Delta 3200 at EI3200 in D-76 or Xtol?

[Agulliver]

Here are some 35mm Delta 3200 shot at 3200 and developed in ID-11 which is essentially the same as D-76. I used two inversions per minute following Ilford's recommended development time.

"Shepherds Bush" and the band fronted by the guy playing flute were shot on a Praktica BX20S with Prakticar 50mm lens...the band pic with a 2x teleconverter. The resonator guitar was shot on an Agfa Super Silette. There is grain but it's rather pleasing to my eyes. Though I would more normally shoot HP5+ and push to between 1600 and 3200.

 

[M-88]

Here are some 35mm Delta 3200 shot at 3200 and developed in ID-11 which is essentially the same as D-76. I used two inversions per minute following Ilford's recommended development time.

"Shepherds Bush" and the band fronted by the guy playing flute were shot on a Praktica BX20S with Prakticar 50mm lens...the band pic with a 2x teleconverter. The resonator guitar was shot on an Agfa Super Silette. There is grain but it's rather pleasing to my eyes.

View attachment 285934 View attachment 285935 View attachment 285936

These photos are much more like what I achieved with first two rolls of Delta 3200 that I shot at EI 1600 and developed in homemade D-76/ID-11. I can't recall anymore, but I'm almost certain I developed those rolls in stock solution, with no dilution.

Though I would more normally shoot HP5+ and push to between 1600 and 3200.

I completely agree with this statement and that's what I usually do. I just had this last roll (2/3 of it, as a matter of fact) and had to shoot it.

 

[Agulliver]

I should have added, stock ID-11 without dilution. Jobo tank, two inversions per minute. The rock band and Shepherd's Bush sign were scanned on an inferior scanner hence less detail. But it gives an idea of what you'll get using ID-11 and D3200 at box speed.

 

[M-88]

I should have added, stock ID-11 without dilution. Jobo tank, two inversions per minute. The rock band and Shepherd's Bush sign were scanned on an inferior scanner hence less detail. But it gives an idea of what you'll get using ID-11 and D3200 at box speed.

"Inferior scanner" pretty much sums up what I have.

 

[abruzzi]

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.

yeah, that definitely makes a big difference, but I still think, if you cropped a 36x24mm piece of that is would still look pretty good. I've read that Xtol is a"solvent developer" so it tends to produce finer grain that most of the other Kodak developers. I haven't shot it at 35mm so I can't say how that'd look with the same developing, but Xtol would be my first choice at that size. If I was shooting it at 8x10 or even 4x5 (not that they make it in sheet film) I'd be far less concerned about reducing grain.

 

[Agulliver]

"Inferior scanner" pretty much sums up what I have.

After posting I realised that the first two were scanned on one of those cheap "scanners" which is effectively a digital camera sensor and a backlight. The resonator guitar was scanned on an Epson flat bed.

 

[pentaxuser]

After posting I realised that the first two were scanned on one of those cheap "scanners" which is effectively a digital camera sensor and a backlight. The resonator guitar was scanned on an Epson flat bed.

They look great. The only one that seems to show grain to any extent is the guitar shot. Was that one of the whole negative or only part of it?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Agulliver]

They look great. The only one that seems to show grain to any extent is the guitar shot. Was that one of the whole negative or only part of it?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Now you mention it I think it is a crop. The guitarist was close to me but not quite that close!

Thank you for your kind words.

 

[pentaxuser]

Now you mention it I think it is a crop. The guitarist was close to me but not quite that close!
.

Thanks for the reply. Without wishing to now sound like a "dismal Jimmy" I suppose the additional question I should have asked is: Are these direct scans of prints or scans of negs?

My new questions stems from my recollection of taking shots on 35mm D3200 at 1600 and making prints onto 5x7 paper. Some prints looked fine but others had serious signs of grain even at 5x7 print size and yet only your guitarist shot which is a crop appears to show similar grain to some of my prints of whole negs

I suppose my real question should be: Does a scan on a VDU, by its very nature, appear to be less grainy than the real-life" print in the hand would be?

I am just never sure how well we can judge such things as grain from scans on VDUs and pass a judgement on how close or otherwise this resembles how a print in the hand would look

As you will have gathered I have no experience of scanning, nor how accurate scans are to prints

pentaxuser

 

[M-88]

After posting I realised that the first two were scanned on one of those cheap "scanners" which is effectively a digital camera sensor and a backlight. The resonator guitar was scanned on an Epson flat bed.

Mine is Canon 8800F and it's deplorable at best, but it was cheap (around 15$) and replacing it is unlikely. At least as long as it works. Here are two shots from Delta 3200, both of which were exposed at EI 1600 and developed in undiluted D-76:

And here's what I got exposing D3200 at EI 3200 and developed in Xtol 1+1:







Makes me wonder, what would the prints be like, but at the moment I can't get them printed the traditional way.

 

[McDiesel]

@M-88 I really dig your 2nd photo from the bottom. The grain adds to the character nicely. BTW, I just finished figuring out the preferred chemistry for Delta 3200. Those who recommend Microphen are right. This film really feels like a high-speed low-light beast in Microphen, I am getting the full(er) tonal range in Microphen, probably due to real speed boost in the shadows. However, managing highlights and the grain can be a problem. Someone in another thread suggested reduced agitation in Microphen to reduce grain, but I have not tried it.

My results in Xtol were strange at first. The times from the Ilford datasheet didn't produce much density, and I'd rather use replenished Xtol anyway because that's my standard developer. So after some back/fro with different times, I found what works best for me. The image below is a 6x6 negative exposed at EI3200 using incident meter pointed at a camera and developed using Ilford's recommended agitation for small tanks in Xtol-R for 20:00 @24C (yes, that long). What I found is that I get a bit less shadow detail here than Microphen gives me, but the mids/highlights are more gentle and the grain is much finer. In other words, for highlights go Xtol and for shadows go Microphen.

Also, and this is my subjective opinion, Delta 3200 is meant to be used at EI3200. Yes, the shadows will be crushed but that's the look it's optimized for. It becomes lifeless if given more light, and also kind of pointless because you can push HP5+ to ISO 1000-1600 range with similar-or-better results.

 

[pentaxuser]

@M-88 What I found is that I get a bit less shadow detail here than Microphen gives me, but the mids/highlights are more gentle and the grain is much finer. In other words, for highlights go Xtol and for shadows go Microphen.

View attachment 302127

Also, and this is my subjective opinion, Delta 3200 is meant to be used at EI3200. Yes, the shadows will be crushed but that's the look it's optimized for. It becomes lifeless if given more light, and also kind of pointless because you can push HP5+ to ISO 1000-1600 range with similar-or-better results.

Yes I have often wondered about HP5+ at 1600 v D3200 at 1600. The jury of users of both films at these numbers seems to be out or it might be that some of those favouring HP5+ at 1600 over D3200 at 3200 and vice versa are in fact only users of one or the other? I seriously don't know but a scientific test of one v the other would be useful

What is certain is that if HP5+ at 1600 matches or betters D3200 at 1600 then given the price premium on D3200, HP5+ at 1600 has to win

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

With any of these special purpose films like D3200, it is the contrast response that determines whether they perform better with extended development than something like HP5+ performs with extended development.
HP5+ exposed at an EI of 1600 and then developed with a two stop push development will have contrasty mid-tones and very contrasty highlights. Those highlights will tend toward "blowing out".
D3200 shot at an EI of 1600 and and developed with an approximate one stop push (1600 - for a film with a native ISO ~ 1000) will have midtone and highlight contrast that is much closer to normal.
With many photographic subjects, the midtone and highlight response of the D3200 will be preferable. With some subjects, the greatly boosted midtone and highlight contrast of the under-exposed and two stop push developed HP5+ will be preferable.

 

[Helge]

Here’s the correct answer: ;-)
EI 3200 rating:
Use Xtol stock. 3200 already uses all the magic you can to compensate contrast, build right in. You can’t improve that in development.
It benefits from the power in the full strength developer. 1:1 will only needlessly draw out development with slightly worse results.

20 C:
8,5 min for night shots.
8 min for daylight or golden hour.
Start 1 min continuous agitation. Thereafter a 15 second agitation every minute.

What you can do is preflash three stops under normal exposure. That actually helps quite a bit in “waking up the film” for better shadows in low light. At the small cost of overall low background fog.

There’s a huge difference whether you are shooting in darkness or in daylight. “Merely” using the speed for something like a tele or getting big depth of field yields much more “normal” photos than high contrast dark situations

 

[McDiesel]

There’s a huge difference whether you are shooting in darkness or in daylight.

Very much so. Almost every Delta 3200 discussion ends up with folks sharing night time samples. Those are challenging for any medium, with huge range of tonal values and not clearly defined "normal" look. In my experience, Delta 3200 is absolutely useless under OK or better lighting conditions (7EV+), because HP5+ will always beat it under those circumstances. This film truly excels exposed at EI3200 under EV 4-7, assuming you're OK with dead shadows. Basically, for shooting indoors under artificial light without flash. Xtol works well, but I want to try the advice of @Juan Valdenebro to use Microphen with minimal agitation.

 

[M-88]

Oh, one of my threads resurfaced, yay!

After using some more D3200, I too have come to the conclusion that this is a low light film and any sort of daylight shot might turn out to be a muddy mess. And HP5+ does the job better at EI1600, so no point in using Delta at EI1600.

And one more thing worth noting is that I started printing my negatives and I must say that D3200's grain looks much more pleasant on paper than it does on scans. I know this is probably a common knowledge for you all, but still. Even 8x10 prints from 35 mm negatives look pleasant.

The only problem now is that I ran out of Delta 3200, the supplier is out of stock and I'm left with Kodak TMZ, so it's time for me to learn something new.

 

[Helge]

Very much so. Almost every Delta 3200 discussion ends up with folks sharing night time samples. Those are challenging for any medium, with huge range of tonal values and not clearly defined "normal" look. In my experience, Delta 3200 is absolutely useless under OK or better lighting conditions (7EV+), because HP5+ will always beat it under those circumstances. This film truly excels exposed at EI3200 under EV 4-7, assuming you're OK with dead shadows. Basically, for shooting indoors under artificial light without flash. Xtol works well, but I want to try the advice of @Juan Valdenebro to use Microphen with minimal agitation.

It’s not too bad in daylight @ EI 3200.
I would say better than HP5.
More grain but also better shadow detail.
And if you like grain…

The point of shooting @ 3200 in daylight is that you can go crazy.
On a rainy/cloudy day you can use a tele with a polarizer and an orange filter, to get very gritty dramatic effects.

 

[warden]

After using some more D3200, I too have come to the conclusion that this is a low light film and any sort of daylight shot might turn out to be a muddy mess. And HP5+ does the job better at EI1600, so no point in using Delta at EI1600.

And one more thing worth noting is that I started printing my negatives and I must say that D3200's grain looks much more pleasant on paper than it does on scans. I know this is probably a common knowledge for you all, but still. Even 8x10 prints from 35 mm negatives look pleasant.

If you're making a daylight portrait in the shade, with an extension tube and say a yellow filter, a 3200 speed film can be your friend especially if you want a reasonable depth of field with a shutter speed that won't allow motion blur. I like the results better than pushing 400 speed films.

And I agree completely about wet printing D3200. It's hard to scan it in my experience but wet printing it is fun!

 

[StevieB]

Makes me wonder, what would the prints be like, but at the moment I can't get them printed the traditional way.

They will look beautiful.

 

[dynachrome]

I have used both films and prefer the Kodak version. In either case I prefer a phenidone based developer to a metol based one. My best results came from undiluted Microphen and Clayton P60 1:9. I think the P60 is no longer sold but the F76 Plus and its equivalents are.

 

[Helge]

I have used both films and prefer the Kodak version. In either case I prefer a phenidone based developer to a metol based one. My best results came from undiluted Microphen and Clayton P60 1:9. I think the P60 is no longer sold but the F76 Plus and its equivalents are.

D3200 has more real speed by about half a stop. Which means fuller shadows in very contrasty situations.
Don’t discount using bounced flash for D3200. Instead of turning it down, you can purple or red filter it to make it much less annoying. Really fills in the shadows.

 

[pentaxuser]

D3200 has more real speed by about half a stop. .

OK I have taken cover in my foxhole so let the 88s open up on both sides

pentaxuser