Fast Film Showdown

[nickstreme]

Delta 3200, TMAX 3200, Fuji 1600, what do you prefer in terms of

- Sharpness
- Tonality
- Contrast
- Awesomeness
- Granality + Structure
- Awesomeness

?

 

[E76]

I've used both Delta 3200 and Neopan 1600, and so far I've been impressed with Neopan 1600. The grain is apparent (but not too large) and has a very nice, even structure. The contrast is a little high when used with Diafine, but that's easily corrected with the use of filtration in printing. The tonality isn't exactly smooth, but for 1600 speed, it's pretty good—so is the sharpness, having made an acceptable 16x20 inch print from a 35mm negative.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I think Tmax 3200 has the best tonality in high contrast situations and Delta 3200 in low contrast. Grain is about the same between them, Delta is a bit sharper. In practice, I usually use Tmax because I have more experience with it, and the situations i use high speed films tend to favor it. I occasionally use Delta in 120 size, as Tmax is a 35mm only film. I haven't used Neopan 1600 since high school and my techniqiue was too sloppy then to give a judgement.

Tmax 3200, 35mm

Tmax 3200, 35mm

Delta 3200, 120 size

 

[nickstreme]

Nice shots guys, and super helpful.

 

[jim appleyard]

One thing that Delta 3200 has over its competitors is that it's available in 120.
As Thomas points out below, D3200 is a low contrast film, but shot in high contrast areas, it really does well.

 

[dwdmguy]

For me it's the Neopan 1600. But please note, I LOVE high seperation of tones and contrast.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

For 35mm I have to lean toward T-max 3200.

Jeff

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Delta 3200 may be inherently a low contrast film, but you can alter your processing to build quite a bit of contrast with it.
The attached shot is Delta 3200 shot at EI3200 (some loss of shadow detail, but none that's important to me) and processed in HC-110, dil B for a fairly gutsy negative.
This is a proof scan from a 645 negative that fairly OK matches an Ilford MGIV print I made at the time of the wedding. It was eventually printed in lith, but I gave that print to the bride before it could be scanned. Both prints look less grainy than the scan, though.
It's Delta 3200 for me all the way if I need high speed, because it's available in both 120 and 35mm.

 

[psvensson]

To me, the Delta and T-Max films are quite similar in speed and grain. Neopan, which I've recently started using, is slower and finer-grained, but it's a good trade-off: foot speed at normal contrast is about 800 rather than 1000 for the faster films. EI 800 gives me enough speed to shoot handheld indoors, so I'm happy with that. Neopan is cheap, too! I think of it almost as a slightly faster version of Tri-X.

 

[dwdmguy]

Thomas, that's a wonderful photograph. Care to share the processing with us please?
t

 

[BetterSense]

I'm becoming more and more a fan of 120 neopan 400, no doubt partly because of its cheapness.

That wedding photo is gorgeous. I have a roll of 120 Delta 3200 in the freezer, but it's so expensive.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Tom, I have my notes at home. I'll see if I recorded the time. I know that it was dilution B and I agitated every minute for ten seconds. You could potentially build even more contrast by agitating every 30 seconds.

I'm not sure giving the time would help, as I did testing prior to using that particular film, with my particular meter, in that particular building, with my particular meter, in my particular camera and shutter, with my particular thermometer and water supply... You get the picture. Do some testing...

 

[dwdmguy]

I will Thomas, thank you. I do my agitating now every 30 secs but only for 5 seconds so I'm seeing a lot of discussion of increasing contrast, which I love, by more agitation. I'll keep plugging.
Thanks again and great photo.