Delta 3200 and people on stage

Hi, this is my first post on the forum, so I will introduce myself first.
I live in Italy, 41, got into developing and printing at home since last year.
I shot mainly nature and people doing things.

Yesterday I have been shooting people performing on stage.
The medium I have selected is Delta 3200. After a bit of research, I have realised that I’d better ask for advice before going straight to the developing phase.

Equipment
I have used my Nikon FM mostly with 135mm, aperture set to 3.5 and shots mostly at 250. The light meter gave just enough lighting: the red "o" and "o-“ dots.
Did also a few shots with 35mm, f/2, lighting the “o” dot.
The film is ILFORD Delta 3200 exposed @3200.

The scene
Light was warm and spread through all the stage. No bulls-eye, no high-contrast situations on the scene.
The stage was narrow - about 4 meters large and 3 meters deep.

The images
Mainly single figures or double figures (actors), on a white background.

Desired result
My real expectation is that the negative is developed correctly - I have read through the forum that people often under-develop Ilford Delta 3200 if stick to the suggested developing times.
I would rather have a bit more contrast despite of a loss in tonal range.

What I need to know
What developer would you suggest based on your experience?
What are the developing times you have been using?

Thank you all for your help!

I develop Delta 3200 in DDX, ISO 1600, reminded time + 1 mint with good results.

I've not used a Nikon FM so I cannot be 100% sure how it meters scenes....but I would say that your only possibly concern is the white background. You might find that the background causes the actors to be a little under exposed. However, I would also think that any minor under exposure of the actors can be mitigated when you make prints.

I've shot a lot of rock concerts on Delta 3200 and with the rather harsh spotlights, I find that faces can be over exposed. The more even lighting with the white background will prevent this.

My advice....develop as normal in Microphen or ID 11 (Or D76) according to Ilford's instruction for exposure at 3200. As this is your first time using Delta 3200, see what happens and if you think that a different regime would be better next time. Remember you can change contrast with filters when you print on multigrade paper.

I worked for Catherine Ashmore in the 90's , we did all the processing and printing for her commissions with Live Entertainment which included stage shows in New York, LA and Toronto.
She would produce the black and white promotional prints , before the days of jpegs.

Ilford HPF rated at 800 , developed in Microphen.. worked very well for her assignments.

I preferred XP1 and later XP2 to HP5 which I used previously in ID-68 (Microphen) often pusjing to 1600. I push processed XP1 in C41 Ilford used to give push process times, these were dropped with XP2 because labs hadn't liked the non standard development times with XP1 in C41 chemistry and most C41 labs weren't geared up for push processing (talking about the average High street lab not Pro labs).

XP1/2 gave me better tonality and finer grain than HP5 when pushed, but it's a personal choice, however I was shooting concerts very regularly, a lot depends on the lighting though, in more recent years I've been able to work with lighting engineers to get the shots I've needed.

Ian

Agulliver said:

I've not used a Nikon FM so I cannot be 100% sure how it meters scenes....but I would say that your only possibly concern is the white background. You might find that the background causes the actors to be a little under exposed. However, I would also think that any minor under exposure of the actors can be mitigated when you make prints.

I've shot a lot of rock concerts on Delta 3200 and with the rather harsh spotlights, I find that faces can be over exposed. The more even lighting with the white background will prevent this.

My advice....develop as normal in Microphen or ID 11 (Or D76) according to Ilford's instruction for exposure at 3200. As this is your first time using Delta 3200, see what happens and if you think that a different regime would be better next time. Remember you can change contrast with filters when you print on multigrade paper.

Click to expand...

I agree with Agulliver and remember that the ISO forDelta 3200 is not 3200 but more like 1000-1600;so,normal development will give you lots of contrast.

Paul Howell said:

I develop Delta 3200 in DDX, ISO 1600, reminded time + 1 mint with good results.

Click to expand...

Thank you. So you would suggest developing at the reccommended time for @3200 + 1 minute? (In DDX)

Agulliver said:

I've not used a Nikon FM so I cannot be 100% sure how it meters scenes....but I would say that your only possibly concern is the white background. You might find that the background causes the actors to be a little under exposed. However, I would also think that any minor under exposure of the actors can be mitigated when you make prints.

I've shot a lot of rock concerts on Delta 3200 and with the rather harsh spotlights, I find that faces can be over exposed. The more even lighting with the white background will prevent this.

My advice....develop as normal in Microphen or ID 11 (Or D76) according to Ilford's instruction for exposure at 3200. As this is your first time using Delta 3200, see what happens and if you think that a different regime would be better next time. Remember you can change contrast with filters when you print on multigrade paper.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I have not mentioned in my post: this is my second time with Delta 3200.
I took some interior shots using a camera with no lighting meter, had to use a light meter whose batteries where probably off.
To make things worst, I have developed in Ilfosol3. Even though I used +30% of the reccommended developing time, I had extremely thin negs, with the exception of 2/3 shots, not suitable for printing.
Luckily I had been able to recover most images through digitalization.
Lessons learnt: no Ilfosol3 on Delta, make better research before experimenting.

Thank you all. So it seems that the way to go is using either Microphen/DX11/ID11/D76 at recommended developing times.
I will give it a try with Microphen and let you know.
Just the time to get it delivered, then I will post results.

Welcome to Photrio.
If your Delta 3200 photos are particularly valuable to you, you might consider getting another roll, expose it under similar conditions with your meter set to an EI of 3200 and then do a test development in your developer of choice. For even more information, you could cut the test film into two or three parts and develop each part for a different amount of time. The resulting negatives would tell you a lot - particularly if you print them.

MattKing said:

Welcome to Photrio.
If your Delta 3200 photos are particularly valuable to you, you might consider getting another roll, expose it under similar conditions with your meter set to an EI of 3200 and then do a test development in your developer of choice. For even more information, you could cut the test film into two or three parts and develop each part for a different amount of time. The resulting negatives would tell you a lot - particularly if you print them.

Click to expand...

Thank you Matt for the suggestion which I like.
In that roll I have shot around 30 out of 36 frames. As I don't have any other Delta 3200 at hand, what do you think if I:
1) Cut the film where it is now;
2) Unroll the film used and mount it in the tank;
3) Mount the remaining film in the camera.
Everything in complete darkness of course
I think that at this point I will have 2/3 shots left to test with.
I can then develop them in a small container (e.g. the black roll case) and see the result.
Will it work or is it better to wait and get a new Delta 3200 film?
Thanks

Since you asked for loads of contrast: watch out for the characteristic curve of Delta 3200. It is contrasty in the shadow regions, especially if you extend development time, but it will remain rather flat in the highlight regions. Prepare to print at grade 4+ if the highlight regions cover your main subject matter. Also, check whether the grain you'll get fits the subject matter you aim for: I have made the observation, that images with many small faces can turn out not all that great because of the grain. Fill the frame with main subject matter and you'll be fine. I second Matt's advice to try a test roll to see what you get and what you should aim your lens at during the actual shoot.

UgoF said:

1) Cut the film where it is now;
2) Unroll the film used and mount it in the tank;
3) Mount the remaining film in the camera.

Click to expand...

This is what I would do to check the most probable solution. You pay nothing for this so go for it. However if you are in doubt, or you are not satisfied, you have better wait, expose the full length of other roll, cut it to e.g. thirds and develop three different dev times or combination of developers.

I’ve used a lot of D3200 - ballet shows and births. DDX is the developer intended for this film. I would strongly recommend it. My preference was to shoot at 1600, develop for time recommended for 3200. As you have already shot this at 3200, I would develop at time recommended for 6400.

sly said:

I’ve used a lot of D3200 - ballet shows and births. DDX is the developer intended for this film. I would strongly recommend it. My preference was to shoot at 1600, develop for time recommended for 3200. As you have already shot this at 3200, I would develop at time recommended for 6400.

Click to expand...

Yes, done this, works well.

Hi, thank you all for your suggestions which led to good results.
I have finally gone with Microphen, not diluted (1+0), just as it is after the powder is mixed with water.
Being too impatient I have skipped the “test process” (shoot another roll, cut it in parts and try different developing times) and I went straight to development: 10 and a half minutes, which is half way between the dev time for exposure @3200 and @6400 (water at 20 C).
Negatives look good. A few of the frames are “thinner” than others, but I am pretty sure due to initial exposure: I have used a 135mm tele in most shots, and since I have shaky hands, have used 1/250 timing. I can remember the light meter staying on “o -“ or even full "-" in those shots.
The shots I have done with the 35mm (correctly exposed) are very good and with a satisfying tonal range, too.
Overall I am very satisfied with the results.
Next time I will go with DDX, just to appreciate the difference.
Will do prints in the weekend and post some pictures here after.