Delta 3200 developed by lab - question

[calico]

It doesn't have to be.
If you tell the lab nothing, they will assume you shot the film at the speed indicated on the box. So 3200 in this case.
If you give them Delta 3200 and you'll tell them you exposed at EI1250 (or whathaveyou), the lab will pick a development time they judge will work for that EI. Assuming that the lab actually picks any time instead of just processing everything for the same time, regardless. You'd be surprised how often that happens.

So there's very little you need to correlate or discuss. Just indicate what EI you shot the film at and leave it to the lab. If they look at you sheepishly, find a better lab.

I had told them I shot at 1250 and wanted processed normally, assuming "normally" meant 3200. This was done in a letter, as lab is in another city.

From all the info gathered here and on Delta's spec sheet and how the film turned out, I suspect it was developed for 3200. Seems it would look very underdeveloped if developed for 1250.

I will contact lab to clarify.

To your point about labs developing all b&w together with same temp/time: This lab obviously does not do that for 3200 film, as they charge extra for that speed film. They are a good lab, so I would hope they also separate other films as necessary, too, but I don't know.

Thanks.

 

[calico]

Interesting that they charge more to develop fast films.

It's only 3200 speed b&w film for which they charge extra for normal processing.

They also have the typical extra charge for pushing or pulling film.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I really like this film at EI 1000. Its base is tinted grey to reduce light piping. It also has higher base + fog. You used to develop your own film. If you are going to continue working with film, I suggest going back to DIY.

 

[calico]

I really like this film at EI 1000. Its base is tinted grey to reduce light piping. It also has higher base + fog. You used to develop your own film. If you are going to continue working with film, I suggest going back to DIY.

Thanks for confirming, like others, that it's normal for the rebate area to look grey.

Yes, I do need to get back to developing my own film : )

 

[pentaxuser]

They charge $5 extra to develop 3200 speed film -- on their price list that way. It wasn't a charge for pushing the film. Sorry, I should've explained that at outset.

I suppose the extra charge is because it has to be developed differently than most of the other film they get.

Thanks That's an interesting conclusion you draw but I do wonder if they do as you suggest? If they do, what's the lab's definition of "develop differently" Does it mean developing D3200 separately and if so what's involved in their process?

I suppose I am hinting that should you ask for normal development does the lab simply develop the D3200 along with other, say 400 films and at a set time for 400 speed films?

It might just be me and my scepticism over lab development practices but I'd be upset if I was charged extra simply because I had handed in a D3200 film that was processed no differently than other 400 films but a extra charge was made for the D3200 name

OK that's just me. However if it were me and I had a liking for fast film I'd give serious consideration to home processing which gives flexibility in processing to get the best out of such film as D3200

On the other hand if a speed of say 800 met my needs then I might be tempted to get Kodak 400 TMY which can be exposed at 800 and yet developed for the same time as if it were exposed at 400 according to Kodak

pentaxuser

 

[runswithsizzers]

I really like this film at EI 1000. Its base is tinted grey to reduce light piping. It also has higher base + fog. You used to develop your own film. If you are going to continue working with film, I suggest going back to DIY.

If you don't mind me asking -- and if you use any commonly available, off-the-shelf chemistry -- what processing times do you use for Delta 3200 metered at EI 1000?

 

[koraks]

This lab obviously does not do that for 3200 film, as they charge extra for that speed film. They are a good lab, so I would hope they also separate other films as necessary, too, but I don't know.

In principle I'd always choose to believe what they say. At the same time, the practical and economic considerations involved imply that there's variation in the degree to which labs tailor processing to the client's specifications. This can vary from your roll being hand-processed in exactly the best way depending on the specifics of the roll, to everything being dunked in the same bath, regardless. Again, a reputable lab should not be expected to overcharge for what turns out to be standard processing.

Anyway, to be clear, there's no doubt (and you're not implying it either) about the work this lab did on your film.

Btw, the $5 surcharge makes good sense if you look at my previous message and combine that with the development time for this particular film at box speed, which really is quite long. This means that if it's done right, it needs to be done specifically for this film, which means someone spends additional time on your roll (combined with at best a handful of similar rolls from other clients). In that scenario, a couple of dollars extra is quite a sensible surcharge. Labor is expensive!

 

[warden]

On the other hand if a speed of say 800 met my needs then I might be tempted to get Kodak 400 TMY which can be exposed at 800 and yet developed for the same time as if it were exposed at 400 according to Kodak

Yep. I love D3200 but if I have to expose it at 800 to get what I like I'd just shoot HP5 at 800. It's not quite the same but close, and cheaper too.

My best shots with D3200 were exposed at about iso640 on my iPhone light meter app for what that's worth.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you don't mind me asking -- and if you use any commonly available, off-the-shelf chemistry -- what processing times do you use for Delta 3200 metered at EI 1000?

XTol 1+1 (or replenished) at 10 minutes. 20C. Intermittent agitation, 5s/min. I've also developed it in D76, but I cannot find my data...but I believe it was 1+1 at around the same time.

 

[calico]

Thanks That's an interesting conclusion you draw but I do wonder if they do as you suggest? If they do, what's the lab's definition of "develop differently" Does it mean developing D3200 separately and if so what's involved in their process?

I suppose I am hinting that should you ask for normal development does the lab simply develop the D3200 along with other, say 400 films and at a set time for 400 speed films?

It might just be me and my scepticism over lab development practices but I'd be upset if I was charged extra simply because I had handed in a D3200 film that was processed no differently than other 400 films but a extra charge was made for the D3200 name

Understand your skepticism about labs. I've had some bad experiences with labs, too. But this lab is very professional and trustworthy.

When I wrote my original post, I didn't mean to imply the lab had done anything deceptive or wrong. I was just trying to suss out the situation for exposing and developing Delta 3200 and also thought there may have been some miscommunication between me and lab (like maybe they thought I wanted it developed for 1250).

On the other hand if a speed of say 800 met my needs then I might be tempted to get Kodak 400 TMY which can be exposed at 800 and yet developed for the same time as if it were exposed at 400 according to Kodak

pentaxuser

So your Tmax 400 negs look good exposed at 800 but developed for 400? Not what I would expect.

 

[runswithsizzers]

XTol 1+1 (or replenished) at 10 minutes. 20C. Intermittent agitation, 5s/min. I've also developed it in D76, but I cannot find my data...but I believe it was 1+1 at around the same time.

Thanks, Xtol and D-76 are the two developers I tend to use most often. The Ilford Delta 3200 data sheet give times for Xtol, stock, but not for 1+1, so it's good to have another data point.

 

[MattKing]

Delta 3200's ISO speed may be 1000, but 1000 isn't its "normal" speed.
These 3200 EI films are designed to be abnormal .
They will satisfy the ISO speed requirements if developed that way, but their mid-tone and highlight rendition will be relatively low contrast and lousy.
The mid-tones and highlights will look much better if they get much more development.
The reason for this is that they are designed to behave better when they are intentionally under-exposed - say metered at EIs of 1600 or 3200 - than more typical films like HP5+ when they are intentionally under-exposed and then receive extra ("push") development.
When you under-expose HP5+ and then use push development, the mid-tone rendition isn't as good, and the highlight rendition goes toward the lousy!
In short, as posted earlier, "normal" development of Delta 3200 is a truly fuzzy concept!

 

[pentaxuser]

Understand your skepticism about labs. I've had some bad experiences with labs, too. But this lab is very professional and trustworthy.

When I wrote my original post, I didn't mean to imply the lab had done anything deceptive or wrong. I was just trying to suss out the situation for exposing and developing Delta 3200 and also thought there may have been some miscommunication between me and lab (like maybe they thought I wanted it developed for 1250).



So your Tmax 400 negs look good exposed at 800 but developed for 400? Not what I would expect.

I have never tried TMY 400 at 800 but there appears to be enough evidence that it works fine. There's no reason why Kodak would publish the same time for TMY at both 400 and 800 unless both were the right times

pentaxuser

 

[calico]

Delta 3200's ISO speed may be 1000, but 1000 isn't its "normal" speed.
These 3200 EI films are designed to be abnormal .
They will satisfy the ISO speed requirements if developed that way, but their mid-tone and highlight rendition will be relatively low contrast and lousy.

You mean highlight and mid-tones are low contrast/lousy if the film is both metered and developed for 1000 ISO?

The mid-tones and highlights will look much better if they get much more development.
The reason for this is that they are designed to behave better when they are intentionally under-exposed - say metered at EIs of 1600 or 3200 - than more typical films like HP5+ when they are intentionally under-exposed and then receive extra ("push") development.

So you would recommend metering for 1600 or 3200 and developing for 3200?

(When I asked the lab to develop "normally," I assumed that meant for 3200. But I have to ask them if my assumption was correct.)

Thanks.

 

[MattKing]

You mean highlight and mid-tones are low contrast/lousy if the film is both metered and developed for 1000 ISO?

Generally speaking, yes.
Depends of course on the usual variables wrt scene, lighting and metering technique.
If any or all of those are quite unusual - e.g. the light is harsh and the subject luminance range (SLR) is very large, then circumstances may be perfectly suited to those choices.

 

[calico]

Generally speaking, yes.
Depends of course on the usual variables wrt scene, lighting and metering technique.
If any or all of those are quite unusual - e.g. the light is harsh and the subject luminance range (SLR) is very large, then circumstances may be perfectly suited to those choices.

Thanks.

 

[calico]

Appreciate everyone's input on this subject!

 

[MattKing]

So you would recommend metering for 1600 or 3200 and developing for 3200?

See the previous post for the criteria.
Personally, if I was using this film in low light, I would lean toward something like metering at 800 - for the shadow detail - and then developing at something like 1600.
But I'm not the best person to ask, because you are more likely to find me using an ISO 100 film than this one.
I have printed films like this though, and my characterization of mid-tone and highlight rendition as "lousy" comes from that.

 

[loccdor]

Is your workflow digital scans or or darkroom? Delta 3200 is a little flat in the 800-1600 range for scans/digitization. It's designed that way so it responds well for push processing. I wouldn't hesitate to use it at the 3200 speed the manufacturer designs it for. Tons of shadow detail is only necessary if an important part of your photo is in the shadow tones. At least in my shooting, I've frequently found that not to be the case.

 

[MMfoto]

Thanks That's an interesting conclusion you draw but I do wonder if they do as you suggest?

I would view the charge as a good sign that they're honest about "special requests." They probably have their own internal standard for "normal" for Delta 3200, and beyond that requires special handling or small batches. Since they are running a dip and dunk machine, they will likely have to run smaller batches of film and tie the machine up for more time to develop +2 for EI 3200.

 

[npl]

I don't see anything wrong in regard to developement. When processed ""normally"" this film is a bit flat and low contrast.

About the underexposure, if you are confident in your metering, maybe your camera shutter need testing.

The sekonik ISO can be set to "odd" values like 1250 ?

 

[MMfoto]

So maybe the bit of underexposure isn't related to the development time/temp at all -- just means this film needs to be exposed at 800. (I exposed at 1250.) Thanks.

Essentially, yes. But there are a lot of moving parts.

1250 is a very reasonable exposure index for D3200. But I recommend backing up a little and approaching this more fundamentally.

You, your methods, and your gear are the biggest variables here. The great thing about a "lab" is they tend to be consistent—they are a laboratory—as long as you have good communication with them. The chemistry is relatively consistent. The film stock is consistent.

The important questions is: How do you want your negatives to look in order to get the results you want, and what methodology gets you there?

The way I handle a light meter may be different than you. Your camera may be better calibrated than mine. The shutter speeds may be more accurate. Or, I might shoot in more variable lighting which favors erring on the overexposed side. Or, you might prefer the esthetic of a thinner and more contrasty negative, and maybe you shoot in flatter lighting scenarios. Who knows.

I said I shoot D3200 at EI 800. That's just what works for me. But I don't think of 800 as a scientific or technically ideal "normal" speed. It's the EI that gives me negatives I like for a lot of shooting scenarios. It's also possible that when I shoot at 800 my negatives turn out very similar to another person who shoots at 1000, 1250, or 640. The lab also learned what to expect from my negatives, back when I worked with the same lab frequently. So, if I came in and was uncertain about a roll and said "I think we need to push this roll two stops" they already had an idea of what that meant and how to proceed.

I also want to mention is that when you're shooting high speed film, it's often a very different situation then when shooting slower films. Darker scenes can have more complex lighting. You may be shooting wide open when using D3200. But maybe you shoot at f/8 more often with a 400 speed film. Wide open, you're more likely to have modest underexposure due to falloff and slightly BS nominal, factory aperture (an "f/2.8" lens that's closer to f/3.5 when wide open).

This is getting a little bit rambling, and I don't feel like editing much. So let me get back on point:

I recommend shooting test rolls. Is your light meter accurate (EV 15 in open sun?). Is your shutter accurate? Are your lenses stopping down smoothly? OK, let's assume yes to all of those points.

To find your "normal" for a film using 120 film: Select a scene with whatever you consider to be "good" and with steady and even light. Shoot at a middle aperture, not wide open. Heavily bracket the exposures. If you want to do this with a 3200 speed film, I would shoot all the way from EI 200 up to 6400 in 1/2 stop imcrements. Take notes, and bring those notes with you to the lab. Tell the lab what you're doing. Ask them to develop the film without a push. Ask them what speed they think that is. Look at the resulting negatives and decide which exposure got you the best results. This will establish what your normal exposure should be. It doesn't matter what "speed" the lab calls it. Your exposure determines shadow detail and midtone placement. Whichever negative looks and works best for your preferences is YOUR film speed for this film.

Once you determine which exposure looks best, you can start thinking about overall contrast. Negatives too flat? Ask the lab for a +1 push process. Don't say "develop for 1600." Tell them you exposed normally and want a one stop push.

You can repeat the test for push processing if you want. Expose another roll in a similar scene but this time expose for EI 800 through 25000 in half stop incriments. Tell the lab what you are doing. This time, ask for +2 stops push processing.

Once you get these test rolls sorted out, consider annotating them with a sharpie directly on the negatives, or taping your notes to the negative sleeve for reference years from now. I have some of these test rolls from 25 years ago. They're still interesting to reference.

I swear it will be worth the trouble.

 

[calico]

Is your workflow digital scans or or darkroom? Delta 3200 is a little flat in the 800-1600 range for scans/digitization. It's designed that way so it responds well for push processing. I wouldn't hesitate to use it at the 3200 speed the manufacturer designs it for. Tons of shadow detail is only necessary if an important part of your photo is in the shadow tones. At least in my shooting, I've frequently found that not to be the case.

I scan my film (Nikon LS9000 scanner with Nikon Scan). Haven't scanned this roll of Delta 3200 yet.

 

[calico]

I don't see anything wrong in regard to developement. When processed ""normally"" this film is a bit flat and low contrast.

Thanks.

About the underexposure, if you are confident in your metering, maybe your camera shutter need testing.

No problems with exposures with other film in this camera. I may have not metered appropriately for the steep falloff of the artificial light in this instance.

The sekonik ISO can be set to "odd" values like 1250 ?

Yes.

 

[calico]

Essentially, yes. But there are a lot of moving parts.

1250 is a very reasonable exposure index for D3200. But I recommend backing up a little and approaching this more fundamentally.

You, your methods, and your gear are the biggest variables here. The great thing about a "lab" is they tend to be consistent—they are a laboratory—as long as you have good communication with them. The chemistry is relatively consistent. The film stock is consistent.

The important questions is: How do you want your negatives to look in order to get the results you want, and what methodology gets you there?

The way I handle a light meter may be different than you. Your camera may be better calibrated than mine. The shutter speeds may be more accurate. Or, I might shoot in more variable lighting which favors erring on the overexposed side. Or, you might prefer the esthetic of a thinner and more contrasty negative, and maybe you shoot in flatter lighting scenarios. Who knows.

I said I shoot D3200 at EI 800. That's just what works for me. But I don't think of 800 as a scientific or technically ideal "normal" speed. It's the EI that gives me negatives I like for a lot of shooting scenarios. It's also possible that when I shoot at 800 my negatives turn out very similar to another person who shoots at 1000, 1250, or 640. The lab also learned what to expect from my negatives, back when I worked with the same lab frequently. So, if I came in and was uncertain about a roll and said "I think we need to push this roll two stops" they already had an idea of what that meant and how to proceed.

I also want to mention is that when you're shooting high speed film, it's often a very different situation then when shooting slower films. Darker scenes can have more complex lighting. You may be shooting wide open when using D3200. But maybe you shoot at f/8 more often with a 400 speed film. Wide open, you're more likely to have modest underexposure due to falloff and slightly BS nominal, factory aperture (an "f/2.8" lens that's closer to f/3.5 when wide open).

This is getting a little bit rambling, and I don't feel like editing much. So let me get back on point:

I recommend shooting test rolls. Is your light meter accurate (EV 15 in open sun?). Is your shutter accurate? Are your lenses stopping down smoothly? OK, let's assume yes to all of those points.

To find your "normal" for a film using 120 film: Select a scene with whatever you consider to be "good" and with steady and even light. Shoot at a middle aperture, not wide open. Heavily bracket the exposures. If you want to do this with a 3200 speed film, I would shoot all the way from EI 200 up to 6400 in 1/2 stop imcrements. Take notes, and bring those notes with you to the lab. Tell the lab what you're doing. Ask them to develop the film without a push. Ask them what speed they think that is. Look at the resulting negatives and decide which exposure got you the best results. This will establish what your normal exposure should be. It doesn't matter what "speed" the lab calls it. Your exposure determines shadow detail and midtone placement. Whichever negative looks and works best for your preferences is YOUR film speed for this film.

Once you determine which exposure looks best, you can start thinking about overall contrast. Negatives too flat? Ask the lab for a +1 push process. Don't say "develop for 1600." Tell them you exposed normally and want a one stop push.

You can repeat the test for push processing if you want. Expose another roll in a similar scene but this time expose for EI 800 through 25000 in half stop incriments. Tell the lab what you are doing. This time, ask for +2 stops push processing.

Once you get these test rolls sorted out, consider annotating them with a sharpie directly on the negatives, or taping your notes to the negative sleeve for reference years from now. I have some of these test rolls from 25 years ago. They're still interesting to reference.

I swear it will be worth the trouble.

Good suggestions. I do keep notes about what I do but have not done such extensive tests as you have done.

My FP4, HP5, and Tmax 400 developed at this lab have been turning out fine as I have been exposing them and how they develop.

It's just that I have never used Delta 3200 before, so I need to figure out what's going on re my exposures and their developing for that film.

I may not even use Delta 3200 much in the future. I have a couple more rolls here, so I want to do my best with those. But, unless I really fall in love with the Delta 3200 look, I'd probably be better off just pushing HP5 if I need ISO 800 (for example), because of the extra cost of the Delta 3200 and extra developing cost.

Thanks for typing such a long response! You are so right about the many variables when shooting film.