Delta3200 (120) -- *bleah*

[Colin Corneau]

Just finished 2 rolls of this film recently, and to say I was underwhelmed is an understatement.

I shot available light at a carnival midway at night -- metered for the light I was shooting in for EI 1600. Developed in TMax developer 1:4 (8.5 minutes, I know the recommended time is 7.5 but I like my negatives a bit contrastier and thought this would also cover any slight underexposure).

The film was purchased within the past 6 months and kept refridgerated until shortly before use, developed promptly.

They look, frankly, fogged. Even the clear unexposed areas on the neg are grey and fogged-looking. The negs look crappy.

I've heard such good things about this film - has anyone else had this experience? The processing regime was exactly the same (as was the camera, etc) as other rolls that turned out fine. I'm a bit stumped here, wondering if it's just a bum roll, bad choice of developer or a dummy user!

many thanks
Colin

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Have you attempted to print the negatives yet?

Tom.

 

[dpurdy]

In my experience the film does have a strange look to it but it prints well.
Dennis

 

[lyonheart]

I've used it a bit. Most recently in 120 at EI3200. Developed in Ilford DDX seems fine. Couple of recent shots of a ceilidh in my gallery are 3200 at EI3200. I do it pretty much by the book (Ilford guide and on a Jobo CPE2) and find it OK.

 

[VaryaV]

D3200 is my favorite film. I've shot it at both EI 1600 and 3200. Developed in DDX with beautiful results.

I agree with Tom, print the negs.

And, wishing you good luck with your endeavors.

 

[aparat]

I love Delta 3200, especially in 120 size. I usually expose at EI 1600 and develop in DD-X, as recommended by Ilford. I have never had any problems printing it, and I really like the soft, subtle look of the film.

 

[jim appleyard]

I don't mean to insult and I also say this from experience, but many things work well in the hands of a skilled user. I tried some D3200 in 120 over the winter in an old barn that was cluttered with old junk. I'll have to check my notes but I believe I used D-76, 1+0, EI 1600 and times on the MDC; I got thin negs.

Later I used diafine at an EI off 1600 and things were much better.

It really is a good film!

 

[ic-racer]

I tried it a while back and had the same experience. The film base was 0.46 log density.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Delta 3200 might look flatter than many other films. I'm not sure why that is, but you would be well served to experiment with your development times to generate the contrast you want to print well on your paper.

 

[jasonhall]

They look, frankly, fogged. Even the clear unexposed areas on the neg are grey and fogged-looking. The negs look crappy.

I just developed my first roll (120) a week or so ago and thought the exact same thing. I was amazed how the unexposed portion looked like frosted glass.

I was about to not even bother scanning and was just going to file it away with a note...don't bother with again.

But I decided to stick a few negs into my Epson V700 and was pleasently surprised at the results. Really never would have thought I could get that much detail from a negative that, as you said, looked crappy. Ended up scanning the full roll.

Jason

 

[Mark Antony]

It may have a higher base fog, and it is a flatter looking film. You can use this to your advantage during printing...

Delta 3200 rated at EI 12,800 developed in Microphen
In places where you'd get diddley squat with other 120 films its like eyesight to the blind.

 

[pentaxuser]

Mark Looks amazing at EI 12,800. There may be some loss of shadow detail but I'd contend that most "ordinary" viewers i.e non photographic people wouldn't even notice.

pentaxuser

 

[fiducio]

I shoot this for the underwhelming results. It's terribly grainy, and that's why I love it more than any other Black and White film out there.

I shoot it at around an EI of 6400, in 120, and at 3200 in 35mm. Develop in DD-X for a stronger more contrasty result.

The base is always horribly foggy, but printing these provides the most amazing results that scanning can't give you.

This stuff is better than you think, you just have to really give it a chance without judging too much. What's the fun if you can only shoot in daylight? :]

Delta 3200 @ 3200 in DD-X

 

[Colin Corneau]

I'll await final judgement until I contact and print these negs...thanks for the advice.

Interesting to hear a few people say the base is 'foggier' than what might be considered usual. As I said, I need to try this further -- specifically in DD-X, at least. Perhaps TMax developer just isn't the right choice for this film, at least for me?

I remember seeing photos of the 'celidh' and being impressed by the quality. I chose this film specifically because it would be in low-light circumstances and I didn't want to push 400 speed film.

 

[jim appleyard]

Delta 3200 might look flatter than many other films. I'm not sure why that is,....

As a rule, faster films are less contrasty than slower ones. D3200, being on top of the heap would be the leasst contrasty. I don't exactly know why either, but it follows the pattern.

 

[pentaxuser]

The views on D3200 and DDX is a bit like those on the combo of Pan F and Rodinal. Not everyone believes it is "the very best" combo but few would disagree that it is very good and most seem to agree that you should use the dev times for the next speed up i.e. expose at 1600 and dev for 3200.

My experience is like the rest. The negs look flat and more uniformly grey than you are used to with other Ilford films but the prints are better than you might expect from the negs as some good examples here show.

pentaxuser

 

[Colin Corneau]

Well put, pentaxuser...thanks for that.

Thanks to the info here, I'm going to try it out with DD-X. Hooray for APUG, this saved me from giving up entirely.

 

[fiducio]

Another note: I've personally found TMax dev not very suitable for much else than TMax films. I'm doing my own experimentation because I've got about 20 rolls of this stuff, and all I've used for it is DD-X, but there are probably other alternatives as well. My next roll is going in D-76, and then after that Xtol. DD-X is relatively cheap, so it's definitely worth the try!

I always shoot at around an EI of 800-6400 so I have to be wary of what I use. And have you tried the TMZ (Tmax version of 3200)? A lot grittier, but not suitable for everything.

 

[Mark Antony]

I think different developers give different amounts of base fog, I'm guessing some have more of a restraining action. I have found that sometimes very fast acting developer can give higher fog levels.
So some experimentation with developers may be called for I like Microphen if I rate at 3200EI and above for pulling or rating up to EI 1600 I sometimes use Rodinal which in 120 to my eye gives a well defined grain like the 1970's Tri-x did in 35mm
Delta does indeed have a greyer base than say Neopan and that may be partly to help with light spreading from point sources halation etc as the film is more likely to be used indoors under such lighting.
That said I have noted that the base fog increases with storage quite rapidly with Delta 3200, its not a film that you should leave in the glove box of your car, or use for mission critical work when it is five years out of date.
I have some photos and 100% crops along with my views here:
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2008/02/ilford-delta-3200.html
All in all a wonderful film and one I would hate to be without.
Mark

 

[CuS]

Agreed

My experience is like the rest. The negs look flat and more uniformly grey than you are used to with other Ilford films but the prints are better than you might expect from the negs as some good examples here show.

pentaxuser

Again - I agree and I've had good lick deving in HC-110. This is a shot @ 3200 in HC-110B

 

[ricksplace]

I shot a few rolls at my nephew's wedding, from the balcony in the church. ISO 3200 in HC110 with a 45/3.5 on a Pentacon Six. Like everyone says, the negs looked crappy, but printed well. While the Pro shot in digital, I just shot a few on film. My nephew and his wife liked my "real" black and white prints, and proudly display them in their home.

 

[removed-user-1]

I've got to try this film in 120 size, thanks all for the information!

 

[2F/2F]

Have you proofed the negs yet? Where did you get the film? What was the expiration date?

 

[VaryaV]

Awesome - love seeing your shots with this film, everyone, thanks for sharing. Very inspiring. Never get enough looking at grain, and what beautiful grain this stuff has. I would not complain one bit if this thread morphed into a 3200 Group......

 

[Colin Corneau]

Film was purchased about 6 months ago, kept refridgerated until earlier in the day that I shot it. Can't recall the expiration dates but it was well into the future for sure.

Have not proofed negs yet - that will be a big part of really knowing...I was going by a visual inspection of the negs. I purchased the film at a very credible, quality dealer.