Developing Delta 3200 Shot at 800

hiroh · May 25, 2024

What would you suggest for the development of Ilford Delta 3200, shot at 800? I have D-76, HC-110, DD-X, and Adox Rodinal. I checked the official Ilford processing chart, but (of course) they provide times only their developers, and I only have DD-X. Does anyone else have experience and get nice results with any other developers?

Milpool · May 25, 2024

hiroh said:
What would you suggest for the development of Ilford Delta 3200, shot at 800? I have D-76, HC-110, DD-X, and Adox Rodinal. I checked the official Ilford processing chart, but (of course) they provide times only their developers, and I only have DD-X. Does anyone else have experience and get nice results with any other developers?

Any of those will work fine. Rodinal will be grainier than D-76 or DD-X. You can use Ilford’s ID-11 processing times for D-76 as it is the same developer.

pentaxuser · May 25, 2024

DDX is their developer but if you don't want to use it look for the other developer times for 800. I have never used D3200 as low as 800 but that's only just 200 less than ikts actual speed. I have had very good results with DDX and Xtol at 1600

pentaxuser

hiroh · May 25, 2024

I decided to shoot at 800 after watching a comparison video between 800, 1600, and 3200, and to me, the photos looked the best at 800.

Would you suggest pulling it or developing normally?

DREW WILEY · May 25, 2024

I always shoot this film at 800. If you read the fine print, it's actual speed according to Ilford's normal convention is 1000; but under duress, I can be shot up to 3200 with maybe OK results. I process it in PMK pyro. But if you go online to the Massive Development Chart, you'll see various combinations of rated speed and time for a number of developers. "Pulling" has nothing to do with it. 800 is far closer to "normal" than the advertised speed of 3200 anyway.

hiroh · May 25, 2024

I developed it in DD-X for 7 minutes as the Ilford chart suggests, and it seems that the negatives are quite flat compared to what I’m used to, but I will see after it dries.

pentaxuser · May 25, 2024

I take it that this is your first experience with D3200. If so it may be that this film does appear flatter than others. It does seem to be designed to be able to be shot at up to 3200 without suffering from the usual high contrast that results from films with a lower speed being shot at several stops over box speed

If it were me and my intention was to never shoot this at over 800 I'd save money and use HP5+ at 800 instead

pentaxuser

DREW WILEY · May 25, 2024

With HP5 at 800, you're likely to lose some shadow gradation, whereas with D3200 at 800, you're pretty comfortable in that respect.

pentaxuser · May 25, 2024

DREW WILEY said:
With HP5 at 800, you're likely to lose some shadow gradation, whereas with D3200 at 800, you're pretty comfortable in that respect.

Yes you may be right in terms of a slight reduction on shadow gradation but in my experience this hardly matters

I suggest that the OP gives HP5+ a try at 800 and sees what he prefers

pentaxuser

DREW WILEY · May 25, 2024

Another alternative, with a very different personality, is to shoot TMax 400 at 800. Expect bolder blacks - a steep drop off the cliff once you get way down there in shadow values - the Brett Weston look.

Heck, it's all fun.

hiroh · May 25, 2024

I don't know if I underexposed it, or if this is how it's supposed to be. Since the negatives were quite flat, I had to bump up the contrast significantly. I like the results, it's classic, but if I ever print it in the darkroom, I would probably never be able to achieve this level of contrast. I'll shoot another roll at 800 and push it by 1 stop next time.

I agree it's probably better/cheaper to shoot HP5 at 800 or 1600 for similar results, but I'm testing, learning, and playing.

hiroh · May 25, 2024

DREW WILEY said:
Another alternative, with a very different personality, is to shoot TMax 400 at 800. Expect bolder blacks - a steep drop off the cliff once you get way down there in shadow values - the Brett Weston look.

Heck, it's all fun.

Would have to try that. Noted, thanks!

Patrick Robert James · May 26, 2024

Back when I shot a lot of fast films my rule of thumb was to expose it enough (like you did) then develop it like I exposed it one or two stops less. So for D3200 I’d expose it at 800 or 1000, then develop it for the recommended 3200 time. You just found out for yourself why I did that.

albireo · May 26, 2024

In my limited experience, Delta 3200 in 120 at 800 looked great in Adox Rodinal 1:25 printed 12x12 inches or looked at on a 24'' 1900x1200 monitor.

However I also liked it a lot in Xtol 1:1 one shot at 1000EI.

I wouldn't be able to recommend one over the other based on what I saw and those print sizes.

Developing Delta 3200 Shot at 800

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency