Delta 3200 + DD-x really is a lovely combination

[mr. mohaupt]

After spending a few weeks looking at results and listening (reading) to what everyone had to say about Delta 3200 and DD-x I have to agree, what wonderful results. I was and still am a Rodinal fan (with slow speed films) but never liked the results with anything fast (can it be too grainy?). Anyways here is a low res scan of the negative. Can't wait to get do some actual printing!

I would love to see your examples of DD-x and anything fast!

~M

 

[Hatchetman]

I happen to have a recent example. 35mm shows a lot more grain!

 

[snapguy]

my screen

Looking at the image on my computer screen. It does not appear to be terribly sharp.

 

[Vilk]

usable, i guess...

 

[gone]

Great shot. Love the tongue. Funny, no one looks like this in Florida :[

 

[pentaxuser]

It may be that the mr mohaupt's scan is from a med format negative but if not then given it is pin sharp and quite grain free it makes you wonder about the scanner making the difference between his and hatchetman's

I found DDX and D3200 to be a great combination. Just a pity about DDX's price

pentaxuser

 

[dpurdy]

I just shot a few rolls of Delta 3200, rated 800. It was 8 years old and though mostly stored frozen the base fog was very dark. Nearly a zone 5 density base. I processed it in Xtol and printed the 6x7 negs to 8x10 and they looked beautiful. Very nice clean whites with good detail and beautiful contrast in the blacks. I took them to a meeting of photographers and displayed them and everyone assumed they were 4x5.

I tested the DDX and Xtol side by side some years ago and found the DDX to give finer grain on D3200. Looked great.

 

[mr. mohaupt]

Pentaxuser,

Yeah this was shot on 120. Mamiya RB67 and if I remember correctly shot at about f/11. I am almost given up on 35mm unless shooting slow speed film. I had recently developed some Tmax-400 in DD-x in 35mm and it was well… grainy, but lately I have been in love with how silky smooth 6x7 looks. Personally I thought the scan was pretty sharp. His eyes jump out IMO but it is a scan.

Looks good Vilk!

~M

 

[giannisg2004]

Pentaxuser,
I have been in love with how silky smooth 6x7 looks. Personally I thought the scan was pretty sharp. His eyes jump out IMO but it is a scan.

Indeed, 6x7 is smooth compared to 35mm.
That said, in less than 1000pixels on the longest side, everything is smooth and sharp.
35mm, even half frame, or cellphone shots.
Resizing to smaller sizes does wonders to the perceived sharpness.

For instance, here's a 35mm shot on grainy TriX, in HC-110 B, not a particularly fine grain combination.

 

[Hatchetman]

Regarding my shot, taken wide open on a Rollei 35 SE as a test. Focus may be off slightly, but likely cheap scanning equipment degrades the image considerably. However, even if I printed this, there would be considerable grain. The negative appears to be properly exposed.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

is 'lovely' a technical term?.BTW,I think your HCBquote is from one of the Weston's

 

[mr. mohaupt]

is 'lovely' a technical term?.BTW,I think your HCBquote is from one of the Weston's

Lovely is a highly technical but so is art.

and a quick google search turns this up
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Henri_Cartier-Bresson
It says unsourced maybe you can show me where Weston said it? Either way its a lovely and applicable quote.

~M

 

[GarageBoy]

It's been a nice replacement for TMAX P3200/TMAX RS for me

 

[Black Dog]

Another happy user! Rodinal with fast films can be interesting though...

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the post Hatchetman.

pentaxuser

 

[StoneNYC]

It's been a nice replacement for TMAX P3200/TMAX RS for me

Agreed

 

[RattyMouse]

I bought 10 rolls of Delta 3200 along with a bottle of DD-X. I NEED to get out and try this film now!

 

[StoneNYC]

I bought 10 rolls of Delta 3200 along with a bottle of DD-X. I NEED to get out and try this film now!

Haha power of persuasion!

I've switched to mostly shooting HP5+ at 3200 and only use the delta in severe situations, mostly because it's expensive haha.

But it's great stuff.

 

[sly]

I've used it a lot. Worth a little extra for great shots in low light.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[StoneNYC]

I've used it a lot. Worth a little extra for great shots in low light.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Yes, agreed

 

[Roger Cole]

Only costs about a dollar a roll more in 120. I notice the 35mm price is higher, but still about the same as I paid for the last of my TMZ.

 

[Black Dog]

Yes, agreed

So good for portraits!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

'lovely'???Is that a technical term?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Would love to see this emulsion on 4x5.

 

[Black Dog]

Me too but Simon said in another thread it wasn't a goer- what a shame!