I agree with XP2 for being the finest grained in the print. The film, in fact, has no visible grain, as the C-41 process bleaches it away and leaves only dye behind to form the image.
I would also say that "better tonality" is subjective, however. If you are going for more contrast and less shadow detail, underexposure is a good start. I do it every now and then to make the negative more easily give me the print that I envision. I did it on a large project I shot last year on over 60 rolls of 35mm, to achieve a certain "look" in the prints. Most of the pix were shot in broad daylight. So, you stating that you are rating a film at 1600 does not automatically say to me that you are also looking to lose as little shadow detail as possible...not at all.
Tri-X does very well at 1600, without getting too grainy or too contrasty.
T-Max 400 (new version or previous version) will "save" a bit more in the shadows than Tri-X, and will not make as grainy a picture. It can build contrast to a great degree, however, so be careful how you develop it. IME, it seems sharper than XP2.
Same as above regarding the contrast of HP5. IME, it makes a grainier pic than Tri-X, and has a punchier look over all. Tri-X to me is a noticeable bit more soft and glowing, while HP5 has a harder and colder look. HP5 is what I used for the above-mentioned project.
Delta 3200 is one of the best films out there for digging stuff from shadows. It is not the least grainy, however, IMO the grain pattern is totally unobtrusive for most things; very neatly arranged grain. Since it has the highest speed of the films named, and also has inherently low contrast, it will be the one that will allow you to dig the most out of the dark areas when you make the print. I also find it to be the easiest emulsion to print, out of any film. 1600 is a very leisurely stretch for this film, and the "shadow detail" will be ample. The key to getting the best from this film is exposing and developing it properly. It is actually an ISO 1000 film, and contrary to what is often stated about it, it is NOT an inherently contrasty film. It is, in fact, one of the lowest contrast films in existence. It is not all that grainy when developed for below 2,000, and will not be underexposed that much at 1600, so you stand a very good chance of being able to both get the most from the shadows, and minimize grain "in one fell swoop", as the expression goes.
It goes without saying that underexposing a film will make it darker...so any time you rate a film above box speed, things are blacked out that would not be blacked out at box speed.
In terms of the level of contrast, of all the films I have mentioned, Delta 3200 and XP2 are the most similar. So are T-Max 400 and HP5.
Delta 3200 is the fastest and the most grainy, but low in contrast at the actual ISO film speed of 1000.
XP2 is designed for printing on black and white paper, while BW400CN is designed for printing on color paper.
My final suggestion, if you want the most "normal" contrast: "Gently" treated Delta 3200. Nail your exposures as close as you can, and use a developer that will support the underexposed dark areas, without pummeling the film (to keep grain down). I would suggest X-Tol, or maybe D-23 for a bit more grain.
IME, Delta 3200 is such an inherently low-contrast emulsion, that it needs to be rated at 1600 or 2000 and overdeveloped to match the contrast of most black and white films. So, IME, 1600 is not really much of a loss of low tones.
My suggestion if you want higher contrast: T-Max 400.
I would also say that "better tonality" is subjective, however. If you are going for more contrast and less shadow detail, underexposure is a good start. I do it every now and then to make the negative more easily give me the print that I envision. I did it on a large project I shot last year on over 60 rolls of 35mm, to achieve a certain "look" in the prints. Most of the pix were shot in broad daylight. So, you stating that you are rating a film at 1600 does not automatically say to me that you are also looking to lose as little shadow detail as possible...not at all.
Tri-X does very well at 1600, without getting too grainy or too contrasty.
T-Max 400 (new version or previous version) will "save" a bit more in the shadows than Tri-X, and will not make as grainy a picture. It can build contrast to a great degree, however, so be careful how you develop it. IME, it seems sharper than XP2.
Same as above regarding the contrast of HP5. IME, it makes a grainier pic than Tri-X, and has a punchier look over all. Tri-X to me is a noticeable bit more soft and glowing, while HP5 has a harder and colder look. HP5 is what I used for the above-mentioned project.
Delta 3200 is one of the best films out there for digging stuff from shadows. It is not the least grainy, however, IMO the grain pattern is totally unobtrusive for most things; very neatly arranged grain. Since it has the highest speed of the films named, and also has inherently low contrast, it will be the one that will allow you to dig the most out of the dark areas when you make the print. I also find it to be the easiest emulsion to print, out of any film. 1600 is a very leisurely stretch for this film, and the "shadow detail" will be ample. The key to getting the best from this film is exposing and developing it properly. It is actually an ISO 1000 film, and contrary to what is often stated about it, it is NOT an inherently contrasty film. It is, in fact, one of the lowest contrast films in existence. It is not all that grainy when developed for below 2,000, and will not be underexposed that much at 1600, so you stand a very good chance of being able to both get the most from the shadows, and minimize grain "in one fell swoop", as the expression goes.
It goes without saying that underexposing a film will make it darker...so any time you rate a film above box speed, things are blacked out that would not be blacked out at box speed.
In terms of the level of contrast, of all the films I have mentioned, Delta 3200 and XP2 are the most similar. So are T-Max 400 and HP5.
Delta 3200 is the fastest and the most grainy, but low in contrast at the actual ISO film speed of 1000.
XP2 is designed for printing on black and white paper, while BW400CN is designed for printing on color paper.
My final suggestion, if you want the most "normal" contrast: "Gently" treated Delta 3200. Nail your exposures as close as you can, and use a developer that will support the underexposed dark areas, without pummeling the film (to keep grain down). I would suggest X-Tol, or maybe D-23 for a bit more grain.
IME, Delta 3200 is such an inherently low-contrast emulsion, that it needs to be rated at 1600 or 2000 and overdeveloped to match the contrast of most black and white films. So, IME, 1600 is not really much of a loss of low tones.
My suggestion if you want higher contrast: T-Max 400.
Last edited by a moderator:
