Delta 3200 - High FB+F?

[Ian Leake]

This may be a dumb question, but does Delta 3200 have an unusually high FB+F when developed? I've processed it in different developers and for different times and it always comes out with a very grey base (compared to FP4+ for example which is almost clear).

If it's supposed to be clear then any idea what I'm doing wrong? I use fresh film, properly stored and follow the manufacturers instructions (except I've started to rate it at EI 1000)...

Thanks in advance,
Ian.

 

[Mark Antony]

Ian I think the film base is pretty grey, I don't think it is supposed to be clear certainly not like a Neopan 400 type of clear.
I use the film quite a bit and although if not stored it can increase in base fog all the fresh stuff I've used has a grey look to the base.
My thoughts:
Delta 3200 test

And pushing to extremes:
Pushing Delta 3200

regards
Mark

 

[PhotoJim]

I tend to have fog on it unless it's very fresh.

I shot some last December that I'd only gotten the week before (from Freestyle, so it was very fresh when shipped), and there was very little base fog.

Note that this film is very sensitive to x-rays and the like.

 

[Ian Leake]

Thanks guys. The last few rolls I shot were brand new (expiry May 2010) and they were no different from a few rolls that I used recently which expired 6 months ago. I guess it doesn't matter too much just so long as the film is consistent.

 

[mabman]

I've developed a few rolls of it in 35mm recently myself, and I notice the gray base throughout. One slightly odd thing - unlike other films I've been shooting, I don't get any anti-halation dye washing out with stand development. Maybe the base colour is compensating for no dye (not sure if that makes any sense)?

 

[Poohblah]

Isn't the higher fb+f on D3200 to control contrast when printing, since otherwise the sensitive emulsion would have super high contrast?

 

[Rolleijoe]

Interesting thread. I've recently stopped shooting 135 due to eyesight reasons, and replaced my Nikon with a Mamiya 645. Since Neopan 1600 isn't available in 120 (and I can't stand T-Mud 3200), this seems to be an answer for certain shots. Will have to get some and experiment as I like the look of Neo1600 in Rodinal 1:50. Seems this film may be a good candidate for Diafine.

 

[Simon R Galley]

DELTA 3200 is coated on a different tri-acetate film base than our other films

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited:

 

[Chris Livsey]

DELTA 3200 is coated on a different tri-acetate film base than our other films

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited:

Because ?

Just technically curious.

ChrisL

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think with Diafine you'll get the same or better EI from Tri-X. Try Ilfotec DD-X with Delta 3200 - it's an awesome combination.
- Thomas

Interesting thread. I've recently stopped shooting 135 due to eyesight reasons, and replaced my Nikon with a Mamiya 645. Since Neopan 1600 isn't available in 120 (and I can't stand T-Mud 3200), this seems to be an answer for certain shots. Will have to get some and experiment as I like the look of Neo1600 in Rodinal 1:50. Seems this film may be a good candidate for Diafine.

 

[wogster]

Interesting thread. I've recently stopped shooting 135 due to eyesight reasons, and replaced my Nikon with a Mamiya 645. Since Neopan 1600 isn't available in 120 (and I can't stand T-Mud 3200), this seems to be an answer for certain shots. Will have to get some and experiment as I like the look of Neo1600 in Rodinal 1:50. Seems this film may be a good candidate for Diafine.

So do you find it easier to focus with the 645?

I guess your implying that you found T-Max 3200 a little muddy?

 

[Rolleijoe]

So do you find it easier to focus with the 645?

I guess your implying that you found T-Max 3200 a little muddy?

When I mentioned focusing, I was talking mainly about the negative in the enlarger. Although camera-wise, it may be as well, just need to get some sharper lenses for it. With Zeiss as the standard, nothing else comes close.

As regards to T-Mud, yep, I've never been happy with any of those films no matter how many tries over the last 20 or so years. Choice of developer made no difference.

 

[wogster]

When I mentioned focusing, I was talking mainly about the negative in the enlarger. Although camera-wise, it may be as well, just need to get some sharper lenses for it. With Zeiss as the standard, nothing else comes close.

As regards to T-Mud, yep, I've never been happy with any of those films no matter how many tries over the last 20 or so years. Choice of developer made no difference.

Hadn't thought of the enlarger focus being an issue.... I do wonder if I should replace the bulb in the enlarger when I dig it out though, the bulb, like the enlarger is 30 years old!

I tend to try a film once, maybe twice, and if it doesn't work for me, then I move on, case in point I love Ilford films, my favourite being PanF, tried XP2 and was not impressed, will probably not try it again.