Delta 3200 in Ilford DDX developer

[hans_beckert]

Ilford are not wrong. The Ilford development chart lists various EI speeds for Delta 3200 and the development times for them, from 200 to 12500. They do not claim that Delta 3200 is ISO 3200. Only the poor folks who believe that it is best at that speed are wrong. It certainly is not.

 

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/ilfotecd.pdf

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Hans,

 

Your Mileage Has Indeed Varied. On sensitometric tests (plotting curves) and practical usage I find Delta 3200 to be up to a stop faster than Neopan. Ilford claims a maximum ISO of around 1250 in Microphen, a fraction less in DD-X, and a fraction less again in Xtol (maybe 1000), but they still reckon it's at least 2/3 stop faster than Neopan 1600. They freely agree that Delta 3200 is the grainiest, but point out (entirely fairly in my view) that it is also the fastest.

 

As for the speed at which it is 'best', this must be a matter of opinion, but I'm perfectly happy at 2000 or so (at which Neopanm looks pretty sick, in my view) and if I want maximum speed I'll go faster -- and develop longer, in stronger DDX than you used. If you under-develop in weak developer for too short a time, no wonder you don't get the speed or the tonality. And you are under-developing, you know, by just about everyone else's criteria, including Ilford's, mine and several other members of the forum. The fact that you like your negatives better doesn't mean you are any more 'right' than Ilford. Why, after all, would Ilford deliberately give times and dilutions which give results that are in their opinion less than optimum?

 

If your tests indicate anything, it is that we all have different priorities: grain, speed, tonality, contrast. Neopan is the best film for you, but I vastly prefer Delta 3200. Isn't this what it's all about?

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[gareth_harper]

Ilford state the following,

 

 

The recommended meter setting for DELTA 3200 Professional is EI 3200/36, but good image qulaity can be obtained at meter settings from EI 400/27 to EI 6400/39.

 

It is particulary recommended for exposing in the range 1600 to 6400.

 

The foot speed is 1000asa.

 

The 3200asa figure is based on practical evaluation of film speed rather than foot speed.

 

In other words it's a film designed (despite it's "true speed") to be exposed as a 1600 - 6400 asa.

 

I'll stick to tri-x or Tmax400 when I need 400 or 800 asa.

[hans_beckert]

Gareth Harper , mar 11, 2004; 03:54 p.m.

 

 

"I'll stick to tri-x or Tmax400 when I need 400 or 800 asa."

 

If you need 800, you need a dfaster film than Tri-X. Tri-X is about 250.

 

What Ilford said makes no sense. The speed of the film is 1000 or so, not 3200. 'There's a sucker born every minute....'

[dave_redmann]

For the record, the September 2002 Ilford data sheet (available for viewing and download on Ilford's web site) says this about ISO speed: "DELTA 3200 Professional has an ISO speed rating of ISO 1000/31º (1000ASA, 31DIN) to daylight. The ISO speed rating was measured using ILFORD ID-11 developer at 20°C/68ºF with intermittent agitation in a spiral tank."

 

The same Ilford data sheet also says, "It is designed to be exposed at

EI 3200/36 and given extended development," and "The recommended meter setting for DELTA 3200 Professional is EI 3200/36, but good image quality can also be obtained at meter settings from EI 400/27 to EI 6400/39. . . . DELTA 3200 Professional is particularly recommended for exposing in the range EI 1600/33 to EI 6400/39. . . . It should be noted that the exposure index (EI) range recommended for DELTA 3200 Professional is based on a practical evaluation of film speed and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO standard."

 

The contrast-development time graph shows that if you consider "normal" contrast to be 0.62, then the time should be about 10:00 in DD-X 1+4 @ 68F/20C. That's very near the time they recommend for EI 3200 (9:30). Some people find that Ilford's recommended times are about one-half to one stop too short, so maybe normal contrast (by the 0.62 standard) would be for somewhere in the EI 1600 to EI 3200 range. That's based on what Ilford says. As usual, YMMV!

[hans_beckert]

'Normal' contrast is nowhere near 0.62. I use grade 3 paper and condensers, so my contrast index is likely around 0.42-0.45. Ilford use G-bar, which is a little higher number.

 

The point of my tests was to see which very fast film was best. I have made that determination.

[hans_beckert]

Roger:

 

I developed all of the films to the same contrast (it took several tries). The Ilford Delta 3200 is not faster than the Neopan, and in fact within tolerance for zero difference. I exposed them one after another on the same day, and made prints.

 

I have no doubt that the Ilford pushes better, but since I have no interest in raising contrast beyond normal, the films' performance at normal speed is all I am interested in.

 

The point is that DDX is not better than FX-39.

 

HB

[hans_beckert]

Roger:

 

Try Neopan 1600 in Acutol. You will be surprised. I will not.

[gareth_harper]

'There's a sucker born every minute....'

 

 

Really? Then tell me clever guy what works better at 3200 and 6400asa.

[hans_beckert]

Gareth:

 

Your question is unclear. What do you mean?

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Hans,

 

Sorry: 'Normal' contrast IS 0.62, to ISO standards. If you like very low-contrast negatives, because of your printing set-up, that's fine, but I don't think anyone else would call 0.45 'normal'. I normally go to 0.70 because of my printing set-up, and that's not 'normal' either, though I suspect more take my route than take yours.

 

You have set out to use Delta 3200 in a way that its manufacturers never intended; you flout ISO standards; you have grievously under-developed it in weak developer; and you say it's no good. I'd suggest that used as its manufacturers suggest, it's a very good film and faster (on any normal, meaningful test) than Neopan 1600.

 

No, I shan't try Neopan 1600 in Acupan, because I'm perfectly happy with Delta 3200 in DD-X. Anyone who is in the market for a fast film may follow your advice or mine -- that's really what this forum is about, sharing knowledge and experience -- but for me to switch to a film and developer I don't normally use would be a complete waste of time. I take pictures because I like pictures, not because I want to test films.

 

Incidentally, a British monthly recently did a survey of fast films and found that on their tests, Neopan 1600 was slower than HP5. This may be slightly anomalous -- most people who have done proper testing find them to be about the same, or that Neopan is at most 1/3 stop faster -- but otherwise their findings were broadly in line with mine, Ilford's and just about everyone else's: Delta 3200 and TMZ are quite a bit faster than Neopan 1600.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[._._z]

<i> You have set out to use Delta 3200 in a way that its manufacturers never intended; you

flout ISO standards; you have grievously under-developed it in weak developer; and you say

it's no good </i><p>

 

Roger, you seem surprised.

[hans_beckert]

Roger:

 

Dear Hans,

 

<i>Sorry: 'Normal' contrast IS 0.62, to ISO standards.</i><p>

 

Kodak recommends CI 0.56 for diffusion enlargers, and 0.45 for condensers.

 

<i> If you like very low-contrast negatives, because of your printing set-up, that's fine, but I don't think anyone else would call 0.45 'normal'. I normally go to 0.70 because of my printing set-up, and that's not 'normal' either, though I suspect more take my route than take yours.</i><p>

 

0.45 is normal for 35mm with condenser enlargers.<p>

 

<i>You have set out to use Delta 3200 in a way that its manufacturers never intended; you flout ISO standards; you have grievously under-developed it in weak developer; and you say it's no good. I'd suggest that used as its manufacturers suggest, it's a very good film and faster (on any normal, meaningful test) than Neopan 1600.</i><p>

 

Ilford's web site give a range from 400 to 12,500. I quote: "good image quality can also be obtained at meter settings from EI 400/27 to EI 6400/39."<p>

 

<i>No, I shan't try Neopan 1600 in Acupan, because I'm perfectly happy with Delta 3200 in DD-X. Anyone who is in the market for a fast film may follow your advice or mine -- that's really what this forum is about, sharing knowledge and experience -- but for me to switch to a film and developer I don't normally use would be a complete waste of time. I take pictures because I like pictures, not because I want to test films.</i><p>

 

In my testing, shown here, Neopan 1600 blows Delta 3200 away, and it was not even close. If you like moth-ball-sized grain, stick with the Delta 3200. When used at true normal speed, Neopan 1600 reaches about 650-800 in Acutol, whereas the Delta reaches about 800 in FX-39. The graininess differential is hardly worth <b>at most</b> 1/3 stop. If you want higher speed than the ISO 400 films provide, and the finest grain too, that product is Neopan 1600, hands down.<p>

 

<i>Incidentally, a British monthly recently did a survey of fast films and found that on their tests, Neopan 1600 was slower than HP5.This may be slightly anomalous -- most people who have done proper testing find them to be about the same, or that Neopan is at most 1/3 stop faster -- but otherwise their findings were broadly in line with mine, Ilford's and just about everyone else's: Delta 3200 and TMZ are quite a bit faster than Neopan 1600.</i> <p>

 

Utter nonsense. I tried these films in various developers at normal contrast using the same subjects. The results were as follows:

 

HP5 Plus: 320-400 in Acutol, 200 in Aculux-2

 

Delta 400: 320 in FX-39

 

TMZ: 800 in FX-39, 400 in Aculux-2

 

Delta 3200: 800 in FX-39 and DDX, 500 in Aculux-2

 

 

I posted the results here a couple of months ago.

[hans_beckert]

Roger:

 

Look at this again and tell me that you think the grain is acceptable. I do not. This Delta 3200 was exposed at 800 and developed in DDX 1+6 for 8 minutes @ 20C/68F.

[gareth_harper]

"Ilford's web site give a range from 400 to 12,500. I quote: "good image quality can also be obtained at meter settings from EI 400/27 to EI 6400/39.""

 

Hans put a sock in it and stop trying to miss-lead people here. You want to pick and choose what Ilford say. When they say something that suits your little home experiments you quote them. When they state something that doesn't tie up with your little experiments you state, I quote, "What Ilford said makes no sense."

 

Ilford as you know yourself state. The 3200asa figure is based on practical evaluation of film speed rather than foot speed. They also state. The recommended meter setting for DELTA 3200 Professional is EI 3200/36.

 

As for your attached Jpeg, you are clearly doing something far wrong to obtain this sort of mush. I've managed a couple of rather pleasing 12x16 inch fiber prints from Delta 3200 @ 3200, no problem.

 

Why not try the old rule of thumb. When using a new film for the first time follow the manufacturers instructions and use it as intended. Don't start of using it for what it's not intended for and come here moaning about it.

 

Meanwhile I can understand where Roger is comming from in his AP article the other week!

[__jon__]

As usual, Roger is making sense and Hans Beckert/Mike Scarpitti is doing his best to confuse newbies and create rancor with the rest that know more than he does. I think that old statement "ignorace and arrogance go hand in hand" is an accurate description.

 

Personally I'm loving Neopan 1600 @1600, next will be @ 3200. Just picked up a bottle of DD-X to give it a go. Any of you guys use DD-X in a rotary processor?

[dave_redmann]

Hans, one thing you wrote intrigued me: "Kodak recommends CI 0.56 for diffusion enlargers, and 0.45 for condensers." Can you give me a Kodak publication number and date/version, or a URL?

 

It was certainly my understanding, as Roger says, that 0.62 had pretty much been defined as standard. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of ISO 6:1993 or whichever is the applicable standard (I went to buy one, but they're about $35 from the ISO web site, and I decided I didn't want one that bad).

 

Also, again, I think you have to recognize that your "tests" are not applicable to a lot of us. By using grade 3 paper (when most say grade 2 is 'normal' contrast) and a condenser enlarger (the most contrasty light, other than maybe the uncommon point-source?) you are using a set-up that requires very flat negs for normal contrast prints. No?

[hans_beckert]

<i>Hans, one thing you wrote intrigued me: "Kodak recommends CI 0.56 for diffusion enlargers, and 0.45 for condensers." Can you give me a Kodak publication number and date/version, or a URL?</i><p>

 

It is in their Professional films book, which may not be in print anymore. Part of the confusion here is that Kodak's CI is a different value than Ilford's G-bar.<p>

 

Here is the word from Kodak:<p>

 

<i>"0.58 is the contrast-index aim for printing negatives with a diffusion enlarger; use 0.43 if you will print negatives with a condenser enlarger."</i> From:<p>

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z-133.pdf

<p>

<i>It was certainly my understanding, as Roger says, that 0.62 had pretty much been defined as standard. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of ISO 6:1993 or whichever is the applicable standard (I went to buy one, but they're about $35 from the ISO web site, and I decided I didn't want one that bad).</i><p>

 

Not according to the quote above.<p>

 

<i>Also, again, I think you have to recognize that your "tests" are not applicable to a lot of us. By using grade 3 paper (when most say grade 2 is 'normal' contrast) and a condenser enlarger (the most contrasty light, other than maybe the uncommon point-source?) you are using a set-up that requires very flat negs for normal contrast prints. No?</i><p>

 

No, according to long-accepted practice, grade 3 is better for smaller negatives. Here is Anchell and Troop page 143 (though this is not the only source): <p>

 

<i>Large format and 120 roll film negatives should usually be developed to print on grade 2 paper. 35mm negatives should usually be targeted for grade 3 paper. When in doubt it is better to have a slightly flat negative, and print it on a higher grade of paper.

For suggestions on agitation see chapter 4. </i><p>

 

This recommendation dates back to at least the 1930's.<p>

 

There was an album by Firesign Theatre entitled 'Everything You Know is Wrong'.

[mike dixon]

I'm with Dave. I usually use Delta 3200 at EI 3200, never below EI 2000, and sometimes as high as EI 6400. At EI 3200, the Delta has much nicer tonality than TMZ, and it doesn't block up the highlights like TMZ does under the conditions where I generally use it. The difference in grain is inconsequential--if fine grain were important for those images, neither film would be acceptable.<P>

Basing my film choice on tests conducted at speeds that are better covered by HP5+ seems pointless when I know that I can get better-looking and easier-to-print results with Delta 3200 in situations where I need the speed.<P>

<center>

<img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/noanders01.jpg"><br>

<i>it would have been impossible to pull highlight detail from TMZ in this shot</i><P>

<img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/nohug01.jpg"><br>

<i>at EI 800, I would have been shooting at about 1/2 second instead of 1/10 (handheld)</i></center><P>