Delta 3200 at EI3200 in D-76 or Xtol?

[M-88]

I know I'm asking a question about something that's been discussed zillions of times on here or anywhere else, but here we go again:

I'm planning to shoot Delta 3200 at EI3200. It's only my third roll of this film and first one that I'm about to push to 3200 (first two were shot at 1600). My only available chemicals are D-76 and Xtol. And here's the question: how do I develop the film so that I can get maximum detail from the shadows, without over-blowing the highlights? I know that stand developing is one way, but neither of my chems can do that. I've also read certain somewhere, that "if you decrease agitation to once in every 3 minutes and increase developing time by 50%", it can develop shadows better. BUT suggested mixture is 1+3 and I'm concerned: will it be enough for pushing the film by almost two stops?

So, any suggestion is appreciated and welcomed, except "go buy DD-X or Microphen", because I don't have those.

 

[MatthewDunn]

I'm planning to shoot Delta 3200 at EI3200. It's only my third roll of this film and first one that I'm about to push to 3200 (first two were shot at 1600).

I'm confused. You are shooting the film at its box speed recommended rating. Where is the push?

 

[M-88]

I'm confused. You are shooting the film at its box speed recommended rating. Where is the push?

Right. Here's an excerpt from datasheet:

Wouldn't that mean that shooting and developing it at EI3200 is already a push?

AFAIK same goes for Kodak P3200 - its sensitivity is at around 800.

 

[MatthewDunn]

Wouldn't that mean that shooting and developing it at EI3200 is already a push?

Given that the recommended meter setting is, in fact, 3200 (first sentence of your attachment), it doesn't seem like what I would think of as a push.

If it was me, I would probably opt to shoot it at 1600 and then develop using D-76 1:1 for the recommended time for 3200 using a standard Ilford agitation routine. The extra exposure should give more shadow detail and by following the recommended time (or perhaps even backing off a touch to compensate for the extra exposure given the shadows), I think you will preserve your highlights. Most importantly, if you run into issues, you will be using a procedure that is standard, known to lots of members here, etc.

I would personally avoid stand, etc. like the plague. That feels like a solution to a non-existent problem in this case, IMO.

 

[M-88]

If it was me, I would probably opt to shoot it at 1600 and then develop using D-76 1:1 for the recommended time for 3200 using a standard Ilford agitation routine

That's what I did with previous two rolls and they came out well, just a bit dark in the shadows. But this time I want to try exposing at EI3200.

 

[pentaxuser]

OP you are right that this is in fact pushing. Ilford 3200 does not have an officially tested speed of 3200, it is more likely 1000 or possibly 1250 at best in a speed increasing developer such as Microphen

It tends to be a low contrast film so when you have less worries about highlights getting blocked when you increase development time.

I have never tried it above the same speed as you have i.e. 1600 but at 3200 I'd be tempted to use either developer of Xtol or D76 at the time recommended for 6400. it is what I do when using it at 1600 i.e. I use the time recommended for 3200

There is no magic bullet of retaining all the lower shadow details at 3200, they suffer no matter what but depending on light conditions I have a feeling that 3200 will still produce reasonable negs and in those conditions such as low light/night light where shadow detail suffers it may not matter that much in terms of the picture's strength as a picture

Let us see how the negs and prints turn out

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

What might be worthwhile and tell you a lot would be to take a whole roll if possible in the same light conditions, then cut the film in half. Develop one half in llford times with one of the developers and the other half at the 6400 time in that same developer. Examine the negatives and decide from that or better still from prints which of the two times you prefer.

I have a feeling that either of the two times will produce usable negs so there is likely to be little to lose but ideally take shots which will not cause you to reach for those little bitter almond pills if they do not match up to "Moonlight, Hernandez" standard

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

What has always confused me about Delta and TMax 3200 is that neither are a true 3200 speed film yet both are Dx coded for 3200.

 

[M-88]

There is no magic bullet of retaining all the lower shadow details at 3200, they suffer no matter what

No, no, of course there isn't a magic bullet. I'm well aware that pushing film won't create shadow details where film was unable to capture light. But thank you for pointing that out, I tend to forget it all.

It tends to be a low contrast film so when you have less worries about highlights getting blocked when you increase development time.

Perhaps I over-agitated it previously, because it was rather contrasty and highlights were nearly too bright.

Develop normally as recommended by Ilford, either in XTOL or D-76. Compared with D-76, XTOL will tend to produce very slightly more emulsion speed (not worth quibbling over) and slightly lower highlight contrast.

Either at stock or 1+1 is fine.

Don’t bother with the diluting and reducing agitation. Unless they are fairly extreme they do nothing, and increase the risk of problems.

This is basically what I was looking for. It seems that Xtol with 1+1 dilution is going to give reasonable results. I have around 800 ml from last batch, some of which I used a week ago, should be fine.

What might be worthwhile and tell you a lot would be to take a whole roll if possible in the same light conditions, then cut the film in half. Develop one half in llford times with one of the developers and the other half at the 6400 time in that same developer. Examine the negatives and decide from that or better still from prints which of the two times you prefer.

I would have done that, but since I only have single roll remaining (others are all Tmax 3200) and supplier doubled the price on Delta 3200, I think it's just not worth it. Might as well push HP5+ to 1600 next time.

What has always confused me about Delta and TMax 3200 is that neither are a true 3200 speed film yet both are Dx coded for 3200.

I guess since they are "pro" films, it was expected that users would know they are pushing it.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Xtol or D-76. Pick one. I would use Xtol, because that is what I have on hand.

 

[M-88]

Xtol or D-76. Pick one. I would use Xtol, because that is what I have on hand.

Yes, 1+1 of Xtol seems reasonable, cause I have to use whatever I have left, sooner rather than later. It's been sitting there for 6 months already. Probably nearing its end of shelf life.

 

[MattKing]

1) if you expose any ISO 1000 film at 3200, the shadows will lack detail;
2) such an under-exposed film will often give results that appear better in the midtones - where most of the really important stuff is - if you increase the contrast by increasing the development;
3) for "normal" films like Ilford Delta 400 (as an example) that increase in development involves an important compromise: while the mid-tones look better on your under-exposed film, the highlights go too dense on the negative, and you lose a lot of quality in the highlights (the second most important part of the scene);
3) for special purpose films like Delta 3200, if you meter and develop them at their ISO speed of 1000, the shadow detail is great, but the mid-tones and highlights tend to be really flat, because they are very low in contrast. However, if you under-expose them at 1600 or 3200, and use the increased development, while the shadow detail will be missing , the contrast and detail in the mid-tones will be good, and the highlights will be much better than a "normal" film with the same amount of increased development.
I prefer to think of the increased development times for Delta 3200 (and T-Max 3200) to not be "push" developments but rather expansion developments, prescribed by the manufacturer for the purpose of dealing with those films' inherently low contrast.
Those two films are a really good choice at their native ISO's (~1000) for dealing with extra contrasty subjects. No extended development in that case. But their design is optimized for circumstances where under-exposure is mandated by the conditions.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

In my experience Delta 3200 takes a long time to develop in XTOL. Microphen (ID-68) or DD-X / T-Max etc. is probably a better option.

 

[Dismayed]

In my experience Delta 3200 takes a long time to develop in XTOL. Microphen (ID-68) or DD-X / T-Max etc. is probably a better option.

I don't usually rate Delta 3200 above EI 1600, and I've never developed it at EI 3200. So I checked the Massive Development Chart - it shows 7 min in stock XTOL, and 18 min for 1+1. So, yes, the 1+1 dilution is long, so stock would seem to be the better option.

 

[pentaxuser]

MoonRISE. How dare you, pentaxuser.

Ah yes Moonrise, of course and thank you. I get confused. It's all down to "sunset, sunrise, swiftly flow the days but sadly not the blood to my brain"

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Perhaps I over-agitated it previously, because it was rather contrasty and highlights were nearly too bright.
.

I always avoid playing "La Cucaracha" when agitating

pentaxuser

 

[M-88]

1) if you expose any ISO 1000 film at 3200, the shadows will lack detail;
2) such an under-exposed film will often give results that appear better in the midtones - where most of the really important stuff is - if you increase the contrast by increasing the development;
3) for "normal" films like Ilford Delta 400 (as an example) that increase in development involves an important compromise: while the mid-tones look better on your under-exposed film, the highlights go too dense on the negative, and you lose a lot of quality in the highlights (the second most important part of the scene);
3) for special purpose films like Delta 3200, if you meter and develop them at their ISO speed of 1000, the shadow detail is great, but the mid-tones and highlights tend to be really flat, because they are very low in contrast. However, if you under-expose them at 1600 or 3200, and use the increased development, while the shadow detail will be missing , the contrast and detail in the mid-tones will be good, and the highlights will be much better than a "normal" film with the same amount of increased development.
I prefer to think of the increased development times for Delta 3200 (and T-Max 3200) to not be "push" developments but rather expansion developments, prescribed by the manufacturer for the purpose of dealing with those films' inherently low contrast.
Those two films are a really good choice at their native ISO's (~1000) for dealing with extra contrasty subjects. No extended development in that case. But their design is optimized for circumstances where under-exposure is mandated by the conditions.

1. Indeed, they do lack detail, somwtimes even at EI1600, if shot in dim light.
2. Ha! I must pay more attention to this next time.
3. Never tried doing EI1000 with D3200, but I observed something similar with HP5+ when shot at box speed sometimes. And all the time - when pulled. Increased agitation seemed to improve contrast, but that too, comes at a price.

Let's see how it all goes. I shot only half of it this evening.

 

[M-88]

In my experience Delta 3200 takes a long time to develop in XTOL. Microphen (ID-68) or DD-X / T-Max etc. is probably a better option.

I would have gone for Microphen, if my supplier had it in stock. Sadly they don't and no one knows when the next batch comes, so I'm stuck with whatever I have.

I don't usually rate Delta 3200 above EI 1600, and I've never developed it at EI 3200. So I checked the Massive Development Chart - it shows 7 min in stock XTOL, and 18 min for 1+1. So, yes, the 1+1 dilution is long, so stock would seem to be the better option.

18 minutes is not too bad for me. Doesn't sharpness suffer a wee bit in stock Xtol?

 

[warden]

Wouldn't that mean that shooting and developing it at EI3200 is already a push?

Yes. Ilford says it's an ISO 1000 film but give instructions for broadly pulling and pushing as necessary, with a sweet spot, according to them, between iso 1600 and 6400. They had to put something on the box though, and chose 3200.

 

[abruzzi]

I use John Hicks’ Xtol 1:2 @ 24C times here:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/D3200/d3200.html

I love the results!

 

[M-88]

I use John Hicks’ Xtol 1:2 @ 24C times here:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/D3200/d3200.html

I love the results!

I saw that one not so long ago, but I couldn't find any photos corresponding to that technique.

 

[Dismayed]

I would have gone for Microphen, if my supplier had it in stock. Sadly they don't and no one knows when the next batch comes, so I'm stuck with whatever I have.


18 minutes is not too bad for me. Doesn't sharpness suffer a wee bit in stock Xtol?

I've never used XTOL stock, and I usually aim for development times of about 10-12 minutes. So I agree that 18 min isn't too bad. I normally use 1+2, but not at EI 3200. I shoot digital when the light is that low.

 

[abruzzi]

I saw that one not so long ago, but I couldn't find any photos corresponding to that technique.

I don’t have any scans web hosted at the moment, but I’ll see if I can find a few to post.

 

[abruzzi]

here are a couple shots developed in Xtol 1:2 for 20 min @ 24C. They're not really EI3200, though the first probably was, rather they were shot wide open (ƒ2.4 for the first and ƒ2.8 for the second) at 1/30 handheld late at night. The second was probably closer to EI6400. These were shot on a Pentax 67:

 

[M-88]

here are a couple shots developed in Xtol 1:2 for 20 min @ 24C. They're not really EI3200, though the first probably was, rather they were shot wide open (ƒ2.4 for the first and ƒ2.8 for the second) at 1/30 handheld late at night. The second was probably closer to EI6400. These were shot on a Pentax 67:

View attachment 285896

View attachment 285897

Thank you. I was surprised with smoothness of the results before I read "Pentax 67". Grain would probably be all over the place if it were 35 mm.