Help me understand high speed films -- p3200, delta 3200

Sirius Glass said:

So if I shoot Delta 3200 at 3200, but use the Zone System for better shadow detail would then yield a 3200 film?

Click to expand...

Zone System film tests would probably arrive at EI 500.
But sure, you will get better shadows if you used Zone System.

Moose22 said:

Just got back. Only killed half a roll. The singer was... well, I won't describe her. Suffice to say she didn't like me. It happens. 95% of people treat me like I'm invisible, 4% think I'm awesome, 1% hate me the moment they see me. She was a 1%er so... screw her. She doesn't get nice pics. I left during the third song, figure the PA out on your own for the second set. Probably shouldn't have bothered to help with the mix from the start. Good front of house should be reserved for people with social skills, but I must be mellowing in my old age. 15 years ago I'd have guaranteed you couldn't hear yourself if you treated me like that.

But I'm not here to talk about that.

I took 15 or 20 shots anyway, just because I was there, to get an idea of the exposure. Most of the light comes from one bright porch light style bulb and a streetlight, so really hard for a neophyte like me to guess until I actually metered it.

At 3200 I was able to use 1/40-1/60th shutter speeds at f/2 or wide open. This was deep into blue hour, essentially no ambient light. Enough for hand-held, though a paper thin DoF. I'd get touch of motion blur for a more animated singer, but I like that sometimes. Stop it down at all or shoot at 1600 and shake plus motion blur would ruin the shots. Shooting at 50mm instead of 80mm might be a better option, actually.

I'll finish the roll tomorrow on a different subject.

Click to expand...

There's a camera lots of pros used as their F4 and F5 backup some years ago, and the one they used for travelling. The N90s. Mine works 100% today. They are dirt cheap now: check KEH, and get a 50 1.4 AF or the great 85 1.8 AF which has outstanding bokeh wide open; and it's not expensive, and it's surprisingly small.
Good luck!

Moose22 said:

Just got back. Only killed half a roll. The singer was... well, I won't describe her. Suffice to say she didn't like me. It happens. 95% of people treat me like I'm invisible, 4% think I'm awesome, 1% hate me the moment they see me. She was a 1%er so... screw her. She doesn't get nice pics. I left during the third song, figure the PA out on your own for the second set. Probably shouldn't have bothered to help with the mix from the start. Good front of house should be reserved for people with social skills, but I must be mellowing in my old age. 15 years ago I'd have guaranteed you couldn't hear yourself if you treated me like that.

But I'm not here to talk about that.

Click to expand...

Was it Maria Muldaur?

First test is scanned. All done in xtol 1:1 at 18.5 and 20C

P3200. I even OVERexposed some the first night. I tried to meter the light to put faces at middle grey to get an approximation, I guess f/2 1/50, but really got great shots at 80-100 from f/2.2 to 1.8.

f2.2 1/60

f/2.2 1/160 (this was from the side that's actually better lit)


f/2 1/80

1/40 at 1.8 -- this was a touch overexposed, but negative lab pro still gets the details and pulls it back just fine



I shot a roll and a half last night on a different musician (who was a cool guy and who had lots of family and friends around who were fun people) but it's really sunny and beautiful out so I'm going outside. Excited to see them in the photoshops tonight.

Short conclusions:
1. P3200 is cool -- likely to use it again
2. 3200 is absolutely usable for awkward and difficult light
3. I could use my Mamiya wide open in this location -- I have an 80 2.8, so if I can get shots at 1/80 and 1/100 at f/2.2 the mamiya is usable.
4. Might even try the tmax developer on 3200 in the future, just to see the differences.

Excited to do more. Might be bold and try the c330 with that delta I have in 120 next.

That was very well done!

Juan Valdenebro said:

That was very well done!

Click to expand...

Thanks Juan.

I ordered more p3200. I'm going to experiment more, maybe try that tmax developer, and I'm sure I'll use it more regardless of what I think if Delta3200.

Just to round it out, the second roll I took a day later at the same place. It's a coffee shop owned by friends and they've had musicians on that patio. We've been very lucky with the weather (They planned to start hosting music next year, but figured what the heck, start at Thanksgiving and do it on nights that are nice) but I don't think I'll get a chance until after exmas, we have a ton of rain coming.

The second night was harder. He was wearing a baseball cap and the heater, which had a bright flame in the middle, was not lit so there was no fill light from the street side. He's just lit by the shop sign and that flood light behind him. Also, he was really cool and drew well, so the place was really crowded and it was hard to get good angles. Excellent challenge to have:







Good possibilities here. Excited to see what I can get out of the Delta, but I think I'll be using the Kodak a good bit in the future.


Also one more thing, I need to sing the praises of the F6. I shot almost entirely in Manual, and I very often hand focus anyway, so any body I have would work. But I was able to set the F6 to write exposure data between frames, so it'll read something like 2.2 1/60 before the meter and frame number info. That means I don't have to bother importing exif data like I do when I send the film out to be developed, I just scan the negative wide and can see right there what I shot at. Holy crap that's helpful for this exercise.

Those look great! I have only shot a few rolls of P3200 and had them commercially developed. The results looked awful to me, so I don't intend to use that film again unless I can develop it myself.

@Moose22 Good photos. As for me, I've never had any luck with TMZ. I've shot it EI1600 and EI3200, developed in XTOL 1:1 for the recommended times/temp for each, and the results were horrible. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but this is a film I'm not at all comfortable with.

Duceman said:

@Moose22 Good photos. As for me, I've never had any luck with TMZ. I've shot it EI1600 and EI3200, developed in XTOL 1:1 for the recommended times/temp for each, and the results were horrible. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but this is a film I'm not at all comfortable with.

Click to expand...

That's odd, but maybe it's the scan. I'm doing the Z7 with a tokina lens, and the resolution is so large I shoot wide enough to see the sprocket holes then crop. Then I use Negative Lab pro, and I just pick and choose the profile (Linear Gamma or Cinematic Rich tend to win) though I don't work too hard there beyond that. I'll maybe mess with the contrast slider and do straightening it when I crop. I get bored using Lightroom pretty quickly.

The 18.5 min time I chose for both rolls was straight off the Kodak datasheet. I chose 1:1 because that site linked upthread that showed a couple of people's preferred Delta3200 times they were both using 1:1 and not full strength Xtol.

I do remember my first (and only) Delta 3200 developed commercially was grainy, but I assumed I'd mis-metered and underexposed. They use Clayton D76 chemistry, which looks lovely for Delta 100 in daylight. That was a year ago with a new camera -- before I knew how to use that camera or how to meter well at night, so who knows.

I'll find an excuse to try that Delta soon. Bring the TLR and go full on medium format hipster.

Moose22 said:

...but I assumed I'd mis-metered and underexposed.

Click to expand...

This was probably my problem as well. In each instance, I was using the camera's internal meter (one a Canon A-1 and the other a Canon EOS 3 (which is usually spot on)). Maybe neither camera meters well at the high ISO's. If I were to try this again (and I should have an extra roll sitting around here somewheres), I'm going to hand-meter every shot and see if that makes any difference.

I don't often work in the type of conditions that musicians often find themselves in, but when I did I got the best results either using an incident meter and measuring the actual light illuminating the subject (rarely possible, but ideal) or taking spot meter readings off of an item in the scene that approximated a mid-tone. The latter approach was with something like the in camera spot metering in an OM-2s.

When Kodak brought back Tmax 3200 I shot a ring around, open shade, my wife, black sweater with texture, a swath of white cloth with texture, gray scale gray card, clear glass vase. Using D76 stock, with Minolta 9, matrix metering, followed by Gossen incident meter, 1600 seemed to the sweet spot, 3200 appeared to be doable with some loss of shadow detail, 6400, black shadows. Then I got around to looking at the Kodak Data Sheet, Tmax RS and HC 110 B, would be a better choice, did not get around for a second test as I do not use Tmax or HC 110. I tired a roll of Delta a couple of months ago, did not like it, still very usable.

MattKing said:

I don't often work in the type of conditions that musicians often find themselves in, but when I did I got the best results either using an incident meter and measuring the actual light illuminating the subject (rarely possible, but ideal) or taking spot meter readings off of an item in the scene that approximated a mid-tone. The latter approach was with something like the in camera spot metering in an OM-2s.

Click to expand...

GOOD stage lights are a joy to work with. Most stage lights are not good. Especially now in the LED era. An old fashioned high CRI stage light with a gel would be easier to meter, though you will get fooled a bit since stages tend to mix and match colors rather than just using white.

But with LEDs, the cheap ones have very spotty wavelenghts. So the red will be JUST red, dead in the middle of red, and green, and blue... and the "white" will have those hard peaks right at R G and B, but almost none of the wavelenghts in between. It plays havoc on meters. Even the good modern lights, when turned to blue or red, will fool your in camera meter something fierce, especially older meters, though even rally good modern color matrix metering will sometimes give you totally blown out skin tones.

One really bad trick is the spotlights are a combination of all the other colors, so they'll be one or two stops brighter than the blue and red lights washing the stage and your matrix will NEVER get it right. If the venue lets me, what I do is meter the spotlight. But if it's not that kind of place I jut can't seem to trust my matrix in camera.

Good example. Show over the summer I went to. So, accept the meter straight up:



This was digital, and the matrix sees that blue wash as almost black and blows it out. I realized with some chimping. I shot the monitors and music stands (which are black) and the guitarist's faces with the spot meter -- I figured the matrix setting was 2 stops over. Went manual and left it there but then it went wonky when they took the blue lights that they used to wash the audience out:



And when they'd turn those blue lights back on the skintones would be overxposed again if I were to adjust:



It's all a balance. These are just snapshots because, frankly, the band kinda sucked and I was bored enough to take pictures. I only took a dozen pictures while the band was playing but they illustrate the point. It showed me that even with world-class state of the art lighting (this is a brand new venue) it's kind of a PITA. But once you get the exposure right you can ignore everything but composition and get cool, colorful shots with lots of interesting rays (if they turn the smoke on - this band did not) and plenty of fun backgrounds to choose from that will never intrude on the subject.

If I'm working for a specific musician, I normally bracket everything -1 1/3, -2/3, 0 when doing shots in changing light. Or if I can know the spotlight value, which never changes, I just use that. Digital I can usually dig out good results from a stop or two under.

This may seem a little off topic, but I'm ruminating. Some time next year I'll find an excuse to shoot a concert for someone and I'll do film. At least for some of it.

If you can get to the sound-board operator, sometimes they can give you a heads up on when the light levels will be highest.
My favourite gigs were when they allowed me (and my press pass) into the pit before the stage - sometimes permitting an incident reading, but always allowing a close-up reading.
All mine were film, but I'm (relatively) old!

I've got a roll of Delta 3200 exposed @3200 on my desk ready for dev. All I have in the barn is D-76, HC-110, and Rodinal.

I'm gonna go D-76 1:1 with massive Dev chart times. Any objections? Am I destroying the roll?

Looking at the Kodak Data Sheet, I would think about HC 110 B, D76 looks to compress the midtones, here is the link to the data sheet.

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/F4001.pdf

And here is the data sheet from Ilford, times for HC 110-b, but no curves for either Iifordtec HC or Kodak HC 110, I would guess that the curves for Tmax and Delta will be in the same ballpark.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1913/product/682/

I went with the D-76 because I had it on hand. Negative look a bit thin, but I'll reserve judgment for the scan.

Coming to this a little late, but I often use both Delta 3200 and HP5+ at my local jazz and blues club. I tend to use D3200 in medium format and HP5+ in 35mm but that's not always the case.

Basically....what MattKing said. The P3200 and Delta 3200 are, in technical terms, ISO 1000 or thereabouts. But are designed with contrast characteristics to be exposed at 3200 and "pushed". I've actually shot Delta 3200 at 12,800 20 years ago when a night club owner wanted shots of revelry without flash. Grainy as hell but it worked in a time when there was no other option.

I'll share some of my favourite shots from recent years....which I have probably shared here before but here goes. the square 6x6 shots are from a 1937 Ziess-Ikon folder so not even a modern lens.

Really appreciate that you posted your results Moose. I only use DF96 Monobath (convenience, space etc) and it only works well with the 3200 films if shot at 800-1000. When I tried pushing w DF96 (following the instructions!), it became super grainy. I may try it one more time pushing, using my F6 so I can be more precise with my metering.

Depends on the specific developer, but I like what PMK delivers, and find that an EI of 800 works best for me with both these films. That way I get distinct full range gradation with most subjects. Yes, the native curve of these films has been tweaked to give you something salvageable at higher speeds, but not ideal performance that way. But if I have to contend with a high contrast scene, TMY @ 400 is a better choice because I'll get significantly better shadow gradation combined with far finer grain, plus availability is all film format sizes up to 8X10. But for rainy day snapshooting combined with my 6X9 rangefinder, D3200 can deliver some wonderful results.

Agulliver said:

I'll share some of my favourite shots from recent years....which I have probably shared here before but here goes. the square 6x6 shots are from a 1937 Ziess-Ikon folder so not even a modern lens.

Click to expand...

Share all you want, I sure appreciate seeing them and haven't before.

A couple of these qualify as inspiration, like the shots I would want to take. The singing rockabilly bassist is right up my alley, actually.

Also, I have a crap-ton of HP5 here. Definitely need to try it at 800 and 1600 just to see what I get. Supposed to run sound for a show after Christmas, was hoping to try the Delta3200 out, but it's outdoors and might be too wet. I'll have to find something else to shoot.

Maybe I'll do blue hour shots of the Griswald's holiday lights one night -- I don't know their real names, but neighbors who seem to collect christmas ornaments and lights like crazy hoarder ladies collect cats. Their yard is particularly ridiculous this year.

Moose22 said:

Share all you want, I sure appreciate seeing them and haven't before.

A couple of these qualify as inspiration, like the shots I would want to take. The singing rockabilly bassist is right up my alley, actually.

Also, I have a crap-ton of HP5 here. Definitely need to try it at 800 and 1600 just to see what I get. Supposed to run sound for a show after Christmas, was hoping to try the Delta3200 out, but it's outdoors and might be too wet. I'll have to find something else to shoot.

Click to expand...

For comparison here are some I shot on HP5+ at around 2000ISO, developed in ID-11 stock. Higher contrast, different look but still pleasing. These are 35mm, all shot in a 60s Yashica rangefinder.

I've become well known at the club and have befriended a lot of the musicians there, who notice I am shooting on film and are interested in the results. Several have gone on to use my photos in their promotional material and one threw me a few hundred quid to use one as an album cover. But I do this purely for fun, with permission of the club owner who is a photographer himself.

Nikonos V, 35mm, Kodak TMY 3200 @ 1600, Cinestill DF96.

This is where DF96 is not good. Becomes super grainy and blocks up the shadows. With a helping of too much contrast.
Works great at ISO 800. Or pushing regular films like Arista 100/200 one stop. But not Kodak or Ilford Delta 3200.

Here are some TMAX 3200 shot at box speed in cloudy daylight. I wanted to have high shutter speeds for the horse action and I think it worked well. The still shot of Herstmonceux castle looks good too. Praktica BX20S, Tamron 28-200 lens, TMZ at box speed in Microphen stock. late August 2021.