Delta 3200 developed by lab - question

Hello,

I’m going to contact my lab about this, but I thought I’d get some input here first from people who develop their own film. (I haven't developed my own film in many years.)

I shot some Delta 3200 for the first time recently. I read that a lot of people rate it at 1600 and then develop normally. I think Ilford recommends this, too.

I went down to 1250 to give it even a little more exposure.

So I told my lab I shot it at 1250 but wanted it developed normally.

My question is — why does the acetate of the negs look so grey? See the area around images and the first frame where there is no image (I had hit the shutter accidentally) in attached jpeg.

The Delta 3200 is the strip on the right.

For comparison, I included an HP5 strip (middle) and Tmax 400 strip (left) where the acetate is basically clear as usual. I photographed the negs on a light table and tried to make tones in jpeg match the negs as much as possible.

Does the greyness of the acetate tell you anything about how the Delta 3200 was developed? Does Delta 3200 always look like that?

The images aren’t too bad, but I don't see much detail in the shadows -- the sweater is black and parts of the cat are black -- which would suggest underexposure. But I exposed at 1250 (used handheld light meter).

The lab has told me in the past they use Ilford DD which is made for replenished dip and dunk processing at labs.

They charge extra for 3200 ISO film developing.

When I contact them, I can get more info about how they developed the Delta 3200 (time, temp, etc).

Just wondering what you think the greyness of acetate indicates or if you have any other thoughts.

Thanks.

I have shot two rolls of Delta 3200, and the rebate / base of your Delta 3200 film looks about the same as mine. So based on my very limited experience, I would say your gray rebate looks normal enough to me. Both of my rolls were metered at EI 1600 and processed for the recommended times in XTOL (first one with the lantern), and Microphen (second one).



Your example does look a bit underexposed. When you say, "I exposed at 1250 (used handheld light meter)" -- how exactly did you meter? Was that a reflected reading from the scene, or incident, or ? Is your handheld meter known to be reliable?

If it's worth anything, I shoot Delta 3200 at 800 whenever I can get away with it.

I'm not sure that "develop Delta 3200 normally" is particularly clear - when it comes to film like Delta 3200.
But your conversation with the lab might have been clearer due to some more context.

calico said:

Just wondering what you think the greyness of acetate indicates

Click to expand...

How old was the film?

What I see mostly is a lack of shadow detail, which is indicative of underexposure. You mention you exposed this at EI1250, but I wonder how you metered and/or controlled the light (flash/strobes?) I notice a large light-colored backdrop; might his have affected your meter readings? (Basically same question & concern as @runswithsizzers above)

Either way, I don't see any signs of a lab/processing error.