Delta 3200 in DDX

[FrankB]

I use DDX across the board for Ilford's conventional films and follow their processing recommendations to the letter. For the most part this serves me well and I'm very happy with the negs I get... ...except for Delta 3200.

For this film following the recommendations always seem to give me thin negs and find myself dialling in the world's supply of magenta to get any worthwhile prints! I use very fresh DDX at 1:4 with filtered water at 20C and, like I say, I have no problems with other films.

Has anyone found a time / temp combination for Delta 3200 in DDX that works well for them? Does anyone have any suggestions for how I might vary Ilford's recommendations to product better negs?

All help gratefully received!

Thanks in advance,

Frank

 

[johnnywalker]

I only have limited experience with Delta 3200, but it bears out what others have said: expose it at 1600, and use Ilford's time for 3200. Presumably this would also translate into exposing at 3200 and developing as if it were 6400. I haven't tried it, but I've read that its "best" exposure index is around 800 to 1000. Hope this helps, but if not I'm sure much more knowledgeable people than I will respond.

 

[marcello.brussard]

Hi Frank,
I'm at my very first experience with delta 3200, so I can't be of help, but I'd like to had my question to your - I hope you w'ont consider it unfair.
I've just tried delta 3200@3200 in microphen stock (recomended ilford time/temp). The neg looks quite flat, yet with nice midtones, but the oddest thing is the film base, foggy (looks almost frosted) and unusually dark; Much darker than, lets say, delta 400. Did you experienced the same?

Ciao,
M.

 

[Les McLean]

Frank,

I tested Delta 3200 for Ilford for about 12 months before it hit the market place and tried many developers as well as pushing the film up to ISO 25000. DDX had not at that time been marketed but it was a standard in house Ilford developer so they gave me a few gallons to play with. One thing I remember is that I was told that it would produce quite a high base fog on 3200 and it did although I was not unhappy with the results I produced. I'll dig out those tests and let you know the results, but please remember that they are only my opinion and are not based on scientific measurements etc.

For what it is worth, I prefer Rodinal with 3200 for it gives me the grain that I really love. Because I don't like long development times I use a 1 to 25 dilution for 10 minutes at 20c when the film is rated at 3200. Whe I really push it say to 25000 I increase the temperature to 24c and the time to 12 minutes and although the base fog is quite noticable it doesn't appear to affect the end result.......but remember I do like grain.

I'll post the results of the tests when I return from Southern Ireland in a week or so.

 

[victor]

ya i defenetly agree with les mclean. the beauty of the high speed films is the grain of course. i suggest thath every one will try to learn the use of the grainy negatives in artistic manner. the main point is that u have to come in different "mind" when u come to print this kind of negative. of course therer are jigh speed films that will give very fine grain in some combinations, but it is more the disability to use the low speed film because of the conditions.

about the developing time of the delta 3200 and the low contrast...
first of all, therer is nothing wrong to print on grade five, but u have to be very careful on the roll films, and insure that u will not need more than g5 . second... if u use the difused light or cold light u have to develop more, or at least put your negative in the selenium. any way, try to rise the developing time in 25-50%. in testing the exposure development, try to be loyal to one kind of aggitation - it is very important.
the combinaation that u will be satisfied will be correct for u only when u use +/- same conditions and u make about the same enlargement. if u go bigger, u loose the contrast.

 

[FrankB]

Bump!

I have a couple of rolls of Delta 3200 135-36 shot at 3200 now that need processing. Has anyone any further suggestions on the best times / temps for this film in DDX?

I appreciate the comments on the desirability of grain but, to my mind, this depends on the subject matter. These shots are of a friend's wedding where I was backing-up the official snapper (the signing of the register, "No, you can't use flash! No, you can't use a tripod! No, you can't come any closer!") and I don't think that grain like crazy-paving would go down too well with the bride!

What I'm after are as near "normal" negs as possible with as good a range of contrast as possible and as unobtrusive grain as possible. If I can't have it then fair enough, but I would like to try.

All help gratefully received.

Thanks

Frank

 

[johnnywalker]

Develope it at Ilford's time as if it were shot at 6400.
Good luck and let us know how it works out.

 

[FrankB]

Develope it at Ilford's time as if it were shot at 6400.
Good luck and let us know how it works out.

I did and it worked very nicely. I also extended the fixing time to 6 mins in an attempt to get the base absolutely as clear as possible. The negs are punchier and should be much easier to print with good levels of contrast.

Many thanks to everyone for all the help.

Regards

Frank