Delta 3200 shadow and highlight details

ericdan · Jun 26, 2017

I've done a personal film speed test with Delta 3200 in Microphen stock at 20 degrees.
normal, +3 stops, - 4 stops bracketing and then enlarging the negatives onto paper with minimum time to get maximum black.
Not surprisingly Delta 3200 comes in somewhere between 800iso - 1600iso. at that rating I get acceptable shadow details that are technically correct but very flat.
At 3200 ISO setting I get much more pleasing results in terms of contrast.

I kept on increasing the development time quite a bit to get dense enough highlights.
The test here again was to expose the frame at +3 stops onto paper at min time for max black, covering half of the paper.
What I am looking for here is something close to the paper white.
I've increased the development time as much as 110%, meaning instead of the recommended 9:00 mins I am doing 20:00 minutes. I am getting somewhat dense highlights but nothing near white. I assume at EI 3200 the film is simply underexposed massively and won't ever give me dense highlights no matter how long I cook the film.
Other than test frames I've actually exposed and developed a roll of normal pictures using this technique. I still need to work with contrast filters on the enlarger but I like the results.

I am wondering what everyone else's experience with this film is.
I never heard anybody overdeveloping the film by this much. People seem to go by the Ilford times mostly.

Patrick Robert James · Jun 27, 2017

If you look back through the recommendations for fast film here, you will see that most people use the developing time for one or two stops faster than what they shot the film at. I've always done that and it makes for great negs. Your film speed test is about right. IIRC Delta 3200 comes in at a nominal speed of 1250 max. Most people would shoot it around 800-1000.

Hope that helps you.

By the way, a lot of people scan film too. That makes underdevelopment not an issue. If you print, you need the density.

trendland · Jun 27, 2017

ericdan said:
I've done a personal film speed test with Delta 3200 in Microphen stock at 20 degrees.
normal, +3 stops, - 4 stops bracketing and then enlarging the negatives onto paper with minimum time to get maximum black.
Not surprisingly Delta 3200 comes in somewhere between 800iso - 1600iso. at that rating I get acceptable shadow details that are technically correct but very flat.
At 3200 ISO setting I get much more pleasing results in terms of contrast.

I kept on increasing the development time quite a bit to get dense enough highlights.
The test here again was to expose the frame at +3 stops onto paper at min time for max black, covering half of the paper.
What I am looking for here is something close to the paper white.
I've increased the development time as much as 110%, meaning instead of the recommended 9:00 mins I am doing 20:00 minutes. I am getting somewhat dense highlights but nothing near white. I assume at EI 3200 the film is simply underexposed massively and won't ever give me dense highlights no matter how long I cook the film.
Other than test frames I've actually exposed and developed a roll of normal pictures using this technique. I still need to work with contrast filters on the enlarger but I like the results.

I am wondering what everyone else's experience with this film is.
I never heard anybody overdeveloping the film by this much. People seem to go by the Ilford times mostly.

Never mind about this fact.It is indeed a film you will never reach ISO 3200 (with any deveoper).....
Be happy if it is somewhere in the near of
half Box speed (ISO1600)

But I just remember my Rollei R3 fiasco by the time.
Rollei stated ISO6400 (with special develloper) and I blamed me with thoughts to have a netter soup.
Knowing of experiments with HP5 I wanted to reach ISO 12800......
The result of many many films was a
realistic box speed ISO 400 !!!!
So you are a happy one - because your film has a min. of ISO1000 -ISO1600.
Tmax3200 was the same.

with regards

ericdan · Apr 3, 2018

So TMax P3200 will need massive over development, too?

aleckurgan · Apr 3, 2018

No, judging by its characteristic curves TMZ will build density in highlihgt areas more willingly than D3200. Especially in the T-max developer, which one needs to use to reach its maximum true ISO speed.

Rudeofus · Apr 3, 2018

The secret of Delta 3200 is that its highlights do not go through the roof, even if you totally overdevelop the film. Take a look at Ilford's data sheet for this film: as you develop more, it gets steeper and steeper in the shadow region, but its highlight region stays mostly flat. Therefore, even if you overdevelop this film by a lot, you may still need a higher paper grade to get decent highlights. This characteristic works great for night scenes, especially with light sources within the image frame, but it tends to give too low contrast for normal scenes with soft lighting.

From what I have read about TMAX 3200, this film offers about the same ISO speed, but has a more or less straight curve. It's up to you to decide which characteristic matches your style and intended subject matter.

ericdan · Apr 3, 2018

That sounds about right. When I shot test rolls of Delta 3200 I kept on increasing the developing time and the highlights never blew. At 20 mins which is 2.5 times Ilford:s recommended time I kind of get what I like. It:s a nice film but I am looking forward to exploring P3200 as well.

Andrew O'Neill · Apr 3, 2018

I always shot D3200 at EI 800 in Pyrocat-HD. Very nice results, tonally.

xtolsniffer · Apr 4, 2018

So for Delta 3200 (in Microphen) would you say that expose at 1600, develop for 3200 is a decent rule of thumb?

ic-racer · Apr 4, 2018

dense highlights but nothing near white.

Try contact printing, maybe there is excessive flare or fog somewhere in your enlarging system. Can you post a picture of these negatives that don't print any white at a mininum enlarger exposure for black.

Rudeofus · Apr 4, 2018

@ic-racer: I think the expectation was, that a pushed negative asks for a low paper grade during enlarging. This holds true for many films, but not for Delta 3200. I have exposed and developed with all kinds of subject matter and development procedures, but I have never used anything smaller than grade 4 during enlargement of my Delta 3200 negatives.

pentaxuser · Apr 4, 2018

xtolsniffer said:
So for Delta 3200 (in Microphen) would you say that expose at 1600, develop for 3200 is a decent rule of thumb?

If I recall correctly this was always the advice that Les McLean, formerly of this forum and a very good photographer and darkroom man, used to give. It is advice I used to follow and still do with DDX originally and then Xtol. I have never tried this with Microphen but for what it is worth another U.K. member tried to establish what speed he got with various developers and concluded that only Microphen achieved full speed of 3200.

I'd start with your rule above and take it from there. It looks as if you are unlikely to blow highlights and may even need to go beyond the above rule

Let us know how it goes

pentaxuser

xtolsniffer · Apr 4, 2018

Thanks Pentaxuser, I do love Delta 3200 but it's noticeable that when I expose and develop for 3200 in Microphen my exposure to make a batch of contact prints for filing for reference is always around half to three-quarters the exposure I'd use for say HP5. That suggests they're a bit thin...

ericdan · Apr 5, 2018

Delta 3200 in Microphen stock at EI 3200 needs the full 20 mins. A min time for max black contact print confirms that for me.

pentaxuser · Apr 6, 2018

ericdan said:
Delta 3200 in Microphen stock at EI 3200 needs the full 20 mins. A min time for max black contact print confirms that for me.

Thanks for the reminder of what your tests showed. It indicates that my advice to Xtolsniffer is quite a way off the mark. On the Les McLean maxim you would use the next development time i.e. 6400 but this only gets you to 12 mins which is way short of 20mins.

Even 2 stops up only gets you to 16.5 mins. I get nervous about such a large increase in time but that of course is my problem and not yours

A pity in some ways that there isn't a pool of users of D3200 @3200 in Microphen.
Xtolsniffer, a report of whatever you decide looks more important than ever.

pentaxuser

xtolsniffer · Apr 7, 2018

In my experience, Delta 3200 rated at box speed and developed in Microphen with the recommended times for 3200 gives perfectly printable negatives. I have some from 35mm enlarged to 12"x16" on my wall. The grain is certainly a feature, part of the look, but I like it. I recently took some photos at a circus, it worked but the negatives took quite some effort to print.

pentaxuser · Apr 7, 2018

xtolsniffer, it was too late to add the following last night but I had a feeling that someone on another forum called FADU had tested Perceptol, DDX and Microphen with D3200 to establish what the achievable speeds were. He based this on the achievement of tones either side of zone V I think.

Anyway the part of that thread that I want to mention is that he,also, stuck to Ilford times so D3200 only got 9 mins in Microphen. He made no mention of the negs being thin at Ilford times. If I try D3200 with Microphen I'd be tempted to try at least the next speed up so about 12 mins.

ericdan's style of negs may require 20 mins and anyway it is good to know that even at 11mins beyond the Ilford time the negs will still be OK. A big safety margin is always to be welcomed

pentaxuser

john_s · Apr 7, 2018

Rudeofus said:
The secret of Delta 3200 is that its highlights do not go through the roof, even if you totally overdevelop the film. Take a look at Ilford's data sheet for this film: as you develop more, it gets steeper and steeper in the shadow region, but its highlight region stays mostly flat. Therefore, even if you overdevelop this film by a lot, you may still need a higher paper grade to get decent highlights. This characteristic works great for night scenes, especially with light sources within the image frame, but it tends to give too low contrast for normal scenes with soft lighting.

From what I have read about TMAX 3200, this film offers about the same ISO speed, but has a more or less straight curve. It's up to you to decide which characteristic matches your style and intended subject matter.

Some interesting comments about the two very fast films from Paul Butzi. His web site isn't the way it was, so the wayback machine comes to the rescue. Read this article and in particular comments about film.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031009132831/http://www.butzi.net:80/articles/theater.htm

pentaxuser · Apr 7, 2018

john_s, thanks for the link. It would appear that in the situation of theatre photography Mr Butzi's preference is P3200 .It is slower but presents less problems overall, having a longer straight line than D3200. He makes no mention of grain differences in 135 negs in prints as big as 11X14. He mentions the problem of capturing both shadow detail and avoiding blown highlights with D3200 and the balance of opinion seems to be that D3200 is a lower contrast film v P3200 and blown highlights should be less of a problem.

What's your conclusions from this article in terms of D3200 v P3200 for theatre photography? Thanks

pentaxuser

Rudeofus · Apr 9, 2018

Agree with pentaxuser, that's a great article linked to by john_s! There is excellent advice about coordination with theater staff and also about composition, extremely helpful for anyone possibly wandering into this area. I somewhat disagree how Butzi writes about blown out highlights with Delta 3200, as this film's characteristic make it the antithesis to blown out highlights. If important subject matter (i.e. the brightly lit faces of actors) ends up in the upper low contrast part of the characteristic curve, then a higher paper grade plus some burning&dodging to keep shadow detail intact will reliably fix these issues. IMHO one should not describe something as "blown highlights" if there is plenty of accessible detail in the negative.

I guess it boils down to the difference between Butzi's work environment (needed complete set of prints ASAP, no time for real dark room work) and mine (nobody cares if I ever finish a print, so I can put in lots of time&effort into individual negatives until I have what I want - or not).

john_s · Apr 9, 2018

Rudeofus said:
........... I somewhat disagree how Butzi writes about blown out highlights with Delta 3200, as this film's characteristic make it the antithesis to blown out highlights. If important subject matter (i.e. the brightly lit faces of actors) ends up in the upper low contrast part of the characteristic curve, then a higher paper grade plus some burning&dodging to keep shadow detail intact will reliably fix these issues. IMHO one should not describe something as "blown highlights" if there is plenty of accessible detail in the negative.
..........

I think what Paul Butzi is trying to say is that because of the low contrast of highlights with Delta3200, the amount of accessible detail is insufficient for him. I guess there are two kinds of "blown highlights," one where highlight contrast is low, and one where it is high but more dense. Which one you prefer depends on how you print and what you expect, bearing in mind that the paper has its limitations too.

Incidentally, Butzi has a number of articles that I found worth reading.

Sirius Glass · Apr 9, 2018

Delta 3200 can handle approximately 14 f/stops. If he was shooting box speed the film would not have had blown out highlights, although straight printing on paper without dodging and burning would show blown out highlights. This is typical of what can happen when a self proclaimed expert thinks that they know more about a film than the film manufacturer.

Rudeofus · Apr 10, 2018

Butzi did not declare himself a master printer, quite to the contrary, he quite openly stated that he had to deliver final product at break neck speed, and that considerate dark room operations were not an option in the required time frame. If you have to deliver, you have to make compromises, and I praise him for stating the compromises he made openly and without sugar coating.

john_s · Apr 10, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
....This is typical of what can happen when a self proclaimed expert thinks that they know more about a film than the film manufacturer.

The way I read the article, he relates his experience clearly. I respect Ilford and Kodak. They have created products that are not the same as each other. Bravo for both of them!

Delta 3200 shadow and highlight details

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency