Delta 3200 rated at 800 ISO in D76?

[DH_Studio]

Hey guys,

Getting back to hand processing after years and trying to make sure I don't F things up.

I shot some Delta 3200 rated at 800 and am trying to find development times for it. I checked the Ilford chart (https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1913/product/683/) and the Massive Dev Chart and noticed something I didn't quite understand. Both only list development time in stock if you rated the film at 800 - but the Massive Dev Chart has 1:1 times listed for 3200 rated at 400, which would be an extra stop. And both say to process for less time if rated at 800 than 3200. So less processing time for underexposed film?

The Massive Dev Chart also says when pushing film two stops, multiply regular developing time by 1.85. But the Ilford sheet says if the film was rated at 800 to develop for 8 minutes and if rated at 3200 to process for 10.5 minutes. So I underexposed by two stops, planning to push two stops, but if I'm reading the Ilford chart correctly it says to process for less time for 800 than 3200.

My goal was to underexpose two stops and then push two stops for extra contrast and grain for these images.

So...I'm confused.

 

[MattKing]

Not as confused as I am!
You say that you exposed the film after metering your scene with the meter set to ISO (actually EI) of 800.
Great, that is close to the native speed of the film - ISO 1000 - and you should have good shadow detail.
The film is not under-exposed at all!
Now you are faced with a decision about the contrast of the result.
For "normal" contrast, you could develop it at the times for EI 800 recommended by Ilford. I say "normal" because Delta 3200 is actually designed to have less than normal contrast, due to the likelihood that people will under-expose it (EI of 1600, or 3200, or ??) and then increase its development (a "push" development) to try to maximize the quality obtained from what would otherwise be severely under-exposed (EI 3200) film.
You indicate that you want to increase the contrast of your properly exposed (EI 800) film. I would suggest following Ilford's push development time recommendations for either EI 1600 (a moderate increase of contrast) or EI 3200 (a significant increase of contrast). I would be wary of Massive Development chart recommendations - manufacturer's recommendations are usually better.
Be aware that each level of "push" will increase the relatively deleterious effect on the highlight rendition, although films like Delta 3200 suffer less from that than other, more normal films.
I hope this helps.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The film is close to 800, a little faster, so if you want to underexpose it two stops as you say, that means it has to be exposed at 3200... That is the speed the film was designed for, to reach normal contrast... The film has very low native contrast, and it won't block highlights easily: if you don't hate grain, it can go to 6400 in soft overcast light... I like grain, but when I have used D3200, I have disliked the type of blacks it produces: they are not deep... I imagine that's because at Ilford they made it to retain a lot of shadow detail at high exposure indexes... The film works great anyway in Microphen and DD-X... Times are close to OK for condender enlargers, and for diffusion enlargers a lot of people use the times published for 6400 when it's been exposed at 3200...
TMax3200 has better tone and deeper blacks: blacker and with less visible grain inside those blacks, instead of the weak blacks, indeed dark grainy grays of D3200... TMZ has a type of big grain I like better: wonderful in TMaxDev if you like sharp grain... Why isn't perfect all this: because TMZ isn't made in medium format...
I would say TMZ is the option for 1600 and 3200, and D3200 is the only option for MF and for 6400 if you like that textured look and those weaker grainier blacks... Does anybody know why Kodak decided not to offer TMZ for MF? A real reason must exist...

 

[MattKing]

Does anybody know why Kodak decided not to offer TMZ for MF? A real reason must exist...

That is probably on their list of potential product (re-)introductions.
But given what I know about how complex and difficult it was for them at adapt the new 135 Ektachrome for 120, I expect that they don't want to divert the necessary resources as of yet.
Or it may be that their sales projections are such that they don't feel that they can make their money back from that process.
Both Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris are short of capital, and they are devoting a lot of their available capital to relieving the bottleneck of production on their more in demand colour film products.

 

[DH_Studio]

Not as confused as I am!
You say that you exposed the film after metering your scene with the meter set to ISO (actually EI) of 800.
Great, that is close to the native speed of the film - ISO 1000 - and you should have good shadow detail.
The film is not under-exposed at all!
Now you are faced with a decision about the contrast of the result.
For "normal" contrast, you could develop it at the times for EI 800 recommended by Ilford. I say "normal" because Delta 3200 is actually designed to have less than normal contrast, due to the likelihood that people will under-expose it (EI of 1600, or 3200, or ??) and then increase its development (a "push" development) to try to maximize the quality obtained from what would otherwise be severely under-exposed (EI 3200) film.
You indicate that you want to increase the contrast of your properly exposed (EI 800) film. I would suggest following Ilford's push development time recommendations for either EI 1600 (a moderate increase of contrast) or EI 3200 (a significant increase of contrast). I would be wary of Massive Development chart recommendations - manufacturer's recommendations are usually better.
Be aware that each level of "push" will increase the relatively deleterious effect on the highlight rendition, although films like Delta 3200 suffer less from that than other, more normal films.
I hope this helps.

Thank you, I didn't realize it wasn't actually 3200. So I didn't underexpose. I was so confused by that chart - it all makes sense, now.

Okay, I'll process for 1600, get a bit more contrast without losing as much of the highlights. The Ilford sheet calls for stock, doesn't list a time for 1:1. Is there any reason that wouldn't be recommended?

Thanks for the help, I appreciate it.

 

[DH_Studio]

The film is close to 800, a little faster, so if you want to underexpose it two stops as you say, that means it has to be exposed at 3200... That is the speed the film was designed for, to reach normal contrast... The film has very low native contrast, and it won't block highlights easily: if you don't hate grain, it can go to 6400 in soft overcast light... I like grain, but when I have used D3200, I have disliked the type of blacks it produces: they are not deep... I imagine that's because at Ilford they made it to retain a lot of shadow detail at high exposure indexes... The film works great anyway in Microphen and DD-X... Times are close to OK for condender enlargers, and for diffusion enlargers a lot of people use the times published for 6400 when it's been exposed at 3200...
TMax3200 has better tone and deeper blacks: blacker and with less visible grain inside those blacks, instead of the weak blacks, indeed dark grainy grays of D3200... TMZ has a type of big grain I like better: wonderful in TMaxDev if you like sharp grain... Why isn't perfect all this: because TMZ isn't made in medium format...
I would say TMZ is the option for 1600 and 3200, and D3200 is the only option for MF and for 6400 if you like that textured look and those weaker grainier blacks... Does anybody know why Kodak decided not to offer TMZ for MF? A real reason must exist...

Thanks Juan, I appreciate the help. So if I wanted to bump the contrast of, say, Tri-X 400, without blowing out my highlights completely, I would rate the film at a lower speed and then push process, right? So, for example, rate it at 100 and then push +2 stops in development? I think the 3200 being a true speed of 800 has me confused.

 

[DH_Studio]

I'm using stainless steel tanks, and I was wondering if I've been tapping my tanks too hard (my film was getting messed up but I realized it was bent Arista reels. I replaced them with some Hewes reels, as suggested here on Photrio). When I was watching videos of people processing with stainless steel, I came across this video of a guy showing how he does his inversions and taps for air bubbles and wondered if this is what people here would recommend. It seems super forceful and aggressive to me, never saw anybody slam their tanks so hard but I've also been having weird results (with C41 - gonna process my first rolls of B+W this week) and wondered if maybe I'm not agitating (and especially) banging hard enough. This guy seems to be actually angry at his tanks but maybe this is normal? It starts at around 1:20.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you, Matt.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks Juan, I appreciate the help. So if I wanted to bump the contrast of, say, Tri-X 400, without blowing out my highlights completely, I would rate the film at a lower speed and then push process, right? So, for example, rate it at 100 and then push +2 stops in development? I think the 3200 being a true speed of 800 has me confused.

You're thinking the wrong way: it happens to all of us sometimes... If you rate Tri-X at 100 you're giving it a lot of light instead of little light... Rate it at 400. 500, 640 or 800... And find your time... That, for overcast... Rate it between 100 and 200 for sun, with a shorter development.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I'm using stainless steel tanks, and I was wondering if I've been tapping my tanks too hard (my film was getting messed up but I realized it was bent Arista reels. I replaced them with some Hewes reels, as suggested here on Photrio). When I was watching videos of people processing with stainless steel, I came across this video of a guy showing how he does his inversions and taps for air bubbles and wondered if this is what people here would recommend. It seems super forceful and aggressive to me, never saw anybody slam their tanks so hard but I've also been having weird results (with C41 - gonna process my first rolls of B+W this week) and wondered if maybe I'm not agitating (and especially) banging hard enough. This guy seems to be actually angry at his tanks but maybe this is normal? It starts at around 1:20.

More than a guy, Chris is a wonderful human being, and a real, real photographer... He's right all the time too....
Only for Rodinal you should really care about very gentle inversions... And you don't need to tap the tank hardly either...
Modern developers are designed for good agitation most of the times: current D-76 needs 6 or 7 inversions fast enough to be inside 5 seconds, for every cycle at the beginning of every 30 seconds...
Your negatives will be just perfect no matter if you use stock or 1+1... Anyway you'll get beautiful present grain... I don't know what developer you're using, though...
If you used your film in soft light, use the times for 1600 if you use a diffusion enlarger, and use the times for 800 if you use a condenser enlarger or if you scan.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
I just saw Chris didn't tell us in the video he's preparing cocktails inside his tank!
I tap the tank on the table just a couple of times after pouring the developer in...

 

[Craig75]

just develop it longer - you arent going to grey up highlights unless youre taking shots in extremely high contrast situations which is unlikely - you have plenty stops to play with

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I missed D-76 in the title...
I'd use D-76 Stock for 6 minutes, with Kodak agitation, and see a first roll...
6 fast inversions in the beginning, and 6 fast inversions every 30 seconds.
The great thing is you gave the film exactly the light it needs...

 

[DH_Studio]

You're thinking the wrong way: it happens to all of us sometimes... If you rate Tri-X at 100 you're giving it a lot of light instead of little light... Rate it at 400. 500, 640 or 800... And find your time... That, for overcast... Rate it between 100 and 200 for sun, with a shorter development.

Wow, that's embarrassing! I intended to UNDEREXPOSE and it's only the fact that Delta 3200 is actually 800 ISO that stopped me from OVEREXPOSING. Can you tell it's been a while?!!

Thanks for pointing that out (and doing it in a friendly way). Okay, so I exposed it at its actual speed, but Delta 3200 is lower contrast film intended to be pushed so developing at the "normal" time would produce low contrast images that I can bump up in the darkroom OR I can push and add contrast that way...

 

[DH_Studio]

just develop it longer - you arent going to grey up highlights unless youre taking shots in extremely high contrast situations which is unlikely - you have plenty stops to play with

Thanks Craig. It was a rainy, super misty day, definitely not a high contrast scene at all.

 

[MattKing]

Speaking fairly generally...
It would be great if Juan and I could get together in real life, because I think there are real differences in our approaches, and it would be fun to have some real prints to discuss together.
Or maybe argue about .
When Juan talks about one film or another having better blacks, my knee jerk response is to think that that is just a matter of printing differently.
Whereas when I talk about one film or another having better mid-tones and highlights, I expect Juan will think that that is just a matter of lighting, exposing or developing differently.
The "generally" part of this is that people tend to pay too much attention to the choice of film, and not the combination of film and approach to it.
As for agitation, as long as you can feel and/or hear the liquid gurgling through the reels, and you are imparting both twisting and tumbling motion, your agitation will work.
I'm a fairly gentle tapper myself.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I always rate Delta 3200 at 800. But I process it in PMK pyro. D76 works OK. TMZ high-speed TMax doesn't impress me. It's really 1000 speed too, just like the fine print on the Tech Sheet states. Sure, you can shoot it faster at proportional loss of shadow detail. I prefer to shoot TMY400 at 800 when I want a blacked-out graphic shadow look, and it's available in all common formats clear up to 8X10. Delta 3200 has a completely different personality, along with more conspicuous grain; it's a nice rainy day film for my Nikon or 6x9 Fuji RF tucked under the parka.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Matt: even if I can get more contrast for richer blacks while printing (that's what I do), what I meant was if I use the same filter for printing, usually both films give me different blacks, being stronger the blacks of TMZ, and not only weaker the blacks of Delta: they also show more grain than the blacks of TMZ. TMZ has a normal film tone, deep and contrasty, while Delta is as if we had all our lives printed on fiber glossy, and one day, for the first time, we used matt... That difference...
I'd enjoy seeing you some day too: the reason is we think the same way about most things...
Just kidding

 

[warden]

This guy seems to be actually angry at his tanks but maybe this is normal?

I don't think you need to bang it so aggressively or so often but different strokes for different folks. When in doubt I follow the manufacturer's directions for film and chemistry. For D3200 Ilford recommends fairly slow inversions and doesn't mention tapping, banging, stomping or throwing ;-) :

"Intermittent agitation is recommended for use in spiral tanks and deep tanks. With spiral tanks, invert the tank four times during the first 10 seconds, then invert the tank four times again during the first 10 seconds of each further minute."

I give a firm tap on the table to dislodge bubbles before initial agitation and that's it. (That's Kodak's recommendation from TMax 400 documentation and it works well for me.)

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I wonder, Matt: do you prefer any of those two films for some precise tasks? I find them very different films, tonally speaking...
And by the way, I do work on films a lot, instead of considering the choice of film defines tone... You needed to imagine me, as someone I'm not, and that's interesting, for you to think, I mean...
Back to photography, with some films we can expose, develop, agitate in ways we get to make one film to look like another film, we can shape its curve...
I think that's not the case with TMZ and Delta: they're really different... Maybe Delta's huge grain size and presence can't give the same cleaner blacks and cleaner grays TMZ gives...
Or maybe this is just subjective perception...
I agree with Drew Delta has a unique tonal personality.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I don't think you need to bang it so aggressively or so often but different strokes for different folks. When in doubt I follow the manufacturer's directions for film and chemistry. For D3200 Ilford recommends fairly slow inversions and doesn't mention tapping, banging, stomping or throwing ;-) :

"Intermittent agitation is recommended for use in spiral tanks and deep tanks. With spiral tanks, invert the tank four times during the first 10 seconds, then invert the tank four times again during the first 10 seconds of each further minute."

I give a firm tap on the table to dislodge bubbles before initial agitation and that's it. (That's Kodak's recommendation from TMax 400 documentation and it works well for me.)

I thought it was a joke when I saw the beginning of the video... Honestly...
No need at all for that amount and type of tapping... If it could harm film, I can't tell...

 

[pentaxuser]

As I watched him doing his agitation and slaps I found myself softly singing La Cucaracha

pentaxuser

 

[Craig75]

Thanks Craig. It was a rainy, super misty day, definitely not a high contrast scene at all.

well extra exposure + extra development = increased contrast + increased grain.

dont be afraid to give it some extra time in the tank for the effects you are looking for - you have a load of lattitude

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

DH, what Craig says is true: for such low contrast you'll be better using the times for 1600...
Possibly 7-8 minutes in D-76 stock.

 

[138S]

My goal was to underexpose two stops and then push two stops for extra contrast and grain for these images.

As I understand you are experiementing... I would suggest you also try Delta 3200 at EI 1000, which is it's true ISO speed. If wanting grain then use a coarse grain developer, and adjust development time to get the result you want, this is if you don't need the 3200 speed and only a wild aesthetics. By underexposing at EI 3200 you will damage shadow detail, if you don't want that shadow detail you always can kill it in the post process time, but by exposing at EI 1000 (ISO 1000 nominal in that case) you can expect a better quaity images, while contrast and grain can be adjusted in the development.