Delta 3200 & 6400 in ID-11?

Hi,
I shot my team dinner with a ricoh point and shoot on delta 3200 at 6400. I have ID-11 which I usually use for HP5+ and Tri-X. Is ID -11 going to work well for this film pushed to 6400?
I searched online and found a few people saying that developing according to box instructions yields very thin negatives. Does anybody have experience with this developer and that film? Any recommendations?

Do a search for the real sensitivity of Delta 3200; probably 1000-1250. You are looking at a 2+ stop push. ID-11 (despite all its qualities) is not the best developer for that. Do not expect detailed shadows. Hopefully someone will advise.

All you're really doing is lopping off at least two stops of shadow density, then overdeveloping to get sufficient printing density in what remains.
If that's the look you want, fine. I personally rate this film at 800.

I've done it with D-76/ID-11 and XTOL.

The result was disappointing for the former. Quite good for the latter. Using D-76/ID-11, the results looked like it was clipped at both ends (highlight and shadow).

I typically use development parameter for one stop faster. Say if I exposed it at EI 3200, I develop it using timing for EI 6400. Otherwise, I'd end up with really thin negatives.

You can't shoot film at 3200 and 6400. I don't care what they say.

Buy a bottle of DDX or Kodak Tmax Developer. Delta 3200 looks like crap in D-76, which is the same as ID-11. It is beautiful in Tmax Developer.

Tom1956 said:

You can't shoot film at 3200 and 6400. I don't care what they say.

Click to expand...

Hi Tom

Well you can you just screw up the EI in the meter.

Pig to print as the shadows will be horrible.
All you can do is soup in a hot developer like Microphen then leave three minutes in a borax bath and then hope the impact of the shot carries the lack of quality.

Id rate at 1000 in Microphen.

Noel

When I use Delta 3200 I normally expose it at 1600 ISO and develop in Ilford DD-X according to 3200 ISO. This use to give me beautiful negatives with low to medium contrast. If you can get hold of DD-X developer, that is the best. Whatever you use , develop according to one stop more than the exposure, in your case ISO 12800. That may give high contrast, but it is still the best you can do. Good luck.

Karl-Gustaf

I shoot Ilford 3200 rated at 3200 developed in DDX 1:4 for 9:30 minutes. I like the look of this combination. I've have shot a lot of it but I agree that DDX or TMAX developer is the way to go. I'm going to have to give it a try rated at 1600 and see what it looks like.

What TMax developer tends to due is lift the toe a bit more, so you might salvage a little bit of what's left down there. You can also try it warm, but not over 75F or you might risk frilling the emulsion. You can also mix it more a little more concentrated, though I never actually tried
that with Delta 3200, so don't know what the grain effect will be like. I always shoot and develop this particular film for conspicuous grain anyway, but distinctly prefer silvery shadows with good gradation, not the effect of blanking them out. I use TMY400 for that kind of trick,
cause the cutoff is distinct and clean.

Tom1956 said:

You can't shoot film at 3200 and 6400. I don't care what they say.

Click to expand...

You most certainly can, AND you can get good results.

You do lose shadow density, but for many shots in the kind of lighting where you'd be doing this, that won't matter.

I don't have any experience with Delta 3200 in ID-11. I use T-Max developer with it which is excellent for pushing, and once my T-Max is gone will probably change to DD-X which is similar. For best results with this film develop for one stop more than you shot it at, thus develop per the instructions for EI 12500 since you shot it at 6400. That said, 6400 is a huge push for this film. I've done it successfully with TMZ but never tried it with D3200. This is TMZ at 6400 in T-Max developer (the color cast was done by printing this black and white negative on RA4 paper and filtering accordingly, not done digitally.) This was developed in T-Max developer per the instructions for EI 12,500:

SCACOURT by Roger Cole, on Flickr

Sure, the shadows are empty, but I still think the shot works.

Of course the OP was asking about D3200. These are Delta 3200 shot at 3200, metered with a Goseen Luna Pro SBC (just an averaging reading of the scene) and developed in T-Max per instructions for 6400. Yashicamat 124G for both:





I would highly recommend using either T-Max developer, DD-X or Microphen especially for EI 6400, but if you really want to try ID11, the data sheet for this film says 17 minutes in stock ID11 at 68F for EI 12500. I'd go with that for negatives shot at 6400. Realize that you will be missing shadow detail, but midtones will print with enough contrast to look pretty good. Prints can look fine depending on whether that lost shadow detail matters much.

DREW WILEY said:

What TMax developer tends to due is lift the toe a bit more, so you might salvage a little bit of what's left down there. You can also try it warm, but not over 75F or you might risk frilling the emulsion. You can also mix it more a little more concentrated, though I never actually tried
that with Delta 3200, so don't know what the grain effect will be like. I always shoot and develop this particular film for conspicuous grain anyway, but distinctly prefer silvery shadows with good gradation, not the effect of blanking them out. I use TMY400 for that kind of trick,
cause the cutoff is distinct and clean.

Click to expand...

I routinely run all my black and white roll film except what I do in Diafine at 75F because I use a Jobo that has a heater but not a chiller. No problems with this or any other film. Ilford publishes a handy chart for temperature conversions and it seems to work well.

Nice shots and sound advice given Roger. The shot of the lady reading on the sofa suggests that even at 6400 enough shadow detail might be retained to prevent totally black shadows.

If I were the OP I'd go for TMax or DDX developer. It sounds like a series of negs that he and others will want to be as good as possible so any extra expense involved just has to be borne

pentaxuser

Sometimes it's just as fun being wrong. Nice pics.

D3200 is a great film, especially in 120. Grain is certainly there but it's more reminiscent of very old school Tri-X than anything, especially "down" at EI 1000-1250 or so. Results at 3200 are just incredible for the speed, grain still not bad, contrast doesn't even really look like highly pushed film. It's quite versatile being useful across such a wide speed range. About the only things bad about it (if you don't mind the grain) is that it doesn't keep well like most fast films and it costs a bit more than slower films (but not that much, and well worth it.)

It sorely tempts me to get that 80mm f/1.9 for my Mamiya 645 Pro that I've been eying since I bought the camera.

I'm a big fan of Delta 3200, I usually use it for dark interiors under ambient light rated at 3200. It does have quite high contrast, but the grain is lovely. I would suggest Microphen stock for 9 minutes at 20 C (Ilford's suggested time for this speed), pushed to 6400, the suggested time is 12 minutes. I'm sure you could get something out of it in ID-11, but if you already use ID-11 (as I do for HP5 and FP4), then mixing up a 1 litre batch of Microphen for this film is just as easy and could well be worth it.

The shot below was from Delta 3200 rated at box speed and developed in Microphen for 9 minutes at 20 C. 35 mm in a Nikon F3.

This one shows the tonal gradation a little better. Again, Delta 3200 rated at 3200 and developed in Microphen stock for 9 minutes at 20 degrees C. A scan from a 35mm neg.

I would use DDX if you want the smallest grain. Or xtol/microphen. ID-11 should work ok, so fuji super prodol. But you will have to figure out the times yourself, since I have not seen them published.

If delta 3200 was cheaper, I would try it in Fuji SPD. Since I love Neopan 400 in it. I wish it was easy to get outside of japan.

xtolsniffer said:

This one shows the tonal gradation a little better. Again, Delta 3200 rated at 3200 and developed in Microphen stock for 9 minutes at 20 degrees C. A scan from a 35mm neg.

Click to expand...

Are you wet printing or scanning the negatives?

I ask because I've always thought that both Kodak's recommendations for TMZ and Ilford's for D3200 were biased toward the thinnest usable negative in order to minimize grain. Such negatives work much better for scanning than for printing. I've just found, for my own purposes, my own methods, my own enlarger etc. that using the recommended times gives me a negative that is thinner and flatter (midtones and above) than I like and that I have to struggle a lot more to make a decent print than if I simply develop as if for one stop higher speed. Apparently I'm not the only one to reach this conclusion. I suspect the shorter times would work much better for scanning.

I wet print mostly, though just scan a few for online display. I generally don't have too much trouble printing, usually onto grade 3 in a diffusion enlarger, but I've just done a side by side comparison with my HP5 negs (in ID-11) and you're right, the Delta 3200 are a little thinner, not by much, a half a stop's worth perhaps. I might try giving the next batch a little longer in the soup and see how I get on!

xtolsniffer said:

This one shows the tonal gradation a little better.

Click to expand...

Looks very good for a 135 neg at 3200.

pentaxuser

Yes Microphen stock is the thing. I've been told it's even better at 21°C...

Better at 21C than what? 20C? Considering I run all my film at 75F which is 23.89C maybe it would be even better...but I like my T-Max and think DD-X will be as good.

Pat Erson said:

Yes Microphen stock is the thing. I've been told it's even better at 21°C...

Click to expand...

My temperature control is usually a bit off, as long as it's close to 20 I'm pleased. I take the temperature in the tank half way through development and adjust the time accordingly. I'm usually somewhere between 20 and 22, I can't say I've ever really noticed any difference, but perhaps I'm not very critical!

Interesting point about temp. I wonder what the scientific evidence is about temperature and negative quality. I had always understood that certainly between 20-25C it made no difference and even at higher temps any difference might come about as a result of an increased risk from heat damage to the negative.


pentaxuser