienlarged some Delta 3200 Negs from my FED and was disapointed by the grain, so I believe its a good thing to use 75 1:3,5 and 120 1:2,8 on MF with this film.

Of course it always depends on which camera systems one has, but I like MF negs a lot, because I can check them without a loupe, so I will go on shooting Delta 3200 120. By the way I never understood why there is no TMZ 120...

[nico_.]

I never understood why there is no 120 version of Neopan 1600...

[andre_noble4]

Frank Lemire:

 

I like your border on your 6x6 proportion print above. What kind of negative carrier did you use? Did you take a standard one and file it out a little or do something else?

[frankl]

Andre,

 

I use a beseler 23c enlarger, and the border is from grinding out the 6x6 negative carrier an extra 1/8th of an inch or so.

 

I've been using a lot of delta 3200 in my Rolleiflex since the grain is quite pleasing in such a big negative, and I get lots of tonality.

[upe_vantonni1]

i know this is an old post but i wanted to add my 2 cents. I have a bronica 645 and i

like to hand hold using the prism-viewfinder. this film allows me to use my slower

lenses (esp the big 110-220 zoom 4.8) and shoot lower light interiors. it then gives

me a nice lrg negative and a great scan.