Delta question

[Nancy Giroux]

Hello,

I just shot my first roll of Delta 3200. I did a lot of research on it and decided to rate it at 1600. When I brought the film to the lab, the lab tech asked about the rating. I told her 1600. She suggested that the film be developed as if it was 1600.
I would love to hear your recommendations for developing, should the film be developed at 1600 or 3200?
When I looked at my contact sheet, I was a bit dissapointed in the frames. I scanned the film in on my 4990 and the negs look like they have a lot more information on them then the contacts. Here is a scan from the roll. I made adjustments in contrast and sharpened up a bit for the web.

Unfortuanately, I had to shoot 35mm film, it's all my lab had. I just picked up a couple of 120 rolls and am anxious to shoot this film again.

 

[Nancy Giroux]

oops..I meant to put this in B&W film. I will try to get it moved there.

 

[Markok765]

The reccomendation from many people is to develop as u underexposed it more, eg shot at 1600 dev for 3200 ect

 

[Ole]

oops..I meant to put this in B&W film. I will try to get it moved there.

Moved.

 

[Nancy Giroux]

Wow..that was fast! Thanks!!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hello,

I just shot my first roll of Delta 3200. I did a lot of research on it and decided to rate it at 1600. When I brought the film to the lab, the lab tech asked about the rating. I told her 1600. She suggested that the film be developed as if it was 1600.
I would love to hear your recommendations for developing, should the film be developed at 1600 or 3200?
When I looked at my contact sheet, I was a bit dissapointed in the frames. I scanned the film in on my 4990 and the negs look like they have a lot more information on them then the contacts. Here is a scan from the roll. I made adjustments in contrast and sharpened up a bit for the web.

Unfortuanately, I had to shoot 35mm film, it's all my lab had. I just picked up a couple of 120 rolls and am anxious to shoot this film again.

Dear Nancy,

I've been shooting this since before it came out (Ilford gave me some advance rolls) and I generally expose at one stop slower than the nominal dev time for that EI. In other words, yes, exposing at 1600 and developing for 3200 (or exposing at 3200 and developing for 6400) makes sense.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[Paul Howell]

I agree with Rodger, expose at 1600 and develop at the 3200 development time, if you highlights seem blocked you can then reduce the time.

 

[Nancy Giroux]

My initial intent was to develop for 3200, but the tech said I should develop for 1600. What is the benefit of developing at 3200?
Thanks for your kind help!
Nancy

 

[Paul Howell]

My initial intent was to develop for 3200, but the tech said I should develop for 1600. What is the benefit of developing at 3200?

My personal experiance has been that both TMax and Delta 3200 do not give very good shadow detail at the box speed, by rating the film at 1600 you are really exposing for the shadows. If you develop at the 1600 time you are under developing to some degree and will have flat or thin negatives, if you develop at the 3200 time you have good shadows but may have blocked highlights, in which case you can ask you lab to reduce the development time by 10 to 30% until you find the best development time for both shadow details and highlights. this is one reason that many folks develop their own film so they can make adjustments for personal perferances. Sorry for the poor spelling I have not found the spell check yet.

 

[Nancy Giroux]

Ok..thanks that makes sence. As soon as thing settle down a bit for me, I will be learning how to develop my own negs. When I metered for the photos I too, I metered for shadows, so the negs look good even at 1600. I'll definetly do a bit of testing to figure out the best way to develop.
Thanks so much!

 

[PhotoJim]

I rate mine at its nominal ISO, 1000, unless I need more speed. I get nice results.

 

[Neal]

Dear Nancy,

Time for a small dissent. I would have done just as the tech suggested. 1600 is only about a one stop push (I think that the Delta ISO rating would actually be in the 800 to 1000 range) and I find that the moden (Delta/T-grain/sigma) films collect a lot of detail in a thinner negative. Once you match your printing contrast to the negative contrast you will find the extra information that you see in the scan.

Of course I must echo Roger's comment that "Your mileage may vary." ;>)

Neal Wydra

 

[Steve Roberts]

Hi Nancy,

I'm about to try shooting with Delta 3200 rated at 3200 for a street-lit event at 06.00BST on Sunday morning, when sunrise here in the UK isn't until 07.15. I've never used it before, but after a bit of trawling around in the APUG records have found many suggestions to develop as if for a doubled speed rating. I'm planning on using Microphen, but may have to wait for my mail order to turn up as I can't buy it locally.

Steve

 

[Willie Jan]

i bought this film to use it as 3200 (theater) because of the light conditions. If i had to use a 1600, i would buy a 1600.....

I develop this film in Microphen, which is a nice combination.

 

[Paul Howell]

I develop this film in Microphen, which is a nice combination.[/QUOTE]

I would agree that if you use a high engery developer like Microphen, DK 50, or Acufine you can shoot either Delta or TMax 3200 at 3200. Very sharp, but I found the grain to be too much (a least for my taste) for an 8X10 from 35mm. The only 1600 speed B@W that I know of is Fuji which is not avilable from my local dealers. The other constraint is that if you a lab you often do not get a choice of developers.

The box speed is just a jumping off point, I rate each film I use differntly for each camera I use. I have both a Sigma SA 7 and SA 9 which are a stop apart, HP5 in the SA 7 I rate at 200, with the SA 9 400.

 

[Steve Roberts]

Hi Nancy,

I'm about to try shooting with Delta 3200 rated at 3200 for a street-lit event at 06.00BST on Sunday morning, when sunrise here in the UK isn't until 07.15. I've never used it before, but after a bit of trawling around in the APUG records have found many suggestions to develop as if for a doubled speed rating. I'm planning on using Microphen, but may have to wait for my mail order to turn up as I can't buy it locally.

Steve

To follow up my previous posting above, firstly the mail ordered Microphen turned up the day after I ordered it from Morco (Mansfield). With no minimum order value and with service like that they certainly have my vote.

My first trial strip indicated that the Delta rated at 3200 needed even more than the suggested 12 mins for the 6400 ASA rating, and so I gave it 14 mins @ 20 degs C. The results looked good and printed well last night at 5" x 7". Grain was apparent, but was nowhere near as bad as I'd been prepared for and didn't attract any comment from 'Er Indoors. Being pushed for time, I didn't have time to play around with 10" x 8" enlargements but will certainly do so out of curiosity. The tonal range was superb, and although on this occasion I was forced to use Delta/Microphen for reasons of reportage, I can also see artistic applications for the combination.

Steve

 

[Black Dog]

I definitely agree that the film is happier at 1600 than 3200-BTW, Speedibrews Celer-Mono (available from Silverprint) gives lovely tones & pretty good grain for such a fast film (I've seen worse from ISO 400).

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I definitely agree that the film is happier at 1600 than 3200-BTW, Speedibrews Celer-Mono (available from Silverprint) gives lovely tones & pretty good grain for such a fast film (I've seen worse from ISO 400).

Glad to read that someone sometimes uses the Speedibrews Celer series of B&W film developers. They don`t get mentioned much on this forum.