Delta 3200 - did I do something wrong?

I have been playing with Ilford Delta 3200. I'd like to know what I am observing is what to be expected or I did something wrong. This is a 120 sized film.

I processed this film both with D-76, ID-11 (same thing), and XTOL. First, I shot at EI 1600 and processed as EI 2400. It was thin. Then, I shot at EI 3200 and processed at EI 6400. (meaning my exposure was measured as if EI was 3200 and processing time was as if it was shot at 6400). Basically, I developed it longer than the Ilford spec sheet says. It was ok, but still kind of thin.

Popular notion on "the net" is that Ilford's timing is actually wrong that one needs to use one stop higher dev time. I find it hard to believe that Ilford did this wrong, and if so, it hasn't been corrected.

What I find surprising is, a pretty healthy amount of base fog. The base is fairly dark blue/gray and if I compare it against Tmax or Plus-X on a light table, the difference is incredible. Also the contrast seems to be on low side. Granted I shot it in low contrast environment, since I'm pushing processing, I thought it will be more on contrasty side. It isn't.

Is this what to be expected??

Delta 3200

I use xtol stock replenished for the 3200, which I shoot at 1600. Time for 73degrees is 9 minutes, so a t 68 would be around 12 or 13 min. Agitation 5 sec every 30 sec. You will get high base fog with this film, at least I do.
I also was not thrilled with the contrast, and tried a roll with Rodinal 25:1 today. 9 min at 68F with the same agitation as above. Contrast markedly better, although I have heard Rodinal will give more grain. Have not printed these.
I think you can work with exposure and dev times and agitation with xtol and get decent results, but I am not the wizard on that. I don't use the film unless I really have to have the speed, and that is usually in 35mm.

I also think the film is sensitive to handling in the light when rolled up and not in the camera, so the fog may come from a loose wind?

The heavy base fog is typical. I've used this film a fair amount. After trying a few permutations I've settled on shooting at 1600, developing as per recommendations for 3200 in DDX.

I use it alot for my natural light pregnancy/family portraits. Here's an example. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I've been in darkroom printing from this negative. While the neg itself looks thin, amazingly enough the prints are fine.... very weird. I have to give it enough exposure to "cut through" the base fog, and give it 1/2 grade more then my usual for contrast.

It IS possible some of the fog may have come from storage, both at retail store and in my ownership. I just don't have any ways to know if this is the case. As to handling, it's not impossible but I'd think if that were the case, the effects won't be even. It's completely even. I did notice, very edge of film did have a sign of light exposure. (only at the VERY edge of one side only)

Judging from the result, I kind of like this film with some reservation. It's amazing enough that it can record image at the light level I was using. I really wanted grain for this particular shot and I got it. For that, I'm pretty happy about it.

P.S. Sly, beautiful portraits... I love portraits!

Both Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak Tmax 3200 have high base fog. That's normal for them. Kodak Tmax Developer is far and away the best developer for these films. If all you've tried is D-76 (the worst!) or Xtol (Ok with Tmax 3200 but Tmax Developer has better tonality. Haven't used Xtol with Delta 3200), then you need to try Tmax Developer.


35mm Delta 3200, EI-1600, Tmax Developer



120 Delta 3200, EI-1600, Tmax Developer

Hi,

Why do you say D-76 is the worst? What characteristics did you NOT like? I ask because I was looking for a certain effect.

tkamiya said:

Hi,

Why do you say D-76 is the worst? What characteristics did you NOT like? I ask because I was looking for a certain effect.

Click to expand...

Poor shadow detail, grainy, ugly gradation.

Thanks. Grainy I wanted. Everything else, NO!

tkamiya said:

I've been in darkroom printing from this negative. While the neg itself looks thin, amazingly enough the prints are fine....

Click to expand...

I have the same experience.

You have to lower your standards if you want "acceptable" images when underexposing film.

No, I won't lower my standards. I want a perfect negative! I want perfect tonality! I want a nice juicy melon! (huh?) Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Does that help?

ic-racer said:

You have to lower your standards if you want "acceptable" images when underexposing film.

Click to expand...

That statement, may be true from a design perspective, but it ignores consideration of the scene to be shot and the output intended and alternatives.

I ask myself, "for this scene, what exposure will give me the effects I want (sharpness, lack of blur, DOF) and what film will give me the best result, grain & tonality or whatever other criteria I want?"

If I decide I need 1/60 @ f/4 (typical for outdoor evening work) to get a certain effect the only variables left are the EI, filters, and changes to the lighting. If, after considering the filtering and lighting options, I decide the scene dictates EI3200 to get proper placement of my subjects then EI3200 is the proper exposure, not an underexposure.

Scenes that require exposure settings outside any available film's norm are the limit.

The fresher this film is, the less base fog you'll get. I shot some a few years ago that I had received that week from Freestyle and as fresh as I've ever seen it (I can't recall how far out the expiry date was but it was at least a year). I had hardly any base fog on those shots. Keep it six months and the base fog is a lot more obvious.

A lower ISO controls the base fog, too. Shooting it at EI 800 or 1000 (which is its real speed) reduces the fog nicely.

Jim,

My film was purchased perhaps 6 to 8 months ago so your descriptions fits my film rather precisely. So this is like raw meat then.... buy fresh, just as many as I need, then eat while fresh... That's good to know.

I've not shot a lot of Delta 3200, but TMZ is similar with base fog. Once it gets close to or out of date, it starts getting pretty noticeable. On the other hand, shooting at 800 then gives very useable negatives. I had a stash of TMZ that expired in 2007 and I finally developed the last roll last week (exposed May 2010 at 800). Came out pretty good all things considered.

Most stuff I've read puts Delta 3200 a hair faster than TMZ with slightly more base fog problems.

I don't notice base fog in my Delta 3200 but the negatives are usually thinner than I'd want using Ilford's recommended times, especially with DD-X. I find the density is better with HC-110 or Ilford HC. The thin negatives do print well but thicker ones print better. 1600 works well but 3200 can too when developed for long enough. Do some tests, it may take 17 or 20 minutes to get the density you want.

For indoor shots without a flash Delta 3200 is often the only game in town, especially for 120. Delta 400 at 1600 is grainier than Delta 3200 at 1600 for sure.

tkamiya said:

Jim,

My film was purchased perhaps 6 to 8 months ago so your descriptions fits my film rather precisely. So this is like raw meat then.... buy fresh, just as many as I need, then eat while fresh... That's good to know.

Click to expand...

Excellent analogy. Like meat. But it fresh.

I've never used Delta 3200 but as a general rule rather than jumping around with different settings and chemistry I would run a test roll to determine the effective ISO for your camera equipment. First take a couple of frames with the lens cap on. Then shoot an 18% gray card filling the whole frame (not necessary to focus) overexposing from your meter reading @3200 by two stops then by half stops to the original reading and then under exposing by half stops. Develop as to Ilford's recommendations. Make a test print from the unexposed frame and carefully note the times so when the print is dry you can see where it went from total black to a different tone. Then cut printing paper into pieces marking the backs with a pencil for each of the +/- exposures. Print each of the negatives using the enlarger lens opening, height and time that total black changed from. The one that most closely matches the gray card will give you the effective ISO for you setup. Shoot a roll of film at those settings and develop with the chemistry etc as the test. If the results are as desired you have a standard and can vary from that for the effect you want.

Everyone has their favorite combination and what works for one may not give the results you want.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/