Help with Ilford Delta 3200

[Neal]

Dear Kugerfang,

I find I get very smooth results at EI3200 using Xtol stock. This is not to say you can't see the grain, just that it hardly intrudes. A bigger issue is metering the situation. Dim events are often difficult because of the difference between highlights and shadows. Without some trials, I can only wish you good fortune.

Neal Wydra

 

[Kugerfang]

Just to summarize all the info so far:

1. Shoot at EI 3200, develop for EI 6400.
2. Xtol is recommended for less visible grain.
3. Watch the camera's meter when there's backlighting; switch to spot metering if necessary.
4. Under/overexposure is the enemy.

The event's on Friday night but I like to prepared so I'm arming myself with all the info I need. Thanks for all your help!

 

[ColdEye]

I will just switch to spot metering if I were you. And maybe you can go the route of EI 1600 developed at times for 3200, unless the extra stop is really necessary. You have a fast lens after all. Good luck in your event!

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for that VaryaV. In your film noir scenario I can see why the combo you've used would work well

pentaxuser

 

[hpulley]

Not having your own developing equipment: Do you plan on developing it yourself or using a lab?

 

[Kugerfang]

I'm planning on doing it myself. There's only one lab (as far as I know) that still does BW dev and printing in this part of the world and I can't afford it.

 

[hpulley]

I'm planning on doing it myself. There's only one lab (as far as I know) that still does BW dev and printing in this part of the world and I can't afford it.

That's good. Always best to do it yourself IMO.

 

[Roger Cole]

I know you already have the Delta 3200 now, but for times when EI 1250-1600 is fast enough, try Tri-X in Diafine. I know there are some recommendations above for Delta 3200 at 1600, but I never go to TMZ or Delta 3200 if 1600 is fast enough - I've yet to find anything I like as much as Tri-X in Diafine in that speed range. I shoot it at 1250 but that 1/3 stop is a quibble for black and white and 1600 is quite workable.

For 3200 I go to TMZ in 35mm or Delta 3200 in 120. I've got decent results from TMZ at 6400 too (developed per recommendations for 12,500) but have yet to try Delta 3200 above 3200.

 

[Kugerfang]

Pardon my language, but FUUUUUCCCCKKKKK. When I said at the start of the thread that I "ordered" some Delta 3200, I actually meant "I asked my dad to swing by the store and buy 4 rolls." Online ordering isn't popular here. Since my dad isn't in to photography, he had me write down what he was supposed to buy. So I wrote on a piece of letter sized paper in huge letters ILFORD DELTA 3200 35MM. He went to the store and handed the paper to the cashier. Guess what my dad came back with: 2 rolls of ILFORD DELTA 3200 in 120 size! My dad can't tell 120 from 35mm so it's definitely not his fault. I just don't understand how someone can make such an error when the words ILFORD DELTA 3200 35MM are plainly readable! What the hell! I guess this leaves two possibilities:

1. The cashier is just an idiot.
2. They don't sell any Ilford Delta in 35mm and assumed that 120 would do. This is weird since their site shows 35mm rolls, not 120.

I'm seriously hoping that the cashier is just an idiot. At least I can consider those rolls of 120 as a sign that I'll be a future medium format camera owner. Damn it. My dad's going back tomorrow to get the film exchanged for 35mm. If they don't have 35mm I'm going to cry. Seriously. The next place that sells B&W film (as far as I know) is much farther away so it's out of the question.

That's it. I'm moving to a place near the B&H Superstore when I grow up.

I'm already crying a bit.

 

[markbarendt]

Don't despair, just get a camera to fit the film.

 

[Kugerfang]

Heh, my mom is already pretty ticked off at me for still using 35mm film. She says its inferior in quality and expensive. Pssshh. I can only imagine how angry she'd be if I come home with a medium format camera.

 

[JohnArs]

I prefer it at ISO 1600 developed in XTOL full strengs 7 Minute at 24° Celcius works very nice!

Cheers Armin

 

[Kugerfang]

My dad came back from the photo store with 2 rolls of XP2 Super 400. Apparently, they don't sell Delta 3200 in 35mm, only 120. Which is weird since I called them up and they said that they did. Goddamnit.

:'(

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Don't be so disappointed. XP2 Super can easily be shot at EI 1,000 without much quality loss. With a fast lens you shouldn't have problems. It's great film, but has to be developed in C41 chemistry.
And, it will be a lot less grainy. I used this film a fair bit years ago, and could easily make 9x12" prints that didn't show much grain at all, comparable to normal ISO 100 films, actually.

 

[Kugerfang]

Yeah, I stopped worrying and just accepted the fact that I need to work with what I have. The whole C-41 thing is actually an advantage for me since I can just ask my favorite lab to dev and scan it.

Thanks for all the wonderful advice. I'll be bookmarking this thread for future reference.

On a side note, Ilford's film containers are much better than Kodak's or Fuji's.

 

[pbromaghin]

Heh, my mom is already pretty ticked off at me for still using 35mm film. She says its inferior in quality and expensive. Pssshh. I can only imagine how angry she'd be if I come home with a medium format camera.

I will refrain from taking the bait.

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGHHHHHHGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHG!!!

 

[Roger Cole]

I love XP2. But while Thomas is right that it will be fine at 1000, it will be superb at 200.

See if they have TMZ. It's slightly less grainy and capable of probably higher effective speeds. I use it in 35mm and Delta 3200 in 120.

I don't understand the resistance to ordering. Well, actually, I do - as a teen my father was similar, but tolerated my doing it with my money, which was fortunate as I lived in such a small town even slide film was hard to find, this in the late 70s and early 80s when it was the preferred color film of pros. I ordered everything then. Now I live in a major metro area and still order everything, because film and darkroom stuff is so rare locally. Maybe you could whittle away at this resistance.

 

[Roger Cole]

I will refrain from taking the bait.

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGHHHHHHGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHG!!!

Well for very low light, mom is actually right. Digital IS superior in very dim conditions, more sensitive and less noise (which presents as grain with film.) But there is a look with film that's hard or impossible to duplicate. For brighter situations I'd join in the scream.

 

[2F/2F]

Digital is expensive too. And for the snapshots that most people shoot, i.e. in good light, digital is no "better" than film most of the time. Where digital excels is in poor light and in a fast-paced commercial environment.

 

[Roger Cole]

Yep. Totally agree!

 

[Kugerfang]

Digital is expensive too. And for the snapshots that most people shoot, i.e. in good light, digital is no "better" than film most of the time. Where digital excels is in poor light and in a fast-paced commercial environment.

In my opinion, digital is like film... except you paid for the cost of development and processing when you bought the camera. (with film equipment being dirt cheap and all)

Will XP2 still look fine when shot at 1600?

 

[Roger Cole]

Pretty marginal at 1600 in my experience. You might find a lab that pushes C41 but that probably means sending it out.

 

[Kugerfang]

My favorite lab can push the film. Also, what do you mean by "marginal"?

 

[Roger Cole]

My favorite lab can push the film. Also, what do you mean by "marginal"?

Low contrast, poor shadow detail and grainy. Unlike black and white, C41 gets less grainy with more exposure as the dye clouds overlap. It will appear apparently more grainy with less exposure - fewer dye clouds = more space between each one = apparently grainier.

 

[Kugerfang]

I'll stick with holding my breath at ISO 800 and normal C-41 developing then.