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

[Moose22]

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.

I'm the same. Most of this is for fun, I'll only "work" for someone I know who wants to try something out, and who I know is happy to experiment with me some. Actually, music, portraits, anything.

I went mirrorless the December before the pandemic specifically to get back into shooting musicians. Used to go to an open mic at a brewery with a great stage, and I got to know the owners as well. I always gave them some copies of anything good with their logo in it, but that lasted 3 months before the state shut everything down. Now that I'm doing film photography again, I'll do more on film.

Funny how film has some cachet though. I was taking pics of a third band at that coffee shop (nothing good, those guys drew a crowd and I couldn't get any good angles on any of them) and during the break I had my FA in hand, the bassist walks up and says "Hey, where's the F?" Long time photographer in his younger days, has an MFA and studied photography as an undergrad. He had spotted the prism on my F2.

I got a handful of business cards and had my ear talked off. All because of the film camera. Nobody gives a crap when I have the Z7 out, even if I make some amazeballs shots.

This is him. Angles were horrible so I was just trying to see if I could get some shadow detail inside and not blow out the background (40 minutes before sunset, they're on the shaded side of the building) and I had FP4 in the F2. I told him so and we had a nice chat about such difficulties before he had to get back to playing.

 

[Moose22]

. I wanted to have high shutter speeds for the horse action and I think it worked well.

The horse shot is great -- couldn't have gotten that at lower shutter speed. Sharp ride but blurred hooves and a great moment.

I also like the two ladies at the table and guitarist in the previous batch. There's a story in pics like that.

@Huss I have a bag of the monobath here, but I appreciate this if just to let me know not to try it at the high speed stuff. Your others from the Monobath thread, even less expensive stuff like the Arista, look great. But the compromises of the monobath are still there I guess. That's OK, DF96 as a sort of general purpose developer is still tantalizing for normal speed stuff -- only 20 minutes of effort until the negatives are hanging to dry really is cool even if it isn't everything for all situations.

Great rule of thirds composition, though.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

The contrast works well even with flat light.

 

[Huss]

Nikonos V, Nikon 35 2.5, Kodak TMY 3200 @ 1600, Cinestill DF96.

 

[Agulliver]

Funny how film has some cachet though. I was taking pics of a third band at that coffee shop (nothing good, those guys drew a crowd and I couldn't get any good angles on any of them) and during the break I had my FA in hand, the bassist walks up and says "Hey, where's the F?" Long time photographer in his younger days, has an MFA and studied photography as an undergrad. He had spotted the prism on my F2.

I got a handful of business cards and had my ear talked off. All because of the film camera. Nobody gives a crap when I have the Z7 out, even if I make some amazeballs shots.

This is him. Angles were horrible so I was just trying to see if I could get some shadow detail inside and not blow out the background (40 minutes before sunset, they're on the shaded side of the building) and I had FP4 in the F2. I told him so and we had a nice chat about such difficulties before he had to get back to playing.

Oh yes, people have come up to me to ask if I am really shooting film, what film I'm shooting and how come I'm not using a flash. The club as a "juke joint" vibe, very dark with some moderate spotlighting. lots of people take videos and photos with phones. Sometimes the owner has his DSLR, sometimes a band brings along a photographer. There's a monthly jazz jam where one of the organisers often takes a few photos too. But who gets the attention? Me, and sometimes my musical and photographic partner who's been known to bring a film camera too. Her husband shoots on his phone but then uses an app to "cartoonise" the pictures which some musicians really dig. Because it's different. But I am the one who the musicians approach during the interval, who gets featured in tour videos, who's photos end up advertising future gigs. I am sure you'll be noticed for shooting on film too. Times have changed, a few years ago we'd have been considered oddities. Now people are genuinely curious to know what we're doing. People also ask me where I buy my film because I've inspired then to dig out an old camera or two. I know my encouragement is directly responsible for the purchase of at least 11 film cameras and two fridges full of film.

Your shot is very atmospheric, sometimes having the audience in helps to visually describe the vibe of the place.

 

[Moose22]

I tried a few Delta 3200 last night. I was using a 50 f/2.8, the fastest lens I have for the C330, and it just wasn't quite fast enough. By that I mean most of the shots where my focus was on I had motion blur issues.

Developed in xtol 1:1 18 minutes. All shots are at 1/50 or 1/25 wide open at f/2.8.

Anyway, I got ONE winner out of the 12. I really like this shot:

Shooting form the dark side about an hour after sunset. The grain character is different and a touch rougher than P3200.

I had to shoot at 1/25 and 1/50. 1/50 works, any slower and motion blur is a problem

Missed focus... but I'll share to see what I was able to get from the film stock. I need to practice with this camera, I'm still clumsy with it.

And this one was a focus test at the end of the night when the place was emptied.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I tried a few Delta 3200 last night. I was using a 50 f/2.8, the fastest lens I have for the C330, and it just wasn't quite fast enough. By that I mean most of the shots where my focus was on I had motion blur issues.

Developed in xtol 1:1 18 minutes. All shots are at 1/50 or 1/25 wide open at f/2.8.

Anyway, I got ONE winner out of the 12. I really like this shot:

Shooting form the dark side about an hour after sunset. The grain character is different and a touch rougher than P3200.

I had to shoot at 1/25 and 1/50. 1/50 works, any slower and motion blur is a problem

Missed focus... but I'll share to see what I was able to get from the film stock. I need to practice with this camera, I'm still clumsy with it.

And this one was a focus test at the end of the night when the place was emptied.

I do not see anything to complain about your Delta 3200 shot at 3200. Considering the lighting situations and what you were dealing with, the photographs came out quite well.

 

[Moose22]

I do not see anything to complain about your Delta 3200 shot at 3200. Considering the lighting situations and what you were dealing with, the photographs came out quite well.

P3200 was in 135, so this is NOT apples to apples. But Delta seems quite usable straight up. I'm guessing it'll be a touch granier than p3200 in 135, but a few rolls literally just arrived as I was typing this so I'll be able to test that soon enough. Also got more of the kodak, I'll definitely use that in the future.

My real issues were with the camera. Razor thin DoF and slower lens makes for some slightly different challenges. But as far as the film is concerned, it's usable and I'm kind of glad I didn't burn my second roll now because I want to try that at 1:2 and see what the grain differences are.

Just camerawise, I was struggling a little. Focus is tough for me with that camera, as is framing with the WLF -- I can do left right or vertical tilt, but not both! It's kind of hilarious, fix one mess the other up... I just haven't been using it for 2 months and I need practice. After the first roll I had a minor camera issue where it jammed when rolling off so I didn't get to shoot my second roll because I wanted to crack it open in the dark bag.

From a photography standpoint I'm a little disappointed I didn't get a great shot on the singer, which should have been the easy task. I'm sure I would have gotten at least one if I'd been able to shoot the second roll.

The singer is lovely. Good person and a great voice. She was expressive and photogenic, so I really wanted to try and get a good face but never did. Only got the good face on the pianist. Oh well. I'll get a good shot of her next time.

 

[Moose22]

OK, other test the night I shot the Delta 3200 I finally got scanned.

Was using a Nikon FA in manual mode with a 50mm f/1.4 and Tri-X 400. Developed normal: ei400, 7 minutes at 20c in Xtol.

My goal was to test whether the MF size advantage at 3200 outweighed the grain disadvantage on p3200. But I figured the speed advantage of my fast 35mm lenses might buy me 2 stops so I to test that I shot wide open at 1/15 or 1/30 for most of it based on my F6 results above. The meter agreed, but I did it all in M -- I just did the math to be in the same exposure range -- f/2.8 to f/1.4 is 2 stops, a stop for speed makes 1/40. Thank goodness for F6 exif data.

At 1/15 the shutter speed is too slow when the singer is animated. BUT... I finally see what's really good about Tri-X.

The best shot -- thank goodness I got at least ONE with the singer's personality -- f/1.8 at 1/15

And some others to se the grain:

I have a love hate relationship with Tri-X during the daylight, but it sure is pleasing in dark and contrasty places.

Next in 35mm I might push some to 800 and see if I can bump my speeds up to compensate for that motion blur. I have a bulk loader full of HP5 here just waiting for those kinds of experiments.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Comments on grain and contrast for Delta 3200 @ ISO 3200 and Kodak P3200 @ ISO 3200 both in 35mm, please?

 

[Agulliver]

Some nice shots there, OP.

I tend to shoot at 1/15 or 1/30 at the jazz/blues club...have shot as slow as 1/10s. Usually f2.8 or f3.5 with the zeiss-ikon folders. I have used a 50/1.4 lens with 800ISO colour film - Lomography 800 and Fuji Superia 800.

 

[Moose22]

Comments on grain and contrast for Delta 3200 @ ISO 3200 and Kodak P3200 @ ISO 3200 both in 35mm, please?

I want to know that, too. I'm getting there. I haven't shot Delta3200 in 135 yet, but I have 5 rolls here now and will use them with the same lenses to compare. I just keep posting stuff here as a running record, but this is an ongoing experiment for me.

I will say, either is useful, grainwise, from the MF experiment with the Delta 3200. When I do Delta in 35mm I'll crop some samples rather than shrink them for the web so we can see side by side. Shrinking to 800px hides a lot that is revealed in the 7000px scan.

 

[Moose22]

Some nice shots there, OP.

I tend to shoot at 1/15 or 1/30 at the jazz/blues club...have shot as slow as 1/10s. Usually f2.8 or f3.5 with the zeiss-ikon folders. I have used a 50/1.4 lens with 800ISO colour film - Lomography 800 and Fuji Superia 800.

Hmmm... I have some Cinestill 800t and some Portra800 here. I have the portra in 120 too, I think. But it might be fun to try those 800s wide open.

I started this because I'm developing B&W at home and am super curious about speed and grain right now. But color might be fun. Other than some prints I made this month I don't think I've done color since October. The lab probably misses me.

1/30 seems to be the sweet spot for me so far. I dug through pics of a different band I took during blue hour on FP4 and Tri-X and 1/30 was enough I didn't blur many of them -- even as it got dark and 400 wasn't really enough so I had to go wide open. Blurry hands strumming guitars or when a singer is turning her head quixkly, but a reasonable number of hits when I actually had the focus right.

 

[Cholentpot]

Well, I scanned mine. I'm not going to post results because the whole roll was of personal stuff. However,

This was the hardest film I've ever worked with. Granted I shot in challenging light and the film did its job. Scanning was extremely difficult, it took multiple tries and a bunch of wrangling to get the scan how I like and up to my standards. I've never fought a film stock so hard. Were the results worth it? I had better results pushing Vision3 500T a stop. Different beast however. Film did hold it's highlights and shadows so no complaints there. Grain was manageable. Scanning was where the film got me though.

 

[Duceman]

Nikonos V, Nikon 35 2.5, Kodak TMY 3200 @ 1600, Cinestill DF96.

This is quite similar to the results I got with TMZ @1600 in XTOL-R. Yes, there is a recognizable image, but WAY too much grain for me. If shooting @ 1600, it's been my experience that TMY (or even Tri-X) performs better--and cheaper--than TMZ. Or... I'm doing something terribly wrong in exposure and/or development with TMZ.

 

[Huss]

This is quite similar to the results I got with TMZ @1600 in XTOL-R. Yes, there is a recognizable image, but WAY too much grain for me. If shooting @ 1600, it's been my experience that TMY (or even Tri-X) performs better--and cheaper--than TMZ. Or... I'm doing something terribly wrong in exposure and/or development with TMZ.

I think it's just because DF96 is not a suitable developer for pushing this film.

 

[Duceman]

I think it's just because DF96 is not a suitable developer for pushing this film.

But I developed mine in XTOL with similar results.

 

[Huss]

But I developed mine in XTOL with similar results.

Is XTOL meant to be a suitable developer for pushing it? I've heard that either way pushing a film like HP5 gets much better results than these "3200" films.

 

[Moose22]

it took multiple tries and a bunch of wrangling to get the scan how I like and up to my standards. I've never fought a film stock so hard.

You need to be like me. I don't have any standards!

I find it interesting that you had difficulty there, and it was something I hadn't considered. But I can see how it would be different from stock to stock, and if that's your workflow that difference really matters.

What scanning method are you using?

Personally, I'm DSLR scanning with a Z7ii and a really good light source, but not putting too much effort into the specifics yet. I know my light source for white balance, so I just set it to f/8 or f/10 and go. I can get passable scans reasonably quickly without thinking too much. Better scans than the shite the Noritsu at the lab spews out, at least. But I really don't know what I'm doing beyond that.

 

[Moose22]

Is XTOL meant to be a suitable developer for pushing it? I've heard that either way pushing a film like HP5 gets much better results than these "3200" films.

I dunno, really.

John Hicks used xtol on the Delta 3200 according to the link above... here https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/D3200/d3200.html

but also Microphen, and the next guy's time is Xtol, others list time for other developers.

Anyway, that's what experimenting is for. I'll definitely try HP5 at 800 and possibly 1600 at some point. I'm less interested in pulling the 3200, at least until I see how the HP5 goes with a bit of push. Maybe raise the temps on your monobath and see how HP5 works for you as a comparison.

 

[Cholentpot]

You need to be like me. I don't have any standards!

I find it interesting that you had difficulty there, and it was something I hadn't considered. But I can see how it would be different from stock to stock, and if that's your workflow that difference really matters.

What scanning method are you using?

Personally, I'm DSLR scanning with a Z7ii and a really good light source, but not putting too much effort into the specifics yet. I know my light source for white balance, so I just set it to f/8 or f/10 and go. I can get passable scans reasonably quickly without thinking too much. Better scans than the shite the Noritsu at the lab spews out, at least. But I really don't know what I'm doing beyond that.

DSLR. Canon T2i with a 100 2.8, cheap lightpad, a 23c negative carrier, stitch two shots and invert with NLP. Issue is the roboinverting program would read one half of the stitch different from the other. It struggled stitching the negative so I had to invert then stitch, when that didn't work I had to just scan as a single shot which is a waste when shooting 645.

 

[Huss]

Just developed a roll of Delta 3200 120 in Cinestill DF96.
Rated the film at ISO 800 and it is essentially grain free. Pretty outstanding at that speed. But it falls apart in DF96 if pushed..

Fuji GW690III:

 

[Cholentpot]

Just developed a roll of Delta 3200 120 in Cinestill DF96.
Rated the film at ISO 800 and it is essentially grain free. Pretty outstanding at that speed. But it falls apart in DF96 if pushed..

Fuji GW690III:

-1

No reticulation.

Awesome shot.

 

[jim appleyard]

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.

Ed Buffaloe's use of staining developers in the link you provided is interesting, one I never thought of.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Although IMO opinion John Hicks, a good photographer and a great person I bet, talks about a couple of relevant, valid things in his "comments", some of his words there don't seem to reflect experience in real low light photography... I repeat: in my opinion.
Examples: medium format is never the best option for low light + moving subjects. If you do landscape of any kind and you use tripod, no problem of course, but, f/2.8 for low light? I hope he's not talking about handheld photography. When light is low, even at f/1.4 @3200, speeds are low, like 1/30th and 1/15th. In those cases f/2.8 is totally useless if we need people without blur.
35mm and any f/1.4 lens are much better tools. Plus, we get a lot less DOF, at the same f-stop, if we use medium format instead of 35mm.
And what he says about rectangles made me smile: we don't use 6x6 to crop for a rectangle, but to compose for a square. We compose for a rectangle with 35mm or with 6x9.
6x7 doesn't replace 6x6, and it doesn't replace 6x9 either.