developer for Delta 3200 @ 3200

samcomet · Feb 18, 2009

I've been using T-Max 3200 for years and loved it, but alas, it's no more....I'm now using Delta 3200 @ 3200 and have always thought the manufacturer knew their film stock/developer combo's best. I am a little disappointed with DDX it's resultant grain structure. Has anyone any empirical or anecdotal evidence for a better fine grain developer for D 3200 @ISO 3200? Thanks & cheers! sam

Kevin Caulfield · Feb 18, 2009

Hi and by the way welcome to APUG from Melbourne. I pretty much use Paterson FX39 as my standard developer and am happy with the results for Delta 3200 using the Paterson times.

jim appleyard · Feb 18, 2009

samcomet said:
I've been using T-Max 3200 for years and loved it, but alas, it's no more.... sam

This is news to me, or is it just an Aussie thing?

Kevin Caulfield · Feb 18, 2009

Well I have only ever used a few rolls of it and that was some years ago, but I just bought a couple of rolls of Delta 3200 two weeks ago and specifically checked whether TMax 3200 is still available and was told it isn't. So it may be an Aussie thing or may just be a poor customer service thing (quite likely). I'd be delighted to shoot the Kodak 3200 again.

nworth · Feb 18, 2009

Ilford's website recommends DD-X and Microphen for best quality. ID-11 is also recommended. They provide a recommended development chart for all their films: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216122447.pdf

Tom Stanworth · Feb 19, 2009

Xtol 1+2 or +3. I am sure DDX is pretty good, but I find diluted Xtol gives better sharpness to the grain and produces just as much speed.

2F/2F · Feb 19, 2009

samcomet said:
I've been using T-Max 3200 for years and loved it, but alas, it's no more....I'm now using Delta 3200 @ 3200 and have always thought the manufacturer knew their film stock/developer combo's best. I am a little disappointed with DDX it's resultant grain structure. Has anyone any empirical or anecdotal evidence for a better fine grain developer for D 3200 @ISO 3200? Thanks & cheers! sam

Hi,

The grain structure does not "result" from the developer you use. That is determined by the manufacturer. You are probably just seeing the difference between Delta 1000 and T-Max 1000, and would get almost exactly the same look from any other developer.

Graininess does have a lot to do with density, however.

Also, any run-of-the-mill developer will push the highlights to 3200, but no developer will truly make this a 3200-speed film; at least in the ways that film speed is most commonly measured. I assume you know this already, but it's worth mentioning any time someone says they are using a film "at" a certain EI (and especially with this film, where the proper name of the product - "3200" - and the actual ISO are not the same).

Differences between general-purpose film developers are not as noticeable as they are often made out to be. IMO, the best thing you can do is to make the film work with whatever developer you use for everything else. In my experience, the same developer/s I use for HP5, Pan F, FP4, and other films also work great with Delta 1000.

Graham.b · Feb 19, 2009

Differences between general-purpose film developers are not as noticeable as they are often made out to be. IMO, the best thing you can do is to make the film work with whatever developer you use for everything else. In my experience, the same developer/s I use for HP5, Pan F, FP4, and other films also work great with Delta 1000.
__________________
I have to agree with 2F/2F, same dev for all my films. Tmax but there again all my films are Kodak, with a few exceptions 120 fuji.

Graham

pentaxuser · Feb 19, 2009

You might like to try Perceptol. Ilford list a time for D3200 at "box speed" which I think is 18 mins but its on the Ilford/Harman site. It is used at stock solution so at best only 4 films per litre, even if your tank is a Jobo which gets away with 240mls per film. That's quite expensive but if D3200 was only an occasional film then it won't break the bank.

There's a school of thought that says that the better dev time for D3200 is the one that applies to the next speed up so expose at 3200 and use the dev time for 6400. That's certainly good advice for DDX but may not be so applicable to Perceptol. I hope it isn't as you won't find a time for Perceptol for EI 6400 unfortunately.

Unless anyone knows different? If you do then please tell.

pentaxuser

Barry S · Feb 19, 2009

I've shot a lot of Delta 3200 at EI 1600 and developed in XTOL 1+1. The real ISO of the film seems to be around 1200, but I think it still looks great at 1600. Pushed to 3200 it starts to fall apart a bit no matter what developer you use. Overall, I like it much better than TMAX3200 because the tonality seems smoother. With XTOL at 1+1, you're still getting some of the grain dissolving solvent properties of sodium sulfite. Using more dilute working solutions of XTOL will dilute out the sodium sulfite and give you a bit harder edged grain. It's all a matter of preference as to which you prefer.

BobNewYork · Feb 19, 2009

Gotta support Xtol. 1+1 or greater dilution and keep the agitation gentle. I've always used 2 full inversions every minute - works well.

Bob

zinnanti · Feb 19, 2009

I like Ilfosol-S for Delta 3200. It's finicky, but provides great detail and highlight control. If you use it, follow the develop time on the 3200 box.

Ilfosol-S is a one shot developer.

Ilfosol-3 is similar to Ilfosol-S.

2F/2F · Feb 19, 2009

pentaxuser said:
There's a school of thought that says that the better dev time for D3200 is the one that applies to the next speed up so expose at 3200 and use the dev time for 6400. That's certainly good advice for DDX but may not be so applicable to Perceptol. I hope it isn't as you won't find a time for Perceptol for EI 6400 unfortunately.

This is just because of variation in processing between folks in the real world and Ilford, combined with the fact that the film in question is a very flat film, not to mention differences in various other details, PLUS the fact that most people don't actually test with this film (or any film) and like to use rules of thumb (like the one you mentioned) instead. You can find your development times the same way you find N, N+1, N+2, etc. for other films...or whatever way you want, really, to get the negs to your desired density and contrast.

samcomet · Feb 19, 2009

thanks for the welcome!

Kevin Caulfield said:
Hi and by the way welcome to APUG from Melbourne. I pretty much use Paterson FX39 as my standard developer and am happy with the results for Delta 3200 using the Paterson times.

I had a look at the "Massive Development Chart" and they give it @ 1+5, 11 mins. So I think that I shall give it a go...however I do have to ask if you've ever done a side to side look at DDX AND FX 39? cheers for now. sam

samcomet · Feb 19, 2009

maybe just in Oz....?

jim appleyard said:
This is news to me, or is it just an Aussie thing?

Not sure but it is still listed on Kodak @ Rochester although my supplier here says it's not available any more.....? cheers, sam

Kevin Caulfield · Feb 19, 2009

Hi Sam. Yes, I think that is the Paterson time and that does work, for me anyway. I've never used DDX. The reason I went to FX39 years ago was that it was quite succesfully compared with other developers in the then-still-good Practical Photography.

samcomet · Feb 19, 2009

Yes I would second that. The film IMHO is much better than the Delta. Who did you try to buy it from....I tried Vanbar.

samcomet · Feb 19, 2009

Thanks for that but I was wondering if anyone had tried non-Ilford developers and to get better quality negs.....

samcomet · Feb 19, 2009

Tom - thanks for that one, I'll give that one a go too! cheers, sam

samcomet · Feb 19, 2009

I take your point and thanks! I shoot a lot at night and my "grain" issues are in black sky which of course tends towards clear on the neg. In the denser parts of the neg (bright bits) there is not so much of a problem. For my own satisfaction I might try some dip tests keeping in mind what you have said. cheers! sam

samcomet · Feb 19, 2009

thanks Graham he does make sense to me.

Kevin Caulfield · Feb 19, 2009

Yes it was Vanbar I tried to buy it from.

ntenny · Feb 19, 2009

With a number of people suggesting Xtol, has anyone tried it in PC-TEA? It generally produces results said to be similar to Xtol, but I've never tried using it as a push developer and I have no idea what would happen.

-NT

samcomet · Feb 20, 2009

so let me try to understand this...in my blacks (night sky) which tends towards thin and noticeable grain on the neg, a longer development time would thin thin out as the developer eats away at the emulsion?

samcomet · Feb 20, 2009

Baz - I'm gonna try a dip test...I've seen Xtol 1+2 @ 20 mins and stock @ 7.5 mins....what time do you use. oh and BTW thanks for the reply. cheers, sam

developer for Delta 3200 @ 3200

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency