Experiences with Delta 3200

GarageBoy · May 13, 2017

Getting exposure right is half the battle with Delta and tmax 3200.
I wasted so much of my 12 rolls of tmz...
Spotmeter is your friend - aim for shadows or midtones and set accordingly
The low contrast is great for concerts

Thomas Bertilsson · May 13, 2017

MattKing said:
I'm going to add a "Fourth" to Sirius' list: a properly exposed and developed Delta 3200 negative may actually appear visually to be "thinner" than a properly exposed and developed negative of another type.
When your shadow detail isn't the most important part of the image, your negatives can appear quite "thin" and still print beautifully.
The following example is from a negative that looks to be really "thin". It isn't on anything like Delta 3200, but due to the nature of the light and the subject, it prints really well:
View attachment 179090

Agreed. Here's another example. Portrait is 120 645 (processed in DD-X), and the other is 35mm (processed in Rodinal). Both do look a little thin.

Sirius Glass · May 14, 2017

So Tom et al, since the negatives are thin, why not develop 10% to 15% longer? I have not shot a complete roll of Delta 3200, so I do not have experience with it yet, but that is soon to change.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 14, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
So Tom et al, since the negatives are thin, why not develop 10% to 15% longer? I have not shot a complete roll of Delta 3200, so I do not have experience with it yet, but that is soon to change.

Of course. That is what a good craftsman should do. With subsequent rolls, like my post number (there was a url link here which no longer exists), that negative is not thin.

pentaxuser · May 14, 2017

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Agreed. Here's another example. Portrait is 120 645 (processed in DD-X), and the other is 35mm (processed in Rodinal). Both do look a little thin.

View attachment 179123 View attachment 179124

Both prints look fine to me, Thomas. I wonder what a thicker neg would have given in the print that isn't there in the current prints?

pentaxuser

warden · May 15, 2017

As I plan a trip to NYC to view this show I'm reminded of discussions regarding grain and beauty. There'll be so much to learn. The masthead image the Met chose is wonderfully grainy.

http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2017/irving-penn-centennial

Thomas Bertilsson · May 15, 2017

pentaxuser said:
Both prints look fine to me, Thomas. I wonder what a thicker neg would have given in the print that isn't there in the current prints?

pentaxuser

I would say a bit better tonal separation in the shadows, which I don't particularly find all that important for the most part. It depends on the subject matter how important that is.
If I had exposed more I would have probably held back developing time a bit, which would have made the portrait a little bit more manageable to print, and the overall contrast in the cityscape image might have ended up requiring less dodging in the darker areas at the bottom of the building where having visible detail seemed important to me.

Hatchetman · May 15, 2017

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.

I'm kind of in this boat but always willing to reassess my opinion.

Experiences with Delta 3200

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency