Delta 3200 in R09

poutnik · Jan 24, 2006

Hi all,

I'll be shooting a jazz performance in a not so good light conditions. I'll be shooting on Ilford Delta 3200 (I'd also try Neopan 400 or HP5+ if I had them on hand). Yeah, and I'll be shooting 120 size, so the grain is (a bit) less of an issue.

I have only two developers, the R09 (or more accurately F09 - Fomadon R09) and Tetenal Ultrafin liquid (not the plus variant). So far I really like the R09 results in @100 speed films and would like to try it also on the Delta3200. But I'd like to ask whether some of you have some development recommendations for a more diluted soup (let's say something like 1:60 to 1:100) and less to minimal agitation. Also if the light permits, I'd try to pull it to 1600 or even 800. What times I have found so far were for Rodinal dilluted 1:25 or so.

Also any of you have some hints on the Ultrafin developer times? I've only found the Ultrafin plus times for D3200.

jim appleyard · Jan 24, 2006

I'm not sure if you're are aware of this, but Delta 3200 is not a 3200 speed film. It is meant to shot at an EI of around 1000. Some folks get 1600 out of it, some 800.

Don't "pull" it to these speeds. Pulling involves changing your dev time. Shoot at these speeds and dev normally.

I like to dev this stuff in Acufine. You can find lots of info at the Massive Dev. Chart at digitaltruth.com.

argus · Jan 24, 2006

Try any developer you can find but don't soup it in Rodinal or R09 (that is supposed to be similar).
Rodinal works with slower speed film but it will screw up your Delta3200.

G

poutnik · Jan 24, 2006

OK, I said it wrong, I didn't mean pulling the Delta to 800, I meant shooting it rated at 800 or sth.similar. I have already read that it works better this way.

I've already searched the development charts at digitalTruth (and here on the APUG), but only found development suggestions for a strong (1:25) dilution on D3200. Some people suggested they use more diluted Rodinal for developing D3200, and some said they quite like the results, but none of them posted the times. And that is what I'm up to.

(on the DigitalTruth I have found only times for Ultrafin Plus, which is not the same as Ultrafin liquid that I have at home - could someone post a times approximation based on these?)

Donald Qualls · Jan 25, 2006

If you're going to shoot at EI 800 anyway, just shoot Tri-X. Much cheaper than Delta 3200, finer grain, and it can easily push to 800 without significant loss of image quality. If you want to get the *best* out of it, dilute you developer, agitate less, and develop a bit longer to compensate. With Rodinal, I'd use 1:50, agitate only every 3rd minute, and develop for 19-21 minutes; Rodinal will give you some serious grain, but the film will otherwise look like it was shot in good light.

Willie Jan · Jan 25, 2006

I use the delta 3200 for theater shoots and use it at 3200.

development in microphen works great!
See the ilford pdfs for more info on how to develop the delta 3200, you'll see they recommend the microphen.

NikoSperi · Jan 25, 2006

Isn't the general rule of thumb: double the dilution and double the time? (Quoting Michael Covington about HC110 here)...

gnashings · Jan 25, 2006

I am a big fan of grain, I think its a thing of beauty, etc. But, I have souped Delta 3200 in Rodinal (yes, MF), and even I was not very pleased with the results. Try to get your hands on a Microphen or something like that - still, I have not come to terms with the film. I am still working on it.

If you think 800-1000 ASA will be enough, I second the thought that this films is not the best way to go. Almost any 400 film pushed to 800 will give you better results, or you can try one of my favourites for that range: TriX @1000 in Acufine.

But, perhaps, you can get the Delta 3200 + Rodinal (RO9) combo to work... but even then, I think it will be a little bit redundant.

Anyhow, best of luck,

Peter.

BruceN · Jan 25, 2006

I have used Rodinal on 35mm 3200 Delta shot @ 3200 when I was specifically trying for a lot of grain to get the "look" I wanted. That said, I think for what you're doing you'll have much better luck souping it in Ilfotec DD-X. And, by all means, shoot it @ 3200.

Bruce

PS - I've also had great luck shooting it @ 1600 and souping it in DD-X.

kaiyen · Jan 25, 2006

I've seen some EI 3200 shots in Rodinal 1+50, I think, on photo.net, but the grain was quite intense. Pleasing in some situations, no doubt, but not what I'd use for people. I, too, would suggest a developer with better speed-enhancing qualities and relatively low grain. Microphen and DDX come to mind right off the bat.

As for shooting at 800...I think you would be fine shooting TXT at that EI, as well. Once you get out to 1600 it gets to be a tougher decision. TXT @ 1600 is very nice, actually, but it's not for high contrast situations. The already-increased contrast from underexposure compounds the lighting. If, however, you're in a low contrast setting, pushing TXT can add the extra snap for which you are looking.

For a high contrast situations like stage performances with spotlights, where the contrast is quite high, the relatively low contrast of Delta 3200 is very effective at holding the highlights.

And, if you want to go out to 3200 and beyond, it's easier to do so with Delta 3200 than TXT (though I also use the above guidelines - high vs. low contrast scenes - with TXT out to 6400 if I need to).

Jazz show lighting ranges from spotlights to low-power situations, of course. What kind of lighting are you expecting (other than "low")?

allan

kaiyen · Jan 25, 2006

Oh yeah - also, at least with Microphen and I think DDX, when you develop, do so at the time for the next highest EI. So if you shoot at 3200, develop according to the recommended time for EI 6400. The times that most sites (including digitaltruth) recommend will give you very flat negatives.

allan

poutnik · Jan 25, 2006

kaiyen said:
Oh yeah - also, at least with Microphen and I think DDX, when you develop, do so at the time for the next highest EI. So if you shoot at 3200, develop according to the recommended time for EI 6400. The times that most sites (including digitaltruth) recommend will give you very flat negatives.

allan

thanks, will bear this on mind. I finally decided I'll probably go for the Tetenal Ultrafin liquid 1+10 and leave R09 (for delta3200) for some other day.

Jiri

Jim Noel · Jan 25, 2006

For photographing in very low light situations there is nothing available which can touch Fuji Neopan Acros.
Because of its lack of reciprocity departure it is the fastest film available in these situations. There is no correction needed for the first two minutes. Some say this is true to 200 seconds, some say longer, but I know from experience it is true to two minutes.

kaiyen · Jan 25, 2006

Joel,
I have been astounded by the reciprocity behavior of Acros as well. However, I don't think a jazz musician is goin to sit still for 200 seconds.

allan

Fotohuis · Jan 25, 2006

To get the highest speed from your Delta 3200, Microphen or DDX is the right way to go. SPUR SLD is also a good alternative.

Much grain will be the result of a Rodinal/R09 development and your effective film speed will be the half or even less. But if you want grain: 1+50, long development, and a good shake!

Robert

poutnik · Jan 29, 2006

So, I did the shooting on friday and today I developed first of the 2 rolls shot (it was a bit of a test). I shot the Ilford Delta 3200 at around EI3200 (the light was terribly low) and developed in Tetenal Ultrafin liquid 1+10 for 19minutes at 20°C. The agitation was as follows:

* first 5 minutes continuous agitation: 1 inversion lasting 5sec, then 5sec wait, then repeat
* let it stand for the remaining 14 minutes with 1 inversion at the 10th minute.

I'm personally rather pleased with the results (see the attachment - a straight unmodified scan, I did not even change the curves/levels). For the second roll I'd let it stand for a bit longer, something like 21-22 minutes total...

Jiri

Delta 3200 in R09

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency