delta 3200 dev time

[lindyhopper]

Hi New to forum.
Trying 35mm Delta 3200 for the first time, reading various threads suggests true speed to be around EI1000, also read that Ilfords times need extending,I will be developing film in DDX.
Any help on this.
Terry.

 

[Uhner]

Welcome to APUG Terry.

Yes, Delta 3200 has an ISO speed of 1000, but it has a long toe that makes it very good for pushing. I find that Ilford’s recommended development times are good starting points provided that you develop for 1 stop faster than the EI you have used (e.g. if you have exposed the film @ 1600 use the time provided for 3200). DDX is a good choice for Delta 3200.

Cheers

 

[BobNewYork]

Terry:
I've found that ISO 1000 is roughly the "true" speed of Delta 3200 - perhaps a little faster. I haven't used DDX but I've found Xtol 1+2, 20 minutes at 24 deg C works well when the film's rated at 3200. This is in a daylight tank - intermittent agitation. Seems to hold the highlights in check better than full strength. I know it's not DDX but maybe this will help.

Depending on the effect you want, if you're going to rate it at EI 1000 you may wish to consider a 1 1/3 stop push on an ISO 400 film. Also, at EI 100 your development time will be less than the "standard".

Hope this helps.

Bob

 

[snallan]

Hi Terry, and welcome.

Like Uhner, I find developing for longer than Ilford recommends is best for Delta 3200, I also use the development time 1 stop faster on the chart.

All the best

 

[dpurdy]

The bottle of DDX comes with a development recommendation. Though they skip past 1000. they go for 800 and 1200. I just tested it out a couple of days ago at 1000 and it was plenty of exposure and the approx recommended time was just fine for me.

 

[Steve Smith]

Hello.

I can't help with your question but welcome to APUG from somewhere with almost the same spelling as Rye!

I have been to Rye and I liked it a lot. A couple of my musician friends go every year for the arts festival.


Steve.

 

[Jack Lusted]

Greetings,
I've just tried out some Delta 3200 and would agree that an EI of around 1000 would be about right (I dev with Xtol 1+1).
Welcome to APUG, and I note that you only live a few miles from where I live (Robertsbridge).

Jack

 

[lindyhopper]

Thanks for all the useful suggestions, I will try a few rolls in the next few days.
Hello to Jack from Robertsbridge.
Terry

 

[23mjm]

Well here is my 2 cents-----I have shot D3200 lots and develope in DDX. I shoot at 1600 and develope at the times for 3200. I have also shot it some at 3200 and developed it at 6400. I have been very happy with the results. But do a little testing and see what you like.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Interesting that this thread surfaced when it did. I did some photography in an amphitheater where my son's school play was. It was a great performance, and I wanted to give something to his school, so I dragged a medium format camera with a 300mm lens and a 2x tele-extender with me.
I shot from about 150 feet away and got some interesting shots. I used Delta 3200, exposed it at 3200 and developed according to the 6400 recommended time by Ilford in their DD-X chemistry. The negs turned out super, so the recommendation of developing for longer than Ilford recommends I think is definitely a good one (for my purposes anyway).
Not to say that Ilford is wrong, but I have a feeling most folks use D3200 in poor lighting, which means indoors a lot of times, and if I remember correctly the film speed slows down some in artificial lighting compared to daylight. If that's the case, it all makes sense.
I love the look of the film / developer combination and will continue to use it for low light. When I get something printed I'll post back here with examples.
- Thomas

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Here is a scan of one of the negs I shot. It's a bit blown out in the highlights, more due to the scan than the neg. The instruction to develop for 'one speed faster' than the manufacturer recommends in Ilfotec DD-X is a good one for these low light situations.
As far as I understand it, the normal ISO of the Delta 3200 is around 1000. This was shot at 3200 and developed for the 6400 time. The negs are very easy to print with plenty of detail in shadows and highlights alike.

- Thomas

Interesting that this thread surfaced when it did. I did some photography in an amphitheater where my son's school play was. It was a great performance, and I wanted to give something to his school, so I dragged a medium format camera with a 300mm lens and a 2x tele-extender with me.
I shot from about 150 feet away and got some interesting shots. I used Delta 3200, exposed it at 3200 and developed according to the 6400 recommended time by Ilford in their DD-X chemistry. The negs turned out super, so the recommendation of developing for longer than Ilford recommends I think is definitely a good one (for my purposes anyway).
Not to say that Ilford is wrong, but I have a feeling most folks use D3200 in poor lighting, which means indoors a lot of times, and if I remember correctly the film speed slows down some in artificial lighting compared to daylight. If that's the case, it all makes sense.
I love the look of the film / developer combination and will continue to use it for low light. When I get something printed I'll post back here with examples.
- Thomas

 

[lindyhopper]

delta 3200

Thanks for all the help, getting nice results using Ei 1000, DDX 1+4 for 8.5 mins at 20 deg c.
Terry.

 

[Mark Antony]

I love D3200 in medium format, where it is the only choice for fast film.
Ilford state that this is a 1000 ISO film that can be rated to higher EI depending on the developer.
I have a little test here:
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2008/02/ilford-delta-3200.html

Once you nail a setting, you'll get a marvellous tone for such a high speed (push)

The above was shot at EI3200 and developed in Rodinal 1:25 for 11 mins
In case you haven't guessed I like it!
Mark