film after TMax3200

brianentz · Feb 15, 2014

Just wondering with TMaxx 3200 gone what is the preferred way to achieve that kind of speed by APUG users. Pushing TMaxx 400 or Tri-x or HP5. Or going with Delta 3200? Perhaps a fav film/developer combo?

NB23 · Feb 15, 2014

Man, TMAX3200 is by far my favorite.

Delta 3200 isn't close to the look. I'd simply push Tri-X @ 1600 or 3200. That's the closest you'll get to TMAX3200.

chriscrawfordphoto · Feb 15, 2014

Delta 3200 developed in Tmax Developer is my replacement for Tmax 3200. I actually prefer Delta 3200 to Tmax 3200, and the fact that Ilford makes it in 120 size is awesome.

Here's a few of my recent photos shot in a Mamiya 6 on Delta 3200 at EI-3200 developed in Tmax Developer.

This was shot handheld at 1/8 of a second at f8. The light was VERY dim.

This could have been done on 400 speed film, but the wind was blowing the inflatable snowmen around and using Delta 3200 let me use a high enough shutter speed to stop the motion in the early evening light.

Jeff Kubach · Feb 15, 2014

I have used Delta 3200 in Tmax developer also, it did OK.

Jeff

Rudeofus · Feb 15, 2014

The only film that will give you "that speed" right now is Delta 3200. People may suggest all kinds of ISO 400 alternatives pushed to the ISO 1000-1200 you had with TMZ, but none of these ISO 400 films will give you the real ISO 1000-1500 that you get with Delta 3200.

NB23 · Feb 15, 2014

Jeff Kubach said:
I have used Delta 3200 in Tmax developer also, it did OK.

Jeff

I'm not sure what crappy web sized pics of my 20x24 prints can actually show but here it is:

Pic 2 is D3200 in XTOL (excellent shadow detail). But lacking contrast (with all developers). I need to over develop or print on a grade 5.

Pics 1 and 3 are Tmax3200 developed in tmax 1:4. Kodak recomended times. Sweet results. Excellent contrast.

Pic 4 is Tri-X pushed to 1600. Similar to TMax3200. Sharp, contrast is there.

I would not judge these pics, however. They were taken with a dslr or an iphone (2) of wet prints slapped on the wall under a neon light.

Rudeofus · Feb 15, 2014

Delta 3200 is intentionally low contrast so you can push it to 3200, 6400 and beyond without blowing out highlights. BTW if you look at your pushed Tri-X pic, there are upper medium to high tones, and blackness, nothing in between. It works for this shot, but sometimes you need real ISO speed, not just printable contrast.

NB23 · Feb 15, 2014

Understanding is everything.
An incandecent 60w lightbulb will never give shadow detail and incandecent in itself hasn't a spectrum wide enough for film making it naturally underexpose even when a lightmeter reads a scene correctly.

I hace shot 2 rolls in that house: 1 trix @ 1600 and one tmax3200. When the time comes to printing them all, somewhere within the next 2 years, I will be able to say exactly.

But no, D3200 wasn't designed to be low contrast. That's just silly. And trix pushed has a good contrast just as tmax3200 that D3200 lacks.

Rudeofus · Feb 15, 2014

NB23 said:
Pic 2 is D3200 in XTOL (excellent shadow detail). But lacking contrast (with all developers). I need to over develop or print on a grade 5.

NB23 said:
But no, D3200 wasn't designed to be low contrast. That's just silly.

What are you trying to say here ?

Colin Corneau · Feb 15, 2014

Kind of wondering that myself -- Delta 3200 certainly was designed to be low contrast, to compensate for uprating/push processing. You only have to shoot a single roll to see that for yourself.

The last sentence I agree with, from my experience...depends much on subject matter and lighting conditions when shooting.

BTW, great photographs, all of them. My compliments!

eddie · Feb 15, 2014

NB23 said:
I would not judge these pics, however. They were taken with a dslr or an iphone (2) of wet prints slapped on the wall under a neon light.

I'm not judging, but I think the first one is fantastic.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 15, 2014

As with all films, it takes a while to tweak things. Delta 3200 IS low contrast when shot at 800 and 1600. And it's beautiful that way. But, just like with every other film out there, it takes some effort to get into the sweet spot. Delta 3200 needs a lot of film developing time to give its best. If you think it gives contrast that is too low - just develop it longer! It's probably THE primary control we have in film based photography, to make negatives that print well without going to the extremes come printing time. That final negative contrast is entirely under our control as darkroom workers.

StoneNYC · Feb 15, 2014

As with others, I would D3200 is your only option for pushing PAST 3200 (as in 6400 and up) but I've found I very much like HP5+ at 3200, it's REALLY beautiful, much better than I would have thought. I use DD-X with all my pushing... So I wouldn't do this with anything but DD-X

A few examples of HP5+ at 3200 in DD-X. Each shot was in different light for a reason to test it, the last was in dusk light AFTER the sun was already down, that post dusk light....

StoneNYC · Feb 15, 2014

PS I'm testing a roll of HP5+ at 6400 and I'm testing a roll of D3200 at 12800 to see how it looks as I've never pushed either that far. I'll let you know later, I may not be able to post any though, the subject matter is .... riske

brianentz · Feb 17, 2014

Thanks everyone. I'm inclined to keep shooting Delta 3200, especially in light of your comments.

StoneNYC · Feb 17, 2014

brianentz said:
Thanks everyone. I'm inclined to keep shooting Delta 3200, especially in light of your comments.

I've been told a few times and read other places that many prefer to develop D3200 in DD-X at the NEXT recommended speed times.

So if you shoot it at EI 1600, develop for 3200 times, if you shoot at EI 3200 develop at 6400. I have not tried this YET it's my next step, but I've read that it can help increase contrast and make the image more pleasing and on target for what a normal non-low-contrast image would look like.

Again this is second hand info, but something else to research.

Roger Cole · Feb 17, 2014

NB23 said:
Man, TMAX3200 is by far my favorite.

Delta 3200 isn't close to the look. I'd simply push Tri-X @ 1600 or 3200. That's the closest you'll get to TMAX3200.

Eh, Delta 3200 isn't TMZ but it's a great film. I've been shooting loads of it in 120 anyway. I'll just move to it for fast 35mm.

Won't look identical, granted, but gets a very good 3200 when developed per instructions for 6400.

Roger Cole · Feb 17, 2014

StoneNYC said:
I've been told a few times and read other places that many prefer to develop D3200 in DD-X at the NEXT recommended speed times.

So if you shoot it at EI 1600, develop for 3200 times, if you shoot at EI 3200 develop at 6400. I have not tried this YET it's my next step, but I've read that it can help increase contrast and make the image more pleasing and on target for what a normal non-low-contrast image would look like.

Again this is second hand info, but something else to research.

Exactly what I do with T-Max developer. I'm sure DD-X is fine too. I may switch to it once I'm out of T-Max. I think the official times were designed to minimize grain so the least time for a printable negative. I just get better negatives - maybe more grain but better tonality - with the longer times.

GarageBoy · Feb 18, 2014

chriscrawfordphoto said:
Delta 3200 developed in Tmax Developer is my replacement for Tmax 3200. I actually prefer Delta 3200 to Tmax 3200, and the fact that Ilford makes it in 120 size is awesome.

I remember you being TMZ's No. 1 fan
I know I'll miss it when its gone/fogged

What differences do you notice
Thanks

film after TMax3200

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency