Best low light B+W 35mm film for people recommend.....

pentaxuser · Feb 22, 2018

MattKing said:
Delta 3200 is designed to have lower contrast than normal. So while the ISO speed may be 1000, when you "push" it (under-expose it at EIs of 1600 or 3200 and over-develop it) the result may actually yield better mid-tone and highlight rendition than when it is used at its ISO speed.

It is this part of your quote that has reminded me about an important point about development which I found to be the case with DDX . The Ilford times are too short and it is worth developing for the time shown for the next speed i.e. if you have exposed at 1600 then develop for the time given for 3200.

I cannot state the above for other developers but I would think it is worth erring on the over-development side for most of the usual developers that are used for D3200.

I note that Ilford itself gives 6.5 mins for 1600 for Xtol stock which seems very short to me. I haven't got the conversion factor for 1+1 but unless the conversion factor in much greater than 100% i.e. doubling of time this still gives only 13 mins.

I have had success with the time listed by J Hick's in Unblinkingeye for Xtol at both 1250 and 1600 which converting for the increase in time for 68F v 75F results in about 19 mins and 21.5 mins for 1+1 for these two speeds. These time are over 3 times greater than Ilford's time for Xtol stock.

This all adds substance to increasing development times appreciably.

pentaxuser

faberryman · Feb 22, 2018

MattKing said:
Delta 3200 is designed to have lower contrast than normal. So while the ISO speed may be 1000, when you "push" it (under-expose it at EIs of 1600 or 3200 and over-develop it) the result may actually yield better mid-tone and highlight rendition than when it is used at its ISO speed. As for rendition and detail in the shadows, it will probably be better when shot at 1000. So choose your goal, and set your meter accordingly.

I would think you would just want to shoot and ISO 1000 and develop longer than suggested, so that you both retained shadow detail and got better mid-tone and highlight rendition.

tomfrh · Feb 22, 2018

pentaxuser said:
The Ilford times are too short

Badly so.

Svenedin · Feb 22, 2018

pentaxuser said:
It is this part of your quote that has reminded me about an important point about development which I found to be the case with DDX . The Ilford times are too short and it is worth developing for the time shown for the next speed i.e. if you have exposed at 1600 then develop for the time given for 3200.

I cannot state the above for other developers but I would think it is worth erring on the over-development side for most of the usual developers that are used for D3200.

I note that Ilford itself gives 6.5 mins for 1600 for Xtol stock which seems very short to me. I haven't got the conversion factor for 1+1 but unless the conversion factor in much greater than 100% i.e. doubling of time this still gives only 13 mins.

I have had success with the time listed by J Hick's in Unblinkingeye for Xtol at both 1250 and 1600 which converting for the increase in time for 68F v 75F results in about 19 mins and 21.5 mins for 1+1 for these two speeds. These time are over 3 times greater than Ilford's time for Xtol stock.

This all adds substance to increasing development times appreciably.

pentaxuser

I used the Ilford time for DD-X for EI 12,500 and it worked. The negatives looked worryingly thin but surprised me by printing easily. Next time I'll try the maximum speed Ilford suggest (25,000).

MattKing · Feb 22, 2018

faberryman said:
I would think you would just want to shoot and ISO 1000 and develop longer than suggested, so that you both retained shadow detail and got better mid-tone and highlight rendition.

If you increase the development for a film that has received full exposure, the mid-tones and highlights increase in density. That increase in density may or may not improve tonal rendition for those areas - depends on the film and developer.
Blown out highlights and compressed mid-tones are quite possible - and they will have a much greater negative effect on the appearance of most prints than a moderate amount of loss of shadow detail.
When it comes to prints, our perception of quality is very sensitive to the appearance of mid-tones and highlights. Shadows are not so important to that perception.

Colin Corneau · Feb 22, 2018

MattKing said:
Delta 3200 is designed to have lower contrast than normal. So while the ISO speed may be 1000, when you "push" it (under-expose it at EIs of 1600 or 3200 and over-develop it) the result may actually yield better mid-tone and highlight rendition than when it is used at its ISO speed.
As for rendition and detail in the shadows, it will probably be better when shot at 1000.
So choose your goal, and set your meter accordingly.

This is what I was going to post, and it's been my experience when using this film, also.
It's deliberately made lower contrast to compensate for effects when 'pushed'. Personally, it's been 50/50 for me, but under the right conditions I think it's a solid choice.

pentaxuser · Feb 23, 2018

sperera said:
......have a pro gig shooting people coming up where I have to shoot low light black and white 35mm....what you recommend....straight up Ilford delta 3200 at box speed or another film pushed...thoughts very welcome

I am sure it will not have escaped your attention but as of today there will be another low light film available from March this year, namely Kodak P3200. No indication as yet as to either when in March this will be or price in Europe.

pentaxuser

CMoore · Feb 25, 2018

pentaxuser said:
It is this part of your quote that has reminded me about an important point about development which I found to be the case with DDX . The Ilford times are too short and it is worth developing for the time shown for the next speed i.e. if you have exposed at 1600 then develop for the time given for 3200.

I cannot state the above for other developers but I would think it is worth erring on the over-development side for most of the usual developers that are used for D3200.

I note that Ilford itself gives 6.5 mins for 1600 for Xtol stock which seems very short to me. I haven't got the conversion factor for 1+1 but unless the conversion factor in much greater than 100% i.e. doubling of time this still gives only 13 mins.

I have had success with the time listed by J Hick's in Unblinkingeye for Xtol at both 1250 and 1600 which converting for the increase in time for 68F v 75F results in about 19 mins and 21.5 mins for 1+1 for these two speeds. These time are over 3 times greater than Ilford's time for Xtol stock.

This all adds substance to increasing development times appreciably.

pentaxuser

tomfrh said:
Badly so.

I have been wanting to ask this question for Two Years.

I am going to shoot some Night/Moon frames, and i was wondering about development times. Perhaps i should just shoot the same scene twice...at 1600 and 3200... then develop per Ilford, for 3200...and see what i think.?
I am using Ilford Multi Grade Developer.

I have Just One Box of Ilford 3200. It is stamped for Jan 2017...but it has been wrapped up in the refrigerator since i bought it in 2015.

Rudeofus · Feb 26, 2018

MattKing said:
If you increase the development for a film that has received full exposure, the mid-tones and highlights increase in density. That increase in density may or may not improve tonal rendition for those areas - depends on the film and developer.
Blown out highlights and compressed mid-tones are quite possible - and they will have a much greater negative effect on the appearance of most prints than a moderate amount of loss of shadow detail.

Look at Delta 3200 data sheet, its characteristic curves are not straight lines, and highlights will not blow out regardless of how hard you push this film.

Best low light B+W 35mm film for people recommend.....

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency