Experiences with Delta 3200

I've mostly been a Delta 100 and 400 shooter. Mostly 400 so I get a little boost since I shoot MF and almost exclusively hand-hold.

I've been experimenting with 3200 a bit more, as I'd like to take more interior shots (mostly of my wife), and with a baby on the way I'd like to get some interior shots of them as well. I have never liked using a flash, so using a higher speed film seemed like the way to go.

The first set of images I took, metered with my Sekonic meter that gives great results with 100 & 400 speed film, resulted in very thin negatives when shot and developed at 3200. I use Ilford DDX 1:4. I read a bit more about people's experience with 3200 speed films and it sounded liked a lot preferred to process 1 speed further (process 1600 for the longer 3200 time). So the next time I shot at 1600 (thinking I'd also get better details since I believe the film is rated either 800 or 1000) and developed it for 3200. For convenience, I developed with a roll or two of Delta 400 (I expose at 500 so processing time is the same). I'm not a high-volume shooter, and I prefer to develop either 2 rolls at a time, or 4, or if I came back from a big trip, 6.

Still, the 3200 exposed at 1600 but processed at 3200 came across still rather thin to me. Most of the photographs were either indoors or evening/nighttime photos with a lot of Christmas lights (they still had them up when we visited Leavenworth in March).

Any suggestions? Do people typically over-expose 3200 film on purpose? I've sort of got a nice/stable process for the 100 and 400 speed films and have been doing the same thing now for 12 years, so it's been a while since I really changed things up/troubleshooted film development problems.

My preference would be to keep developing at 3200 so I can throw my 400 films in the tank with the 3200 films, as I don't anticipate shooting that much at 3200. Maybe I need to expose closer to 1000? Unfortunately I just don't get much of a speed boost that way. If I kept shooting at 1600, what development time would you recommend?

brent8927 said:

I've mostly been a Delta 100 and 400 shooter. Mostly 400 so I get a little boost since I shoot MF and almost exclusively hand-hold.

I've been experimenting with 3200 a bit more, as I'd like to take more interior shots (mostly of my wife), and with a baby on the way I'd like to get some interior shots of them as well. I have never liked using a flash, so using a higher speed film seemed like the way to go.

The first set of images I took, metered with my Sekonic meter that gives great results with 100 & 400 speed film, resulted in very thin negatives when shot and developed at 3200. I use Ilford DDX 1:4. I read a bit more about people's experience with 3200 speed films and it sounded liked a lot preferred to process 1 speed further (process 1600 for the longer 3200 time). So the next time I shot at 1600 (thinking I'd also get better details since I believe the film is rated either 800 or 1000) and developed it for 3200. For convenience, I developed with a roll or two of Delta 400 (I expose at 500 so processing time is the same). I'm not a high-volume shooter, and I prefer to develop either 2 rolls at a time, or 4, or if I came back from a big trip, 6.

Still, the 3200 exposed at 1600 but processed at 3200 came across still rather thin to me. Most of the photographs were either indoors or evening/nighttime photos with a lot of Christmas lights (they still had them up when we visited Leavenworth in March).

Any suggestions? Do people typically over-expose 3200 film on purpose? I've sort of got a nice/stable process for the 100 and 400 speed films and have been doing the same thing now for 12 years, so it's been a while since I really changed things up/troubleshooted film development problems.

My preference would be to keep developing at 3200 so I can throw my 400 films in the tank with the 3200 films, as I don't anticipate shooting that much at 3200. Maybe I need to expose closer to 1000? Unfortunately I just don't get much of a speed boost that way. If I kept shooting at 1600, what development time would you recommend?

Click to expand...

I doubt of the ISO rate of Delta3200.
You should have it as ISO +1600 !!!!!

The same was with KodakTmax 3200.

I have made some experience with this
Delta - yes but in regard of its price.

Delta400 is the better one as of ISO800.

with regards

I've always found 3200 to be very grainy.


Kent in SD

trendland said:

I doubt of the ISO rate of Delta3200.
You should have it as ISO +1600 !!!!!

The same was with KodakTmax 3200.

I have made some experience with this
Delta - yes but in regard of its price.

Delta400 is the better one as of ISO800.

with regards

Click to expand...

Remember Rollei R3 - recomended up
to ISO6400 I made tests with all developers and all EI !!
From ISO 6400 to 12800 up to ISO 25000 - ISO 50000 -ISO 100000.
Results : Nothing - first highlights at
12800. This emulsion was good as ISO400.
Same is with Delta - Sorry for saying this.

with regards

brent8927 said:

I've mostly been a Delta 100 and 400 shooter. Mostly 400 so I get a little boost since I shoot MF and almost exclusively hand-hold.

I've been experimenting with 3200 a bit more, as I'd like to take more interior shots (mostly of my wife), and with a baby on the way I'd like to get some interior shots of them as well. I have never liked using a flash, so using a higher speed film seemed like the way to go.

The first set of images I took, metered with my Sekonic meter that gives great results with 100 & 400 speed film, resulted in very thin negatives when shot and developed at 3200. I use Ilford DDX 1:4. I read a bit more about people's experience with 3200 speed films and it sounded liked a lot preferred to process 1 speed further (process 1600 for the longer 3200 time). So the next time I shot at 1600 (thinking I'd also get better details since I believe the film is rated either 800 or 1000) and developed it for 3200. For convenience, I developed with a roll or two of Delta 400 (I expose at 500 so processing time is the same). I'm not a high-volume shooter, and I prefer to develop either 2 rolls at a time, or 4, or if I came back from a big trip, 6.

Still, the 3200 exposed at 1600 but processed at 3200 came across still rather thin to me. Most of the photographs were either indoors or evening/nighttime photos with a lot of Christmas lights (they still had them up when we visited Leavenworth in March).

Any suggestions? Do people typically over-expose 3200 film on purpose? I've sort of got a nice/stable process for the 100 and 400 speed films and have been doing the same thing now for 12 years, so it's been a while since I really changed things up/troubleshooted film development problems.

My preference would be to keep developing at 3200 so I can throw my 400 films in the tank with the 3200 films, as I don't anticipate shooting that much at 3200. Maybe I need to expose closer to 1000? Unfortunately I just don't get much of a speed boost that way. If I kept shooting at 1600, what development time would you recommend?

Click to expand...

Sorry forget it - you asked of times.
Don't have the tables just here - Post with my mobile.
At home I have a good chart.But also
have to look for.
Lets try a lucky method.
Use simply the time and agitation and temperature as for ISO 3200 you should have in your tables.
I personally would give Delta3200 a further chance but it has become too expensive to me.AND
I have a good tripot.

Yes I am sure you could not realy overdevelope D3200 with this method.
Negatives get better tonals - but to be on the absolute save side you could decent
the temperature of develloper a bit.

But use the time for EI 3200

Bon chance

brent8927 said:

I've mostly been a Delta 100 and 400 shooter. Mostly 400 so I get a little boost since I shoot MF and almost exclusively hand-hold.

I've been experimenting with 3200 a bit more, as I'd like to take more interior shots (mostly of my wife), and with a baby on the way I'd like to get some interior shots of them as well. I have never liked using a flash, so using a higher speed film seemed like the way to go.

The first set of images I took, metered with my Sekonic meter that gives great results with 100 & 400 speed film, resulted in very thin negatives when shot and developed at 3200. I use Ilford DDX 1:4. I read a bit more about people's experience with 3200 speed films and it sounded liked a lot preferred to process 1 speed further (process 1600 for the longer 3200 time). So the next time I shot at 1600 (thinking I'd also get better details since I believe the film is rated either 800 or 1000) and developed it for 3200. For convenience, I developed with a roll or two of Delta 400 (I expose at 500 so processing time is the same). I'm not a high-volume shooter, and I prefer to develop either 2 rolls at a time, or 4, or if I came back from a big trip, 6.

Still, the 3200 exposed at 1600 but processed at 3200 came across still rather thin to me. Most of the photographs were either indoors or evening/nighttime photos with a lot of Christmas lights (they still had them up when we visited Leavenworth in March).

Any suggestions? Do people typically over-expose 3200 film on purpose? I've sort of got a nice/stable process for the 100 and 400 speed films and have been doing the same thing now for 12 years, so it's been a while since I really changed things up/troubleshooted film development problems.

My preference would be to keep developing at 3200 so I can throw my 400 films in the tank with the 3200 films, as I don't anticipate shooting that much at 3200. Maybe I need to expose closer to 1000? Unfortunately I just don't get much of a speed boost that way. If I kept shooting at 1600, what development time would you recommend?

Click to expand...

The ISO speed of Delta 3200 is about 1000.

I shoot delta 3200 in 35mm relativity often - exposed at 3200, one of rare films that I avoid developing in my beloved Rodinal. I prefer Tmax developer for delta 3200.

In Tmax developer (1+4):
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
In Rodinal:
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

Delta 3200 needs a lot of developing time. As a friend of mine once said: "It needs to be kicked down the road. Really far!"
And, as someone mentioned above, it's really an ISO 1000 film, so 1600 is almost a stop underexposed.

Seriously, just shoot some more, be careful with your metering in low light, and with a test roll, divide it into thirds and process one third at a time; increase developing time until you have contrast you are happy with.

As others have said what you're getting from D3200 is iso 1000 - 1600 performance without the increased contrast from pushing 400 speed film to the same level. If the added contrast of pushing 400 speed film doesn't bother you then the expense of using D3200 isn't getting you much really. I think the question is more about how much contrast you want while hand holding MF in available light?

I think D3200 in mf is a lovely film and I like it for the low contrast negatives when used as Thomas suggests. With a baby I'd definitely be using D3200; it gives low contrast that you can adjust later with scanning or darkroom work. It's good stuff.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Seriously, just shoot some more, be careful with your metering in low light,

Click to expand...

This point is critical. If you are shooting in low light, you have to be VERY careful not to allow the light source to fool your meter. That happened to me when I first started shooting film in very low light. Invariably, I'd allow a light bulb to get into my scene and that bright light source would cause my film to be dramatically under exposed. Meter for the dark areas of your scene and you will be much better off.

I would always try to rate Delta 3200 at ISO1600 and then develop in DD-X using ISO3200 times. If I needed more I would rate it at ISO3200 but that was pretty rare.

I was always very pleased with the grain I got with my medium format sized negatives.

For indoor measuring I would use free app for iPhone or point to the source of the light my trusty Seconic-208 . If it is 400 film pushed @1600, I'll dial in 1600.

HP5+ @1600 seems to be better for low light. IMO.

I too hate using a flash indoors, which means I shoot a ton of D3200 (35mm) - I actually just shot 8 rolls as part of a wedding I worked this past weekend. I agree with Thomas Bertilsson: it's very important to pay attention to your metering, but perhaps even more so your light sources.

As far as the technical stuff goes, I've never metered it other than at 3200 and I've never developed it differently than the data sheet suggests. I only use Microphen for it - 9 minutes at 68 deg. F. When I first started getting into it I tested out DDX but I wasn't happy with the results, especially the contrast, so that might be your problem. I do develop my D3200 separately from my other films and it's the only time I use Microphen, but I find it to be worth it. There is a lot of grain. Darkosaric's T-max examples look like they have less.

These examples are candids (no staged lighting or poses) and are exposed/developed at box recs as described above

My advice for shooting in low light is to forget about your meter. Seriously. Don't even bother with it. Instead, open up your lens and use the slowest shutter speed you can comfortably hold. By starting with the most light you can get on the film, you will be better off. If you underexpose doing this then you know there would have been nothing else you could have done. If it results in an overexposure, not really a big deal because it won't be by much.

To illustrate this with a simplified explanation, imagine if you are making a photograph and you have the perfect exposure with one lamp in the room. You add one more lamp in the same spot without changing the settings on your camera and you are now one stop overexposed. Not a big deal. To get two stops overexposed you have to add another two lamps. Three stops over, you have to add another four, and you are still fine! So you are shooting with 8 lamps instead of one, and your neg will still be printable. Keep going? Add another 8 lamps. You are now four stops over and getting into problem territory, but you now have sixteen lamps blazing! Get the picture? Now go the other direction. Cut the output of the single lamp by half and your image starts to fall apart.

Also Thomas' recommendation of developing more has been my experience as well, but you need to decide for yourself. If you are scanning for example and not making darkroom prints, then less development may be good for you.

The nominal speed for Delta 3200 is 1250 which is slightly more than the departed TMax 3200, which was 1000. The number 3200 is just marketing.

Hope that helps you.

Thanks everyone. I'm actually quite happy with the level of contrast when exposed at 1600, developed at 3200 (1.5 min longer than developing by the book for 1600 would be).

I think the last poster's advice to just shoot wide open and with the slowest aperture may the best advice to start with, as my problem is really just with the density of the negatives. Might just need to let a little more light in! I think a few of the photos I took should've been able to have been better exposed. I think the nighttime shots outdoors I probably shot that way already, thinking any photo was better than no photo.

I've attached one of the photos. It is a scanned negative, and I've just edited it using curves and nothing else, to show a rough idea of how I can get the photo to look. I think the other portraits came out better (composition-wise), but my wife doesn't like me posting photos of her much, so this one at least has her far enough away it's a little harder to ID her! It's a very thin negative, but it gets most of the more critical details.

I do need to learn how to work the overall brightness/contrast levels for photos that are supposed to be dark in the first place--like I said, I haven't taken photographs like these in a long time. But it is still much more fun than using a small digital camera. I bought a really nice point and shoot (Panasonic LX100) back in January. I figured it was as "analog" of a point and shoot as you could get. The idea was to use it for trip snapshots (when the 'blad was too slow to take out) and for baby photos. I tired of it really quickly and decided I'd rather get 1-2 nice film photos (even grainy ones!) than dozens upon dozens of digital ones. The Hasselblad is just so much more fun to use--if I was going for efficiency then I shouldn't shoot film, nor should I shoot MF.

So I gave the digital camera to my wife--she can keep it in her purse, and now when we go on trips we actually end up with some photos of me! (I bought her a Rolleiflex TLR a long time ago, but she just never got into it. But she lets me buy more camera gear and supports my hobby, and lets me photograph her, so that's more than good enough for me!)

RattyMouse said:

... Meter for the dark areas of your scene and you will be much better off.

I would always try to rate Delta 3200 at ISO1600 and then develop in DD-X using ISO3200 times. If I needed more I would rate it at ISO3200 but that was pretty rare.

I was always very pleased with the grain I got with my medium format sized negatives.

Click to expand...

This has been my observation, too. It seems that it was deliberately made low-contrast to compensate for the increase in contrast when pushing - you can take advantage of that in portraiture or push it. An interesting film.

brent8927 said:

...as I'd like to take more interior shots (mostly of my wife), and with a baby on the way...

Click to expand...

I forgot to say congratulations! You've got years of fun kid photography ahead of you. Awesome.

I would strongly advise agains delta 3200. Kids are delicate, gentle. Delta 3200 has a horrible, horrible grain and does not match the subject.

I shot my second kid's first days on TMY 400, and to be frank, I'm sorry I did not use digital+flash as with my first kid (at least in addition to film). Yes, I used the D word, but sometimes it just works!

Delta 3200 example from my media (not of a baby, but still): (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Patrick Robert James said:

My advice for shooting in low light is to forget about your meter. Seriously. Don't even bother with it. Instead, open up your lens and use the slowest shutter speed you can comfortably hold. By starting with the most light you can get on the film, you will be better off. If you underexpose doing this then you know there would have been nothing else you could have done. If it results in an overexposure, not really a big deal because it won't be by much.

To illustrate this with a simplified explanation, imagine if you are making a photograph and you have the perfect exposure with one lamp in the room. You add one more lamp in the same spot without changing the settings on your camera and you are now one stop overexposed. Not a big deal. To get two stops overexposed you have to add another two lamps. Three stops over, you have to add another four, and you are still fine! So you are shooting with 8 lamps instead of one, and your neg will still be printable. Keep going? Add another 8 lamps. You are now four stops over and getting into problem territory, but you now have sixteen lamps blazing! Get the picture? Now go the other direction. Cut the output of the single lamp by half and your image starts to fall apart.

Also Thomas' recommendation of developing more has been my experience as well, but you need to decide for yourself. If you are scanning for example and not making darkroom prints, then less development may be good for you.

The nominal speed for Delta 3200 is 1250 which is slightly more than the departed TMax 3200, which was 1000. The number 3200 is just marketing.

Hope that helps you.

Click to expand...

It is just marketing?
ISO 3200 ?

Yes - you said it.

I don't trust me to say.

But you did it - with Tmax3200 was the same.

Ilford was first - so Kodak HAS to answer hmmm...... Tmax3200.

Volkswagen was at least but they have
to pay for it : hmmmmm....
........ : CLEAN DIESEL

with regard

Well, according to the delta 3200 data sheet:

DELTA 3200 Professional has an ISO speed rating of ISO 1000/31o (1000ASA, 31DIN) to daylight. The ISO speed rating was measured using ILFORD ID-11 developer at 20°C/68oF with intermittent agitation in a spiral tank.

jernejk said:

I would strongly advise agains delta 3200. Kids are delicate, gentle. Delta 3200 has a horrible, horrible grain and does not match the subject.

I shot my second kid's first days on TMY 400, and to be frank, I'm sorry I did not use digital+flash as with my first kid (at least in addition to film). Yes, I used the D word, but sometimes it just works!

Delta 3200 example from my media (not of a baby, but still): (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Click to expand...

The majority of photos would be (and currently are) with Delta 400--as long as we're outdoors that's my go-to film. I'm not too sure what TMY 400 is (T-Max?), but the only noticeable difference at the sizes I print (5x5 to 12x12) between 100 and 400 speed film is the 400 speed film has a nicer grain structure (in my opinion) at that size print.

The Delta 3200 would just be for those cases where I want to get a photo indoors of my wife and/or kid(s). I don't actually find the grain structure of 3200 (when shot at 1600) that unpleasant. In the few negatives that had portions that were better exposed (not the one I show above), the grain looks quite pleasant to me. My bigger issue was just with how thin the negatives were coming out, so I need to do some more testing.

I'm sure we'll still use the point-and-shoot or iPhone for those times we don't have a camera around.

The bigger issue is when the kid starts running around. I'm not sure I'll be able to focus fast enough.

jernejk said:

I would strongly advise agains delta 3200. Kids are delicate, gentle. Delta 3200 has a horrible, horrible grain and does not match the subject.

I shot my second kid's first days on TMY 400, and to be frank, I'm sorry I did not use digital+flash as with my first kid (at least in addition to film). Yes, I used the D word, but sometimes it just works!

Delta 3200 example from my media (not of a baby, but still): (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Click to expand...

How grain looks is entirely subjective. I like to process Delta 3200 in Rodinal 1+25, which gives a nice sharp grain. Then from 35mm negs I make 16x20 prints, and find the results to be very pleasing.
To each their own. You can say that Delta 3200 definitely has a lot of grain; that is a fact. You can also say that it's grain is horrible; but that is not a fact, just your opinion.

The way I see things - I like grain; it's my friend and I embrace it. I was super sad when TMax 3200 was discontinued, but at least Delta 3200 is still made.

Another fact is that Delta 3200 has pretty good resolution, but you can't really take advantage of it until you print large; you definitely see lots of detail you wouldn't expect to see with such a grainy film when you print large. There is all kinds of detail woven into that grain, and I would expect it to have resolving power close to FP4. (Ilford Germany appears to give 100 lp/mm for D3200 and 110 lp/mm for FP4).

did you tried printing? the material of the roll used in the delta3200 is a bit darker than usual, so in the scans and in pics it is hard to take out the details.

but it behaves well under the enlarger.

for what is worth, i shoot it at 1000iso and develop it in microphen

I have never gotten what I would call acceptable results using delta 3200. Negatives are incredibly thin at that speed, and I personally rate it no faster than 800, developing in DDX. This speed reduction seems rather pointless to me, when I can just do the same with hp5, and get better images. Never saw the point of delta 3200, and have stopped buying it.

hired goon said:

I have never gotten what I would call acceptable results using delta 3200. Negatives are incredibly thin at that speed, and I personally rate it no faster than 800, developing in DDX. This speed reduction seems rather pointless to me, when I can just do the same with hp5, and get better images. Never saw the point of delta 3200, and have stopped buying it.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

hired goon said:

I have never gotten what I would call acceptable results using delta 3200. Negatives are incredibly thin at that speed, and I personally rate it no faster than 800, developing in DDX. This speed reduction seems rather pointless to me, when I can just do the same with hp5, and get better images. Never saw the point of delta 3200, and have stopped buying it.

Click to expand...

If your negatives are thin, shouldn't you develop them longer?