Favorite 1600's and 3200's

brianentz · Nov 11, 2014

I've never been a big fan of the delta films - just didn't work well for me. So I'm wondering, with Tmax 3200 gone, what are the groups fav ways of getting those high speeds? What film / developer / darkroom techniques do you all like best for low light bw photography?

snapguy · Nov 11, 2014

rarely

I rarely venture higher than ASA 1000 for available darkness. I did shoot Ektachrome at ASA 1000 for a Muhammed Ali title fight in Madison Square Garden but of course that was color.

GarageBoy · Nov 11, 2014

TMax 400 pushed to 1600 with TMAX developer looks pretty good

NB23 · Nov 11, 2014

DD-x is such a good developer for fast films, I'm sure that Delta 3200 in it will absolutely sing!

flavio81 · Nov 11, 2014

HP5+ pushed to 1600 in medium format. Works perfectly.

Richard S. (rich815) · Nov 11, 2014

Tri-X at 1600 in Diafine:

SF downtown night Rolleiflex2-8Planar Tri-X at1600 Diafine 03-2007 VS 006 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

Ian Grant · Nov 11, 2014

Push processed XP1, XP2 and XP2+ in C41 chemistry.

The scan is grainier than the print, might have been Whole Lot of Love, it's Jimmy though . . . . . 1987

Ian

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 11, 2014

I still love Delta 3200. In DD-X or TMax developer it is a stunning film, especially medium format (as attached).

In 35mm I prefer to use a developer that gives a bit more grain - Rodinal.

I'm waiting to try Delta 3200 in Harvey's Panthermic 777. See how that goes.

erikg · Nov 11, 2014

120 Delta 3200 @ 1600 in Pyrocat HD. https://flic.kr/p/b83Cox

summicron1 · Nov 11, 2014

brianentz said:
I've never been a big fan of the delta films - just didn't work well for me. So I'm wondering, with Tmax 3200 gone, what are the groups fav ways of getting those high speeds? What film / developer / darkroom techniques do you all like best for low light bw photography?

tri-x at 1600 in d-76 for 12.5 minutes at 68 degrees. 35mm film. I am, frankly, amazed at the result. Damn near grainless in 8 by 10 inches, wonderful tones and shadow details.

brianentz · Nov 11, 2014

Thanks for your responses. I think I'll experiment between Tri-X and Tmax 400 pushed to 1600 - D76 or Xtol.

mexipike · Nov 11, 2014

NB23 said:
DD-x is such a good developer for fast films, I'm sure that Delta 3200 in it will absolutely sing!

+1

I didn't used to care too much for delta 3200 until I started using this combo!

Really does "sing"

images39 · Nov 11, 2014

I've tried Tri-X in XTOL rated at 1600 a couple of times, and have been very pleased with the results. I've only done it with 35mm at 8x10 enlargement, not yet tried medium format. But it wasn't nearly as grainy as I would have expected.

Dale

images39 · Nov 11, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I still love Delta 3200. In DD-X or TMax developer it is a stunning film, especially medium format (as attached).

In 35mm I prefer to use a developer that gives a bit more grain - Rodinal.

I'm waiting to try Delta 3200 in Harvey's Panthermic 777. See how that goes.

That's a really nice image.

Roger Cole · Nov 11, 2014

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:
Tri-X at 1600 in Diafine:

SF downtown night Rolleiflex2-8Planar Tri-X at1600 Diafine 03-2007 VS 006 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

This is one of my favorite combinations where 1600 will do it.

I do find that the modern Tri-X seems to give less effective speed in Diafine than the older version did under tungsten light (where I shoot it at 1000) though it works fine at 1600 in daylight (heavy overcast, twilight etc.) As a compromise I sometimes just set 1250.

But don't write off Delta 3200 just because you haven't liked the Deltas in general. It's a GREAT film. I develop in T-Max developer, expose at 3200 and develop as for 6400 and get great results.

Roger Cole · Nov 11, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I still love Delta 3200. In DD-X or TMax developer it is a stunning film, especially medium format (as attached).

In 35mm I prefer to use a developer that gives a bit more grain - Rodinal.

I'm waiting to try Delta 3200 in Harvey's Panthermic 777. See how that goes.

+1 to that. I've posted it several times before but this is a scan off a contact sheet (it could be individually printed better) of a shot of my wife reading on her iPad, Delta 3200 at EI3200, developed in T-Max developer per instructions for 6400:

[/QUOTE]

ww12345 · Nov 11, 2014

Ian Grant said:
Push processed XP1, XP2 and XP2+ in C41 chemistry.

The scan is grainier than the print, might have been Whole Lot of Love, it's Jimmy though . . . . . 1987

Ian

Great shot - I'm really envious! Too young to have seen any of them in person, much less get a picture of them...

Nuff · Nov 12, 2014

In 1600, Trix in DDX and 3200, Delta in DDX developed for 6400.
My next set of Trix and Delta will be developed in Tmax Dev, since it's a lot cheaper and supposedly gives similar results.

Michael L. · Nov 12, 2014

To my gratification, Kodak TMax 400 pushed to IE 3200 in undiluted Microphen (1+0), 12 min@20°C, seems to give quite acceptable results:

The picture shows Swedish singer, musician and composer Mikael Wiehe at a political gathering in Copenhagen a week or so ago.

Regards,
Michael

jim appleyard · Nov 12, 2014

Delta 3200 in MF is pretty nice. I mostly use TX in Diafine, but only get an EI or 1000.

Thomas, D3200 in 777? Sounds interesting. Please let us know.

cjbecker · Nov 12, 2014

This gives me some inspiration to see what I can do with fp4 and ac130, see how far I can take it.

Roger Cole · Nov 13, 2014

jim appleyard said:
Delta 3200 in MF is pretty nice. I mostly use TX in Diafine, but only get an EI or 1000.

Thomas, D3200 in 777? Sounds interesting. Please let us know.

See my comment above about the newest Tri-X in Diafine. Your results mirror mine under tungsten light. I can get a good, effective 1600 under subdued daylight.

I have the same thing with TMY-2 and before that with TMY. I have to derate it under tungsten. People have showed me response curves that seem to show this shouldn't happen, but it's my experience. It may be related to my meters as much as the film I suppose, since I was mostly using different meters back in the 80s when I got a solid 1600 out of "old" Tri-X of that day under any light.

jim appleyard · Nov 13, 2014

Roger, Cool that you can get to 1600, I never could. I might squeeze out 1250, but I just stick to 1000. It's probably the difference in our meters or how we meter. Nice pic, BTW.

brianentz · Nov 14, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I still love Delta 3200. In DD-X or TMax developer it is a stunning film, especially medium format (as attached).

In 35mm I prefer to use a developer that gives a bit more grain - Rodinal.

I'm waiting to try Delta 3200 in Harvey's Panthermic 777. See how that goes.

This is what I mean from that lovely picture, you're getting much better results with delta 3200 than I do. I need to improve my methodology.

kreeger · Nov 15, 2014

My favorite is Tri-X, 1600, Acufine, 7.5 mins @70 degrees, very gentle agitation. See the example shown of Reggie Jackson.

Favorite 1600's and 3200's

brianentz

snapguy

GarageBoy

NB23

flavio81

Richard S. (rich815)

Ian Grant

Thomas Bertilsson

Attachments

erikg

summicron1

brianentz

mexipike

images39

images39

Roger Cole

Roger Cole

ww12345

Nuff

Michael L.

Attachments

jim appleyard

cjbecker

Roger Cole

jim appleyard

brianentz

kreeger

Attachments

Favorite 1600's and 3200's

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency