Delta Pro 3200

[Annemarieke]

Has anybody tried this film?
I am going back to Scotland in 10 day's time and I want to try this film (my standard film being FP4plus). My main subject for this film will be old graveyards, ruined buildings, stone walls, etc.

The developer Ilford recommends is Ilford DD-X (which happens to be one of the developers I use for the FP4 rollfilms, the other one being D76).

Has anybody developed any Delta Pro 3200 rollfilms, and if so what developer did you use?
What development times? Dilution?

Thanks for any help you can give me.
Anne Marieke

 

[victor]

hi..
this is a very good film indeed. and yes the ddx is the best one for it, especially when u come to enlarge it. as fp4 (with d76, i use instead id11 - the same) user u will need the addaptation to it in terms of its aesthetic appearance and in the ways u may print it.
follow the recomendations of ilford for developing with ddx, or slightly increase the time if u use split printing method. over all it depends on your taste.

but let me give u another option - the hp5. well i dont recomened it to push to 3200 any way, but 1600 will work great with the id11 or ddx. 800 is even better, and u also can use rodinal for that. u will even have on the rodinal the ability to extend some development time. aesthetically, it is much better film in this combination since rated on 800 (wether id11 ddx or rodinal) u will be able to print it in deferent ways. the options in printing will be great.
with grain on the extended development u dont have to worry too much, since when u give less light it effects the granuality less, so less light and more development is a meter of compesation in this way. by the way the delta 3200 works in the same way. the emulssion of delta 3200 actually is 800.

 

[Leon]

be careful as delta 3200 is can only be rated at that speed with certain developers (ie microphen or other "push" developers and possibly DDX although i dont know too much about that one ). Its true speed is somehwere around ei 800 in most developers although I have had some acceptable results at ei 1600 in dilute perceptol.

 

[Annemarieke]

Thanks for your comments Leon. What is your experience as far as grain is concerned? You probably realise that I am looking for a slight grain for the subjects I have in mind (and I don't like Tmax 3200).

Anne Marieke

 

[Roger Krueger]

Part of the issue with Delta 3200 revolves around how much speed you really need, and how much shadow detail you're willing to give up to get it.

I like it at 6400 or even 12,500, XTOL 1:1, 75-80F (24-27C), 30 minutes, five inversions once every 5-7 minutes. BUT I'm shooting at night, where a few pools of inky blackness look O.K. Under non-night conditions I'd rate it at 3200 at the very most. XTOL gives as fine a grain as seems possible with this film. DD-X I've also heard highly recommended, but haven't had a chance to try it.

Another choice for high speed + small grain is TMY in XTOL, as above, about a stop slower than the Delta 3200.

If you WANT big grain (couldn't tell from your post), of course, I'd suggest Rodinal, although if you don't need the speed HP5 or Tri-X would give better defined, less "mushy" grain.

 

[Leon]

rate it at 6400 or higher and develop in rodinal and you'll get BIG grain. the ei1600 + 1:3 perceptol mix wasnt too grainy at all and had a nice sharp look to it - but the development time was l-o-n-g. I must admit, I prefer HP5, but then again, I'm not really a fan of extra-prominent grain.

I'll dig out an old print and scan it tomorrow to show you the perceptol and 1600 combination if you like

 

[victor]

for a pronounced grain with unmatched beauty the apx400 can work very good as well. the official rating there is from 400 to 1600. plus, rodinal with etended development will not add too much contrast if u want to avoid too much contrast.
also, for example - 400 with rod /25 for twice the recomended time (or something like 13-18min, depends on u) will give u pictorial prints while made on condensor. the contrast still very controlable with split method, from romantic grey grainy and dreamy, to cold graphical. (of course the combination of exp/dev should be matched, but that should be a good starting point). it can give a very unusual prints that u may like.

 

[MikeK]

I am not a real fan of ultra-high speed films, but have gotten good results shooting Delta 3200 in 120 roll format. I rated the film at an EI of 1600 and developed in Xtol 1:1 for 15 minutes at 68f/20C.

- Mike

 

[Ed Sukach]

I've checked my records - I haven't really done much with P3200 -- In 2002, I developed a few rolls of 120 in Rodinal 1:50 for 17 minutes 00 seconds; In 2003 - Ilford DDX, 1:4 for 9 minutes 00 seconds; and in 2004, Rodinal 1:25 for 11 minutes 00 seconds - all at 20 degrees Celsius - and all exposed at ISO 3200.

This all was used in terrible "available light" situations - and all was generally "satisfactory" - good enough to print.

Hope this will be of some - minimal - help.

 

[Annemarieke]

Thanks everybody, for your reactions.
Leon, yes I would be interested to see your print of the Perceptol/1600 combination.

I am not looking for a terribly big grain, but I have found that FP4 is too smooth and too 'beautiful' for graveyards and ruined buildings.

Normally I prefer maximum sharpness and no grain for my landscapes and nature images.

This is just a new project I want to start when I am in Scotland at the end of February/beginning March

I really like the 'feel' of the Fuji Neopan 1600 film, but I haven't found it in rollfilm. Guess that does not exist?

Maybe Tri-X is an option too, as Roger says, but my experience with that film is that it is rather fine-grained for a fast film. I developed it in D76. Maybe I could try another combination.

Thanks to you all!
Anne Marieke

 

[Silverpixels5]

I don't know what chemicals you have on hand, but I have had much success with Delta 3200 (135) stand developed in Pyrocat HD. You get very sharp negatives with a nice amount of grain. I've only enlarged up to 5x7 with it, so beyond that I don't know how the grain looks. I've tried delta 3200 in in T-max Dev, but it didn't give me the contrast that I was looking for. Good luck in whatever you choose!

 

[Annemarieke]

Normally I develop my FP4 in DD-X or D76 and my Technical Pan in Technidol. It doesn't really matter what I have on hand at the moment, I will be ordering the 'grainy' film in the UK to be sent straight to the Isle of Skye and I can order any developer I wish to use with that film.

Choices, choices
Anne Marieke

 

[FrankB]

I've shot Delta 3200 at 3200 in 35mm and processed it according to Ilford's data (DDX 1:4 for however long it says (sorry, can't remember offhand!)) sheet. I found it gave good image quality with very acceptable grain, but I had to work hard to get enough contrast into the prints. I may try different processing times / temps next time around.

I use DDX for all Ilford films (virtually all the B&W I shoot) and rate it very highly (much better than Ilfosol S)... ...except that Ilford only ship it in a 1 litre bottle (enough for 16 rolls!), meaning I have to batch up my films and then process them in one go (which takes up most of a weekend!).

Ilford, if you're reading this *please* start putting it in 250ml bottles! I'll settle for 500ml! ANYTHING rather than consigning me to another weekend at the sink! Please?!

 

[Annemarieke]

Frank,
I have found that DD-X actually keeps quite well, as long as you make sure of sealing the bottle tightly, for instance with a thin piece of plastic screwed in between the lid. You are right about DD-X's quality, it is a lovely developer. Unfortunately I cannot buy it in Holland and I have to order it in the UK. This is fine when I am in Scotland, in my friend's darkroom, but if I am at home it costs me an arm and a leg to have chemicals shipped to Holland.

Thanks anyway for your comments. I think I will give the Delta 3200 a try.

Anne Marieke

p.s. does anybody happen to know whether Fuji Neopan 1600 comes in rollfilm?

 

[Leon]

i have posted the example of delta 3200 that i mentioned earlier in thsi thread in the non-gallery images gallery.

 

[Annemarieke]

Thanks Leon! For my comments, see the print gallery.
Anne Marieke

 

[gareth harper]

I've used it at 3200 and 6400. I now dev it in DD-X, the grain is fairly large and there is not a particulary big spread of tones. I've only pushed films like T-max and tri-x one stop so I can't compare. I have been happy enougth with Delta 3200 prints and it's certainly better than nothing or crude flash lighting.
A word of caution though, the times on the Ilford site for Delta 3200 and DD-X seem way out, almost a stop out. I dev for 11minutes 30 seconds at 3200asa, that's almost Ilford time for 6400.

 

[Annemarieke]

Gareth, do you happen to have an example print of Delta 3200 developed in DD-X?

Thanks for your warnings about the development time.

Anne Marieke

 

[ian_greant]

Hello,

I've used Delta 3200 but usually for my 6x6 I push txp320 to 3200 in D76
For myself I prefer pushing the tri-x. I've used HP5 for up to 1600 and really like the smooth tones I get from it.

I'm a bit short on time or I'd dig up some photos for you. I'll see what I can find later.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[ian_greant]

ok... while sipping some coffee I found a scan that was already sized and ready to go.

It's in the non-gallery with the details.
While you don't see much grain in the scan you do see it in a 8x10 (slight cropping) although it isn't obtrusive.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[gareth harper]

Hi Anne, I've just stuck two print scans in my personal folder. Bear in mind my cheap and nasty faltbed exaggerates the grain. The one taken in the modern art museum was printed from a very thin neg (my first attempt with DD-X, used the Ilofrd time). Kirsten is much better and later made quite a pleasing print on 12x16 MGIV Fiber. The grain at this size is big, but stand back and the print has quite an impact though there is little in terms of tonailty, it's very black and white. I'm told it's very good at 1600asa but I've not yet tried this.

 

[2Ldude]

Silverpix, what did you rate the film at and how long did you develop. I am shooting some this weekend and the pyrocat just got here in the mail yesterday so thought I would try the stand or minimal agitation with it.

 

[Annemarieke]

Thanks a lot Gareth and Ian. You've been very helpful!

Anne Marieke

 

[ian_greant]

Anne,

I just posted a couple more film samples in the non gallery 1 delta 3200 and one HP5 all in the same developer, all the same camera, same person and same camera. How's that for a comparison

Jay.. looking at yours it looks similar to other trials (and tribulations) I've had with shorter development times... I don't have my book in front of me but it seems my push times are usually out around 11 minutes or so. I get nervous with short development times!!

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Black Dog]

I've been very impressed with the results when it's rated at 1600 and semi stand devved in PCAT HD 1+1+200 for 50 mins (will try 60) with 1 min agitation initially and 1 min halfway through. Have a look on the unblinking eye site and the massive dev chart at digitaltruth.com.