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

[Moose22]

So, I've got a couple of rolls of p3200 here in 135, and some 120 delta3200 and I think 2 rolls of Delta in 135.

I read in the past that Delta 3200 is really like an 800-1000 native speed. As though 3200 is 1 2/3 or 2 stops push to its "true" speed. Not sure I totally grok that, but I think it just means it's 1000 speed film with a few stops of latitude. Is the same true of P3200?

Likewise, I've read of people pushing HP5 to 1600 rather than "pulling" the Delta3200 to 1600. So I intend to experiment at ISO1600. Is this reasonable? Especially for the HP5? And will 1600 be enough reduction in grain over 3200 to be worth the stop, as I'll be including people and want enough detail to recognize them?

I'm using xtol. Will I get better grain with any other developers?

For this weekend, I loaded p3200. My goal is to take some photos of musicians where the light is kinda crap and I don't want to fire a flash. I do this with digital, but I can float the ISO there and run it up to 6000 sometimes, which is kind of cheating. But for film the ISO I start with I'll use all weekend so my experiments match. Even at 1600 I'll have to be be shooting almost wide open at 1.4 to 2.0 and who cares about the background. I can try other scenarios and other speeds in the future.

In the meantime I thought I'd ask for people's experiences, especially with the Kodak, and any advice on the high speed stuff.

 

[markjwyatt]

Here is my experince with Kodak P3200:

https://emulsive.org/articles/5-fra...-carl-zeiss-50mm-f-1-8-ultron-by-mark-j-wyatt

 

[MattKing]

Quoting a post of mine from September 21st in this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/delta-3200-at-ei3200-in-d-76-or-xtol.186709/#post-2464825

"1) if you expose any ISO 1000 film at 3200, the shadows will lack detail;
2) such an under-exposed film will often give results that appear better in the midtones - where most of the really important stuff is - if you increase the contrast by increasing the development;
3) for "normal" films like Ilford Delta 400 (as an example) that increase in development involves an important compromise: while the mid-tones look better on your under-exposed film, the highlights go too dense on the negative, and you lose a lot of quality in the highlights (the second most important part of the scene);
3) for special purpose films like Delta 3200, if you meter and develop them at their ISO speed of 1000, the shadow detail is great, but the mid-tones and highlights tend to be really flat, because they are very low in contrast. However, if you under-expose them at 1600 or 3200, and use the increased development, while the shadow detail will be missing , the contrast and detail in the mid-tones will be good, and the highlights will be much better than a "normal" film with the same amount of increased development.
I prefer to think of the increased development times for Delta 3200 (and T-Max 3200) to not be "push" developments but rather expansion developments, prescribed by the manufacturer for the purpose of dealing with those films' inherently low contrast.
Those two films are a really good choice at their native ISO's (~1000) for dealing with extra contrasty subjects. No extended development in that case. But their design is optimized for circumstances where under-exposure is mandated by the conditions."

 

[ic-racer]

Relating any control that indicates "ISO" on a digital camera to film speed is like trying to relate the "FUEL" in your electric car to gasoline.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Quoting a post of mine from September 21st in this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/delta-3200-at-ei3200-in-d-76-or-xtol.186709/#post-2464825

"1) if you expose any ISO 1000 film at 3200, the shadows will lack detail;
2) such an under-exposed film will often give results that appear better in the midtones - where most of the really important stuff is - if you increase the contrast by increasing the development;
3) for "normal" films like Ilford Delta 400 (as an example) that increase in development involves an important compromise: while the mid-tones look better on your under-exposed film, the highlights go too dense on the negative, and you lose a lot of quality in the highlights (the second most important part of the scene);
3) for special purpose films like Delta 3200, if you meter and develop them at their ISO speed of 1000, the shadow detail is great, but the mid-tones and highlights tend to be really flat, because they are very low in contrast. However, if you under-expose them at 1600 or 3200, and use the increased development, while the shadow detail will be missing , the contrast and detail in the mid-tones will be good, and the highlights will be much better than a "normal" film with the same amount of increased development.
I prefer to think of the increased development times for Delta 3200 (and T-Max 3200) to not be "push" developments but rather expansion developments, prescribed by the manufacturer for the purpose of dealing with those films' inherently low contrast.
Those two films are a really good choice at their native ISO's (~1000) for dealing with extra contrasty subjects. No extended development in that case. But their design is optimized for circumstances where under-exposure is mandated by the conditions."

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

Relating any control that indicates "ISO" on a digital camera to film speed is like trying to relate the "FUEL" in your electric car to gasoline.

ISO is a film rating, not a digital rating. Merely an approximation since the standard is based entirely on film.

 

[MattKing]

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

Depends on what you mean by a "3200 film".
The ISO standard involves different standards than Zone system approaches to speed.
ISO speeds tend to result in better looking un-manipulated machine prints than film rated, exposed and developed using Zone System methods.
Film rated, exposed and developed using Zone System methods tends to result in better looking prints when one also has darkroom manipulations available to them - particularly contrast refinement.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Depends on what you mean by a "3200 film".
The ISO standard involves different standards than Zone system approaches to speed.
ISO speeds tend to result in better looking un-manipulated machine prints than film rated, exposed and developed using Zone System methods.
Film rated, exposed and developed using Zone System methods tends to result in better looking prints when one also has darkroom manipulations available to them - particularly contrast refinement.

Shooting Kodak P3200 and Delta 3200 at 3200 with occasional use of the Zone System and developing normally say in XTOL or replenished XTOL would produce better looking prints with some having enhanced shadow detail? Is that correct?

 

[pentaxuser]

For a new user of fast films such as P3200 and D3200, Matt's #3 sums it up very succinctly in my opinion
OP, in the circumstances in which you will be shooting I don't think you need to worry too much about the grain. It will not be of major importance in these low level light circumstances. If you can manage to shoot with an MF camera for your D3200 120 then grain is even less of a problem

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Sometimes you are dealing with subjects where losing shadow detail as a result of under-exposing it means unacceptable results.
If your subject can handle some loss of shadow detail, the 3200 films do a good job at making the mid-tones and highlights look good when you use them at an EI of 3200, and develop them accordingly.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sometimes you are dealing with subjects where losing shadow detail as a result of under-exposing it means unacceptable results.
If your subject can handle some loss of shadow detail, the 3200 films do a good job at making the mid-tones and highlights look good when you use them at an EI of 3200, and develop them accordingly.

The second paragraph is my plan. Thank you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I call it using the box speed and enhancing the shadow details to the level desired when deemed necessary or prudent.

"Dear Prudent" was a Beatle song, right?

 

[abruzzi]

I've never shot TMAX 3200, and I've only shot Delta 3200 in 120, never 135, but....I've exposed it at 3200 and 6400, and developed in Xtol 1:2 at 75F for 20 minutes acording to John Hicks notes here:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/D3200/d3200.html

and the outcome was beautiful. the less exposed negatives were thin, but that reflects what I was shooting. I've scanned and wet printed those shots very successfully, and grain was very well controlled (6x7 shots.)

I'll stay out of the ISO discussion.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've never shot TMAX 3200, and I've only shot Delta 3200 in 120, never 135, but....I've exposed it at 3200 and 6400, and developed in Xtol 1:2 at 75F for 20 minutes acording to John Hicks notes here:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/D3200/d3200.html

and the outcome was beautiful. the less exposed negatives were thin, but that reflects what I was shooting. I've scanned and wet printed those shots very successfully, and grain was very well controlled (6x7 shots.)

I'll stay out of the ISO discussion.

Thank you that is what I figured. The few times I shot Delta 3200 at 3200 my replenished development times were too short and I could not draw any useful conclusions. And then I did not need the use of a 3200 film for a long time. Time to get to work with both Delta 3200 and P3200.

 

[faberryman]

If you read the technical data sheets, Ilford Delta 3200 has an ISO of 1000. Kodak P3200 does not have an official ISO, but Kodak says it has a nominal exposure index (EI) of 1000 as determined in a manner consistent with ISO standards. Kodak rounds 1000 down to 800. Both films can be be exposed at higher and lower exposure indices, and Kodak and Ilford provide suggested developers and developing times when you do so.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you read the technical data sheets, Ilford Delta 3200 has an ISO of 1000. Kodak P3200 does not have an official ISO, but Kodak says it has an exposure index (EI) of 1000 as determined in a manner consistent with ISO standards. Kodak rounds 1000 down to 800. Both films can be be exposed at higher and lower exposure indices, and Kodak and Ilford provide suggested developers and developing times when you do so.

I understand, what I want to know is how good do those films perform at 3200 when developed as proscribed.

 

[faberryman]

I understand, what I want to know is how good do those films perform at 3200 when developed as proscribed.

Individuals' judgments as to what looks good differ. This is where buying a couple of rolls of each film and a couple of different developers and running some tests comes in handy.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

I've exposed several Delta 3200 and TMZ in 135 at wedding and ceremony events/parties...
They gave great and easy to print results at EI 1600 with two bath developers, Emofin and Moersch MZB.
So highlights didn't build up too much density.
They were not specially exposed for shadow details, I simply used the average metering of my SLR's.
As expected EI 1600 is fine for sharp photo's with a 1.4/85mm at f/2 this way.

Jens

 

[Moose22]

Relating any control that indicates "ISO" on a digital camera to film speed is like trying to relate the "FUEL" in your electric car to gasoline.

If you want to help, help. Otherwise, just ignore the thread.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Don't be that guy.

 

[Moose22]

Kodak rounds 1000 down to 800.

OK -- THAT is where I was getting confused there. Thanks for this.

Quoting a post of mine from September 21st in this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/delta-3200-at-ei3200-in-d-76-or-xtol.186709/#post-2464825

"1) if you expose any ISO 1000 film at 3200, the shadows will lack detail;
..."

There's a lot to ponder in this, exactly the sorts of things I'm thinking about.

For everyone else, thanks for the links. @markjwyatt Going to read that emulsive article and @abruzzi keep the link to those development times handy -- might be fun to one-shot xtol here.

And, to be perfectly clear, I don't care about digital. There's an "iso" setting and "auto ISO" trick on my camera that I use oftrn-- I don't care. My whole point was that I just let the camera take care of that but now I want to shoot FILM. This is the Analog section. With digital it is "been there, done that" for me, and I'm actually pretty good at this sort of thing, specifically musicians in crappy light. But, in my best Arlo Guthrie voice "I'm not here to talk about that."

My goal is to shoot high speed film I have on hand, and to understand high speed films better.

All I really care about for this evening's test is what I'm going to use on my light meter, and I think tonight's plan is to shoot at 3200. I'll try a roll of Delta at 3200 in the same camera after I've killed this roll of P3200. My next go around I might try a lower speed.

One I'm comfortable with the process and get a look at the 35mm stuff I'll see about shooting that Delta I have in 120. Have to think about that more, I don't have fast lenses so I have to consider what sort of scene might be appropriate, but I think with the C330 it will be interesting.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Moose, I've used both for long. Both formats and several developers.
Tmax3200 is what I prefer for 35mm, and TMax developer is heaven for it at 1600 and 3200.
Delta3200 is made IMO for medium format, and it excels at 1600 and 3200 in DD-X.
But for very high contrast scenes like stage lighting, Delta3200 is the best option.
For common low light, TMax3200 is a dream.

 

[markjwyatt]

Has anyone tried Kodak P3200 in ADOX FX-39 II or FX-39 in general?

 

[Moose22]

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.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Has anyone tried Kodak P3200 in ADOX FX-39 II or FX-39 in general?

One of the best developers for TMX and TMY. The best one I know for both in 35mm. Tone, acutance and speed are superb.
Not recommended for traditional ISO400 grain or for fast films, being sharp grain the only reason. Indeed, in the beginning a stronger 1+5 dilution was recommended for cubic ISO400.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

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.

Don't worry, moose, both paper thin people and paper thin depth of field make us better.
That type of scenes, believe me, require AF and a fast lens. At f/1.4 or f/1.8, with a film SLR you see if focus is perfect, and you spend less than a second. 1/60th at f/2 is a dim church !
Of course it's very hard to nail focus, exposure, gestuality and composition in nearly darkness in less than a second.
Thanks for sharing what you feel, that's great!