Getting more shadow detail out of Delta 3200

[Nikonic]

Hi all,

Thanks for the help I received on toning in my other most recent thread.

I'm wondering if anyone knows any tricks for extracting more shadow detail out of delta 3200, which has eluded me.

I'm not sure if asking for "more shadow detail" is the same as asking "how do I straighten the toe of 3200"? It may be.

An example: 120. Delta 3200. Window light in an almost black room. Shot at an ISO of 800 and then added an additional two stops for N-2 development. PMK. I think my adjusted time was 12.5 minutes @ 75 F.

Paper: MG FB IV. Main exposure @ grade 2, 50% @ grade 5.

As you can see, the highlights and above zone V look good. But the shadows and lower midtowns just drop straight off to DMAX.

I'm fairly sure it isn't the paper or printing procedures, because examination of the negative under a loupe doesn't show much detail in the shadows, either.

Not sure if Delta 3200 is the right film for shadow detail–honestly, I don't know, but, I really find fast speeds essential to my work. I know it's true speed is closer to 800 than 3200 (same say 1600), and I'm shooting N-2 for an EI of 200. So, I suppose I could shoot tri-x at rated speed if it provides vastly superior shadow detail, but if I ended up finding I need contracted development as I often do, and shoot N-2, then I'm at EI 100. Plus I like the grain structure, so I want to stick with it.

Thanks for any tips!

-S

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Develop it in Tmax Developer or Ilford DDX. PMK is not the best developer for pushing film, and Delta 3200 is designed to be pushed. I have used it for years with Tmax Developer and get excellent shadow detail at EI-1600 and 3200.

 

[Bill Burk]

Looks like you have taken a beautiful photograph and made a beautiful print. Love the toning and I personally wouldn't change a thing.

You should expect the black background in this setting to be completely clear and without detail. It probably meters several stops lower than your subject.

You could theoretically get detail in the shadow by metering the room and "placing" it on Zone II. But I don't think that would be a good way to handle this portrait.

If anything you might add light. But to my eyes... save that trick for an occasion where it's your idea to add light.

This print looks great as-is.

 

[Nikonic]

PMK is not the best developer for pushing film

I'm not pushing, this is actually pulled two stops. N-2.

Delta 3200 is designed to be pushed.

I suppose it is, but I think "designed to be pushed" means that the film is designed to give acceptable results pushed above its rated speed. I've heard that Delta 3200 is not truly an ISO 3200 speed film, but is either 800 or 1600.

And I can't imagine how pushing increases shadow detail. And if Delta 3200 is "designed to be pushed" so that it gives better performance and response at 3200 then its actual speed, then wouldn't that mean it is actually a true 3200 speed film?

-S

 

[Nikonic]

This print looks great as-is.

Thank you for the compliments Bill! This is an iPhone snap of the curled print no less.

However although it doesn't look bad or off or as if there's been some mistake—many people like this look, and so do I—but I can't help wondering where the shadow detail is, not just in the background.

If you look at the lock of the subject's hair (which is dark brown), part of it actually falls on the same plane as her face, so it is getting the same exposure, which is light from a large window @ ei-200 (true speed of Delta 3200 = 800 - 2 stops, then developed at N-2), and yet even with N-2 development there is no visible "information" in the center of that lock of hair in the negative.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Shadow detail is determined by exposure. No developer etc can provide what is not there in the first place.

 

[Bill Burk]

Maybe you didn't need N-2 development. With more development you could have had more detail.

What grade did you print at? If you were at or above the equivalent of grade 4, you had "room" to develop more.

 

[Nikonic]

Maybe you didn't need N-2 development. With more development you could have had more detail.

What grade did you print at? If you were at or above the equivalent of grade 4, you had "room" to develop more.

Hmm, with more development I would have also had greater contrast, higher density of silver in the highlights, and I worried about blocking up the highlights in the printing stage.

I printed at grade 2 and then split for 50% of the exposure time at grade 5.

 

[MattKing]

Hmm, with more development I would have also had greater contrast, higher density of silver in the highlights, and I worried about blocking up the highlights in the printing stage.

I printed at grade 2 and then split for 50% of the exposure time at grade 5.

That probably works out to about the equivalent of grade 3.5 - 4.

I would give it more development, as well as more exposure.

 

[Bill Burk]

I don't do split grade, but assume this means between grade 2 and grade 5. And so I still think you could have developed the film more.

Think of the subject as the only place where you need to concern yourself with exposure. If you metered and using Zone System terminology her face placed on Zone VI and the sweater fell on Zone VII scarf on Zone IV and hair on Zone III or II. If that's where everything fell... I'd call that N.

(Not sure you had that much time with subject or with the light)

With greater contrast in this negative you could have printed on paper with less contrast...

I'm convinced that the toe of paper creates all the "blocking" of highlights you hear about - modern film has a straight line that extends past where you would print.

Modern film itself doesn't shoulder out anywhere that would matter to your print.

But paper has a strong "S" shaped curve, long toe and abrupt shoulder.

My thought is that if you can use a lower grade of paper you can reveal more delicate gradation.

 

[markbarendt]

Great print Nikonic, and great to see somebody using minus development in the dark!

Ok, so two basic thoughts;

1 - Gerald has a really good point, to get more detail on the negative more camera exposure is the only real choice.

That said D3200 is an ISO 1000 film and if I'm reading your post right you shot at EI 200 (basing the exposure on EI 800 at the meter and then you opened up 2 stops extra). That should be plenty, I'd guess that there's more detail to be had. You can and may already have tested that theory with the negative you have. When you did your test strips was there more detail available in the hair? That detail may also be visible simply using a loupe and viewing the negative directly to check.

If the detail is there it's not the negative or the camera setting which brings me to the next point.

2 - I'm guessing it's not a problem with the toe. You may just need to print the blacks a bit lighter. Pull the print a bit sooner, dodge, back off on print exposure, soften the paper grade, bleach the offending areas a taste, or ...

 

[markbarendt]

I printed at grade 2 and then split for 50% of the exposure time at grade 5.

Did you dodge during each of those exposures?

My thought is that if not all you really did was print at grade 3.5, the mean between 2 and 5.

That would explain the lack of detail.

 

[Bill Burk]

I want to re-iterate that you've done a great job and this print lacks nothing, there is nothing I would change.

But you may consider developing longer - to get higher contrast negatives - that require lower contrast paper... because it might help your prints look more like platinum.

 

[Xmas]

I'm wondering if anyone knows any tricks for extracting more shadow detail out of delta 3200, which has eluded me.

I'm fairly sure it isn't the paper or printing procedures, because examination of the negative under a loupe doesn't show much detail in the shadows, either.

-S

Rate the film at 800 develop for grade 2 bracket exposure in stops only try printing the negs with silver where you want detail when you loupe.
Good print though lots of people don't like the pushed look.
Use more light and delta 400 @ 200 would be easier.

 

[Athiril]

I don't do split grade, but assume this means between grade 2 and grade 5. And so I still think you could have developed the film more.

Think of the subject as the only place where you need to concern yourself with exposure. If you metered and using Zone System terminology her face placed on Zone VI and the sweater fell on Zone VII scarf on Zone IV and hair on Zone III or II. If that's where everything fell... I'd call that N.

(Not sure you had that much time with subject or with the light)

With greater contrast in this negative you could have printed on paper with less contrast...

I'm convinced that the toe of paper creates all the "blocking" of highlights you hear about - modern film has a straight line that extends past where you would print.

Modern film itself doesn't shoulder out anywhere that would matter to your print.

But paper has a strong "S" shaped curve, long toe and abrupt shoulder.

My thought is that if you can use a lower grade of paper you can reveal more delicate gradation.

Split grade looks a bit different than printing at one straight grade last I tried it.

 

[Rudeofus]

That said D3200 is an ISO 1000 film and if I'm reading your post right you shot at EI 200 (basing the exposure on EI 800 at the meter and then you opened up 2 stops extra).

I would interpret his statement as "exposed at EI 800 instead of EI3200 ---> two stop overexposure". Which, of course, it isn't, since Delta 3200 is in fact an ISO 1000 - 1200 film for normal developers. Still: at EI 800 there should be plenty of shadow detail.

The big mistake which IMHO happened here was the N-2 development, which causes significant underdevelopment of the negative and therefore a substantial speed loss. Boom! There goes your shadow detail!

@Nikonic: there is absolutely no reason for N-2 development of Delta 3200. All negative film can handle significant overexposure very well, and Delta 3200 already has very moderate contrast. Next time expose with the same EI and do N development, and enjoy 1-2 stops of extra shadow detail.

 

[markbarendt]

I would interpret his statement as "exposed at EI 800 instead of EI3200 ---> two stop overexposure". Which, of course, it isn't, since Delta 3200 is in fact an ISO 1000 - 1200 film for normal developers. Still: at EI 800 there should be plenty of shadow detail.

The big mistake which IMHO happened here was the N-2 development, which causes significant underdevelopment of the negative and therefore a substantial speed loss. Boom! There goes your shadow detail!

@Nikonic: there is absolutely no reason for N-2 development of Delta 3200. All negative film can handle significant overexposure very well, and Delta 3200 already has very moderate contrast. Next time expose with the same EI and do N development, and enjoy 1-2 stops of extra shadow detail.

Yeah we won't know for sure on the exposure until Nikonic clarifies which he did.

On the minus development though, the logic is sound for what he's trying to accomplish in the print. I think he may have just brought the print contrast back to N when he added the grade 5 exposure.

 

[zonephoto]

More development will increase your highlights and not your shadows. Only way to increase your shadows is by adding more light to them by either artificially lighting them (which you can't do if just using window light) or by increasing exposure then dropping your development down to pull the highlights back. Meter for your shadows and place them around a 3 or a 2 and expose for that. Then figure the difference between your shadow and your highlight to a zone 7 or so and how many stops you are now above 7 and you have your n- I would also drop the development temp down to 68 to develop slower as well and agitate very gently for once a minute. If it's a very large n- Then maybe once every two min. Highlight areas exhaust your developer faster than shadows do so by slowing your agitation down you allow the developer to exhaust itself on the hard highlight and essentially slow down while the shadow keeps plugging along.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rudeofus]

On the minus development though, the logic is sound for what he's trying to accomplish in the print. I think he may have just brought the print contrast back to N when he added the grade 5 exposure.

With N-2 development film will lose one or two stops of speed, which is fine if one exposed a true ISO 3200 film at EI 800, but not fine if one exposes an ISO 1000 film at EI 800. This is where Nikonic's logic falls apart, and the result is, surprise, surprise, much reduced shadow detail.

 

[markbarendt]

With N-2 development film will lose one or two stops of speed, which is fine if one exposed a true ISO 3200 film at EI 800, but not fine if one exposes an ISO 1000 film at EI 800. This is where Nikonic's logic falls apart, and the result is, surprise, surprise, much reduced shadow detail.

That's part of why I asked about his test strips and or him doing an inspection by loupe to see if there was more printable detail available in the shadows on the negative.

 

[cliveh]

Try exposing the film for a little longer.

 

[Xmas]

That's part of why I asked about his test strips and or him doing an inspection by loupe to see if there was more printable detail available in the shadows on the negative.

But he said not in OP?

((
I'm fairly sure it isn't the paper or printing procedures, because examination of the negative under a loupe doesn't show much detail in the shadows, either
))

N-2 won't slow the toe speed that much?

 

[markbarendt]

But he said not in OP?

((
I'm fairly sure it isn't the paper or printing procedures, because examination of the negative under a loupe doesn't show much detail in the shadows, either
))

N-2 won't slow the toe speed that much?

Doh, missed that.

So we are back to not enough exposure.

 

[Nikonic]

Thanks for all the great advice!

Here is a quick DSLR snap of the negative on a light table. A recap: exposed at ISO 200, then developed in PMK @ 75F for 12.5 minutes, which should be roughly N-2 development if the true speed of D3200 is 800-1000.

A close up on the area of the lock of hair I was taking about, which received the same amount of light as did the face, because it is on the same plane of focus. You can see clearly that no detail is present at all. Just ain't nothin there.

Although I am grateful for the compliments, recording information in the shadows is important to me, and I would at least like to see how a negative with detail there would print. Maybe I discover I don't like it.

What's interesting is that the base exposure for this negative was grade 2, so, even though it isn't extremely dense, it does have relatively high contrast already.

I think there are a few routes to pursue:

1. Keep exposure at EI 200 and develop the negative a few more minutes, with the goal of coaxing out whatever latent image may be present in the shadows, although the highlights will increase in density as well, and if memory serves me disproportionately so, so that the resulting negative will have even more contrast than this one. My concern is that the highlight density will be too much to print, and the paper will not have enough dynamic range to contain both the highlights and the shadows.

2. Keep exposure at eI 200 and develop for 12.5 minutes, then do a semi-semi-stand soup with no agitation for 5-10 minutes, which might develop the shadows more while highlight density growth slows or stops. I worry though that PMK developer oxidizes too rapidly for a 20 minute procedure like this.

3. Give the negative even MORE light at exposure, maybe EI 100 or even 50, and develop as I already have, or contracted N-3 or something. Shooting D3200 @ an EI of 50 sounds ludicrous though, as part of why I'm using D3200 is so that I can shoot available light.

4. Use a 400 speed film at 200 or 100 (someone suggested delta 400) and develop normally or N-1 or -2—though I think I would lose the grain structure of 3200 which would be a shame. In 120 it is just noticeable upon inspection, which I find very pleasing.

5. Shoot D3200 at 1600 or 3200 and develop normally. This one seems the most dubious because as stated 3200 is not D3200's native speed, rather what Ilford claims it can be pushed to for "acceptable results." And my definition of "acceptable" often differs from others. I can't see how pushing to 1600 or 3200 would increase shadow detail.

Best,

-S

 

[Michael W]

If you want detail in dark subjects (black hair, fabric etc) sometimes you can only achieve this with extra light on those areas, not extra exposure. My suggestion would be to expose and dev as you have been, as the highlights are OK, but try something like a reflector for the hair. That might save you a lot of complex processing. Alternatively, try a different film e.g. HP5 with the current exposure & dev approach and see if that gets you more shadow detail.