Experiences with Delta 3200

[Austin_Jessup]

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.

+1 for this method.

I used this film once in daylight conditions rated at 1600 and lost a lot of shadow detail which was enough of a lesson for me. Now I use the film mostly at night in Chicago (where it never gets too dark) using 35mm film, f2 @ 1/30 and developed in pyrocat HD for around 23 minutes. The film holds a pretty good amount of detail all around. Mostly, I use this over HP5 rated higher because I want to hand hold and don't want as hard of contrast, but I've also not tried the HP5 method to compare and am going off of expected result and comments of others on the forum.

I can see the grain being a problem for some subjects but it works for what I'm trying to accomplish.

 

[MattKing]

I'm not too sure what TMY 400 is (T-Max?)

TMY = T-Max 400
TMX = T-Max 100
The current T-Max 400 is frequently referred to as TMY2.

 

[warden]

+1 for this method.

+2. For hand holding at night outdoors in the city (regardless of film brand) I just get as much light as I can, i.e. 1/15 sec with an open lens and I've been happy with the results.

But for indoor use my habit is to take a meter reading and then decide tripod/no tripod.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I always shot Delta 3200 at EI 800. Xtol 1+1. Lovely. I have one roll of 120 left. Time to run it through my camera!

 

[jernejk]

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.

Yes, you are of course correct.

However, if I were OP, I would ask the future mother what her opinion of grainy baby photos might be. There might be also some social expectations of what baby pictures "should" be like. Of course, what OP makes for himself alone is another matter.

 

[brent8927]

Yes, you are of course correct.

However, if I were OP, I would ask the future mother what her opinion of grainy baby photos might be. There might be also some social expectations of what baby pictures "should" be like. Of course, what OP makes for himself alone is another matter.

She just likes seeing me take photos to be honest! Besides, I'm guessing we'll have plenty of snapshots from our iPhone.

Does HP5 handle better at 800 than Delta 400? When shot at their native resolution, they have really nice tonality and I don't want to lose that. I get that even at 1600 the Delta 3200 won't has as nice of tonality as it's native 1000, but we're talking only a half stop push processing rather than full stop by boosting HP5 or Delta 400 to 800.

I just tried shooting HP5 for the first time a few weeks ago. I figured it was cheaper than Delta 400, so why not try it. I do prefer Delta 400 (shot at 500) though.

 

[howardpan]

I have used Delta 3200 to photograph my daughter after she was born. I used 135 film and printed on 8x10 paper. Personally, I felt the image was too grainy. But another person, upon seeing the prints, loved it. So like the previous poster stated, grain is a fact but you have to decide if you like it.

I continue to shoot with Delta 3200, mostly to finish the stash. I have observed that for certain scenes, Delta 3200 works quite well. The grain is almost invisible. These are typically scenes of higher contrast. For example, a car parked in front of a restaurant in the evening lit by the street light. Clearly, the car will not be the brightest part of the scene. Delta 3200 allows for the restaurant window to show details without the car being overly grainy.

On the other hand, if you want to photograph your baby sleeping with his/her face lit by light shining through the window, you may find his/her face to be overly grainy.

I have also shot with HP5 at 1600 and developed using SPUR's SLD developer a similar scene with very good outcome.

Why don't you take some photos with both film before the birth and see which you prefer?

 

[Agulliver]

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.

I've probably shot 50 rolls of Delta 3200 down the years, and I always process in ID-11 apart from one roll I did in Microphen. I tend to expose at 3200 or sometimes 6400 as measured by my camera's internal meter. I usually use either a Praktica BX20S or Nikon F601M. I've taken photos in dark night clubs, gigs, outside at night, inside at all times...and usually get good results. It's a great film to have in a big city at night, or on the London tube.

Yes...it can be grainy...not always great for big enlargements. It depends what you want to achieve. You do have the alternative of pushing HP5+ to 1600ISO which will result in a more contrasty negative and can sometimes actually look rather beautiful. If 1600 is enough. If you need that extra speed then Delta 3200 is now your only option.

As others have said, it's actual ISO is 1000 but it's designed to be "pushed" without a great increase in contrast. If your negs are too thin, try developing longer or just try developing the way Ilford recommend (using ID-11 stock).

 

[Rudeofus]

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

Delta 3200 does not react to increased development like any other film out there - just look at the H&D curves from its data sheet. Yes, its negs will never look as nice and contrasty as pushed Tri-X or whatever, but if you treat it right it will give excellent prints. Because of its extremely long and flat shoulder region you will need higher paper grades unless your image resides in the toe region only.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Delta 3200 does not react to increased development like any other film out there - just look at the H&D curves from its data sheet. Yes, its negs will never look as nice and contrasty as pushed Tri-X or whatever, but if you treat it right it will give excellent prints. Because of its extremely long and flat shoulder region you will need higher paper grades unless your image resides in the toe region only.

My own experience is that Delta 3200 requires a lot of developing time. I've used it with Xtol, Edwal 12, Rodinal, FX-39, and Ilfotec DD-X. All developers required a lot more time than I had anticipated, based on manufacturer recommendations, as well as intuition with the developers where no data was available.
I wasn't able to get the most out of the film unless I extended developing time significantly, regardless of shoulder shape.

 

[hired goon]

I've got the inside of the box sitting right here in front of me, and it clearly says EI3200, with the first suggested developer DDX 1+4, 9.5 min at 68 deg. If shot and developed this way, like it says on the box, results are incredibly thin. Nowhere on the packaging is any reference to actual speed of 1000EI. There isn't even a column for it. I probably missed the boat on this completely, but don't believe I should have to push it to actually get the box speed. It wasn't until I pushed like crazy did I get anything close. In one case I remember doubling the developing time, which the inside of the box said I should have gotten at least EI12500 by doing so.

 

[MattKing]

I've got the inside of the box sitting right here in front of me, and it clearly says EI3200, with the first suggested developer DDX 1+4, 9.5 min at 68 deg. If shot and developed this way, like it says on the box, results are incredibly thin. Nowhere on the packaging is any reference to actual speed of 1000EI. There isn't even a column for it. I probably missed the boat on this completely, but don't believe I should have to push it to actually get the box speed. It wasn't until I pushed like crazy did I get anything close. In one case I remember doubling the developing time, which the inside of the box said I should have gotten at least EI12500 by doing so.

The film is itself an ISO 1000 film, so your shadow densities will only be significant if you expose it at an EI of 1000.
It is, however, a lower contrast ISO 1000 film. So if you have a scene with low to normal contrast, in order to achieve a negative with normal contrast you need to increase development from the development that would otherwise be used with an ISO 1000 film.
That increased development time bumps up the contrast of the mid-tones and highlights - exactly the affect one obtains when one "pushes" under-exposed film in order to make the best of a situation where one has less light than would be preferable. As the film itself is low in contrast, the increase in contrast for the mid-tones and highlights is much more acceptable than what one encounters when one "pushes" normal contrast film.
People have a tendency to use these "3200" films in situations where light is both low, and really low in contrast. When that happens, they need to increase the contrast even more than when they use the film in low level, normal contrast situations.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I've got the inside of the box sitting right here in front of me, and it clearly says EI3200, with the first suggested developer DDX 1+4, 9.5 min at 68 deg. If shot and developed this way, like it says on the box, results are incredibly thin. Nowhere on the packaging is any reference to actual speed of 1000EI. There isn't even a column for it. I probably missed the boat on this completely, but don't believe I should have to push it to actually get the box speed. It wasn't until I pushed like crazy did I get anything close. In one case I remember doubling the developing time, which the inside of the box said I should have gotten at least EI12500 by doing so.

I don't know where people got the notion of 'box speed'. There is no such thing. Look for the ISO speed, which is the 'official' speed of the film. I usually increase exposure by 2/3 stop with B&W and color neg films. In my limited experience with this film, it was very low in contrast.

 

[jernejk]

I've got the inside of the box sitting right here in front of me, and it clearly says EI3200

EI is not ISO*

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201071394723115.pdf

*I am starting to think that ISO for BW negative film is kinda irrelevant for photographers, but that is another story

 

[Rudeofus]

I don't know where people got the notion of 'box speed'. There is no such thing.

There is absolutely such a thing as "box speed": it denotes the recommended EI, regardless of what technical ISO speed measurements would tell. The manufacturer, in this case Ilford, had a certain appearance in mind, and shooting at recommended EI will likely yield that appearance. If you prefer a different appearance which you achieve at different EI, there is no "box speed police" who would arrest you for shooting it at EI 1000, EI 6400 or whatever. Even EI50 and EI101202 is legal AFAIK.

In my limited experience with this film, it was very low in contrast.

If you look at its characteristic curve, it has very low contrast in its very long shoulder region. You will inevitably get low contrast if you overexpose this film, even if you increase dev time, just look at the data sheet.

If shot and developed this way, like it says on the box, results are incredibly thin. Nowhere on the packaging is any reference to actual speed of 1000EI. There isn't even a column for it. I probably missed the boat on this completely, but don't believe I should have to push it to actually get the box speed. It wasn't until I pushed like crazy did I get anything close. In one case I remember doubling the developing time, which the inside of the box said I should have gotten at least EI12500 by doing so.

Whether they are thin or dense, your negs are typically not the final medium. The only valid question is "can they be printed?". Feel free to push this film all you want, but then please don't complain about grain.

 

[xtolsniffer]

I used Delta 3200 to photograph the births of both my children. Nikon F3, 35mm F2 and all ambient light. I developed in Microphen for the recommended times. The negs are a little thin but easy to print, and yes there is grain, as to be expected, but it adds to the 'reportage' look. It's a lovely film. I use it for a lot of dark interiors, especially historic houses. If you can go up to medium format the grain is obviously less intrusive but I have some 12"x16" prints on my wall from 35 mm Delta 3200 and the grain adds a lovely look.

 

[hired goon]

I think my main issue here, and others that have had problems, is that nowhere on the box does it mention anything other than 3200, which I wrongly, and admittedly assumed was the film speed I should shoot it at. Only on the technical datasheet does it mention 1000 iso, which when I possessed it. I completely missed, and I'm guessing others did as well. Their labeling is inconsistent with their other family of products. Panf50 is not 6 or 12 iso for instance, and when I bought delta 3200, I wrongly assumed I was getting 3200 speed film. Instead, I got what I would call 800, which is completely useless (to me only) as pushing HP5 yields a nicer, contrastier image in my opinion at that speed....but that is just my opinion.

 

[warden]

I think my main issue here, and others that have had problems, is that nowhere on the box does it mention anything other than 3200, which I wrongly, and admittedly assumed was the film speed I should shoot it at.

I think that's a fair gripe, and your point of inconsistency of labeling is a good one too. It wouldn't have been hard to name the film more accurately, while still advertising the benefits of the tool when used at much higher speeds. People often stumble with this film as they get to know it and the box is part of the reason. In fairness the inside of the box gives developing times for EI 400 - EI 12,500, but the user is left to decide for him/herself the most appropriate speed, and that takes some work.

I consider this film 'one thousand and beyond' for the times that I need just that.

 

[Rudeofus]

People get hung up on ISO speed of this film, although ISO speed is a poor measure for the behavior of this film. ISO speed number is very informative for films with mostly straight H&D curve, and possibly those with a somewhat longer toe, but IMHO not really for films with such a pronounced and flat shoulder like Delta 3200. Ilford intended this film to be shot at EI 3200, that's why they put the number on the box.

 

[Petraio Prime]

There is absolutely such a thing as "box speed": it denotes the recommended EI, regardless of what technical ISO speed measurements would tell. The manufacturer, in this case Ilford, had a certain appearance in mind, and shooting at recommended EI will likely yield that appearance. If you prefer a different appearance which you achieve at different EI, there is no "box speed police" who would arrest you for shooting it at EI 1000, EI 6400 or whatever. Even EI50 and EI101202 is legal AFAIK.

No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as 'box speed', only ISO speed. In my opinion it is very misleading to customers for Kodak and Ilford to label their films inconsistently. Tri-X Pan never used to have '400' in its name. It didn't need it. Its speed rating depended to some extent on the developer used. Microdol-X developer (very popular back then) reduced the speed by half. The ASA speed of Tri-X changed in 1960 from 200 to 400 due to a change in the method used by the American Standards Association to measure film speed. As many photographers have found, the old speed ratings were probably more accurate. I routinely expose my B&W film at 2/3 stop more than ISO speeds.

 

[Rudeofus]

No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as 'box speed', only ISO speed. In my opinion it is very misleading to customers for Kodak and Ilford to label their films inconsistently. Tri-X Pan never used to have '400' in its name. It didn't need it. Its speed rating depended to some extent on the developer used. Microdol-X developer (very popular back then) reduced the speed by half. The ASA speed of Tri-X changed in 1960 from 200 to 400 due to a change in the method used by the American Standards Association to measure film speed. As many photographers have found, the old speed ratings were probably more accurate. I routinely expose my B&W film at 2/3 stop more than ISO speeds.

Box speed is what you dial in on your camera after you loaded the film, and the film maker thinks you will get usable pictures if you follow this procedure. Obviously there are occasions where this won't give good results, but those aren't all that common.

Just look how this thread's participants are split into a "we shoot it at EI800, its grain is huge and we don't like it" and a "we shoot it at EI3200 and love it" camp. Ilford may be onto something ....

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Each photographer must decide what is an acceptable negative. Beyond the film's innate capabilities, we are VERY MUCH in control of the final outcome, in terms of film exposure and processing. The level of shadow detail is determined by exposure, of course, and the level of overall contrast is determined by film developing time, agitation, and developer temperature / dilution.
Within that realm we can have the same film and developer construct wildly different results.

Thus, if negatives are 'thin' or 'low contrast' then a lot of that is because the user did not adjust their process enough to suit the materials.
Each one of us has a process of output, in terms of silver gelatin papers and developers, which also have characteristics to consider, so it is our RESPONSIBILITY to tune ALL of the steps leading up to the print, to the best of our ability.
We simply cannot say that 'I tried the film and I didn't like it because the contrast was too low'. That is something we largely affect ourselves, with our process, and it just shows that we didn't try hard enough to make it work, for whatever reason.

Delta 3200 is, for sure, a grainy film. I absolutely LOVE to use it for close-up work, particularly for portraits of women and children in 120 format. It looks incredible the way I see things; the grain adds something to the picture that I love. In 35mm it might be really grainy, but move in closer, and the resolution of the film will start to really shine, and the details will not be as obscured by the grain.

 

[MattKing]

Its speed rating depended to some extent on the developer used. Microdol-X developer (very popular back then) reduced the speed by half. The ASA speed of Tri-X changed in 1960 from 200 to 400 due to a change in the method used by the American Standards Association to measure film speed. As many photographers have found, the old speed ratings were probably more accurate. I routinely expose my B&W film at 2/3 stop more than ISO speeds.

A general rule of thumb for most general purpose films:
1) if you want the highest quality of results for films developed by a commercial developing lab which makes machine prints of the negatives, use the ISO speed. This is because the ISO speed yields very high quality mid-tone and highlight reproduction in un-manipulated prints, and it is the mid-tones and highlights that tend to have the largest effect on the average viewer. The ISO rating system was developed based on tests of print quality from un-manipulated machine prints - it is the speed that statistically gives the highest such quality (subject to a built in safety factor); and
2) if you want results which yield a greater potential for darkroom manipulation, use something lower than the ISO speed. This is because lower ISO gives you enhanced detail in the shadows and, with the longer straight section of the characteristic curve for most modern films, gives you the option to use darkroom manipulations to enhance the shadow and mid-tone and highlight rendition. The lower speed will generally, however, give lower quality straight prints, because the results favour shadow detail over mid-tone and highlights, and are therefore less visually appealing.
It is rarely a mistake to use the ISO speed if you are making straight prints, but one of the exceptions is Delta 3200 (or Kodak T-Max 3200).
Those films (Delta 3200 and T-Max 3200) are the exceptions, because they are not general purpose films - they are designed to give very low contrast results when exposed at their ISO speeds. For that reason, the manufacturer recommends a different alternative - expose them to less light, and develop them more to give them more contrast.
In the case of both the Ilford and (now former) Kodak offerings, the manufacturers explicitly don't describe their labelled speed as being an ISO speed, and give detailed recommendations on how to achieve results at a number of different, non-ISO speed, with 3200 being a strong recommendation. Only those who don't bother to read the directions are likely to be misled in any way.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Each photographer must decide what is an acceptable negative. Beyond the film's innate capabilities, we are VERY MUCH in control of the final outcome, in terms of film exposure and processing. The level of shadow detail is determined by exposure, of course, and the level of overall contrast is determined by film developing time, agitation, and developer temperature / dilution.
Within that realm we can have the same film and developer construct wildly different results.

Thus, if negatives are 'thin' or 'low contrast' then a lot of that is because the user did not adjust their process enough to suit the materials.
Each one of us has a process of output, in terms of silver gelatin papers and developers, which also have characteristics to consider, so it is our RESPONSIBILITY to tune ALL of the steps leading up to the print, to the best of our ability.
We simply cannot say that 'I tried the film and I didn't like it because the contrast was too low'. That is something we largely affect ourselves, with our process, and it just shows that we didn't try hard enough to make it work, for whatever reason.

Delta 3200 is, for sure, a grainy film. I absolutely LOVE to use it for close-up work, particularly for portraits of women and children in 120 format. It looks incredible the way I see things; the grain adds something to the picture that I love. In 35mm it might be really grainy, but move in closer, and the resolution of the film will start to really shine, and the details will not be as obscured by the grain.

View attachment 179058

A general rule of thumb for most general purpose films:
1) if you want the highest quality of results for films developed by a commercial developing lab which makes machine prints of the negatives, use the ISO speed. This is because the ISO speed yields very high quality mid-tone and highlight reproduction in un-manipulated prints, and it is the mid-tones and highlights that tend to have the largest effect on the average viewer. The ISO rating system was developed based on tests of print quality from un-manipulated machine prints - it is the speed that statistically gives the highest such quality (subject to a built in safety factor); and
2) if you want results which yield a greater potential for darkroom manipulation, use something lower than the ISO speed. This is because lower ISO gives you enhanced detail in the shadows and, with the longer straight section of the characteristic curve for most modern films, gives you the option to use darkroom manipulations to enhance the shadow and mid-tone and highlight rendition. The lower speed will generally, however, give lower quality straight prints, because the results favour shadow detail over mid-tone and highlights, and are therefore less visually appealing.
It is rarely a mistake to use the ISO speed if you are making straight prints, but one of the exceptions is Delta 3200 (or Kodak T-Max 3200).
Those films (Delta 3200 and T-Max 3200) are the exceptions, because they are not general purpose films - they are designed to give very low contrast results when exposed at their ISO speeds. For that reason, the manufacturer recommends a different alternative - expose them to less light, and develop them more to give them more contrast.
In the case of both the Ilford and (now former) Kodak offerings, the manufacturers explicitly don't describe their labelled speed as being an ISO speed, and give detailed recommendations on how to achieve results at a number of different, non-ISO speed, with 3200 being a strong recommendation. Only those who don't bother to read the directions are likely to be misled in any way.

First: RTFM!!! Follow that manufacturer's instructions.
Second: Then if the negatives are thin, check the exposure. Is your metering technique correct?
Third: then if the negatives are still too thin, increase the development.

 

[MattKing]

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: