How much overexposure (not pushing, but straight up overexposure) can Ilford Delta 3200 take?

[pentaxuser]

Moreover, Delta 3200 produces vastly different results with different developers. Xtol and ID-11 are very much a no-no for it, but Microphen and DD-X are great. I haven't tried others.

Can you say what differences you saw when you used the first 2 compared to the last 2? Can I take that all 4 were used at 3200 and in similar light conditions such that as far as is ever possible in the circumstances of exposing and processing all things apart from the developers were roughly equal?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Romanko]

Xtol and ID-11 are very much a no-no for it, but Microphen and DD-X are great.

Microphen and DD-X are recommended developers according to the data sheet. I could not find any information that the use of Xtol and ID-11 is discouraged with Delta 3200. The data sheet provides development times for Xtol, ID-11, D-76, HC-110 and other developers.

 

[pentaxuser]

Microphen and DD-X are recommended developers according to the data sheet. I could not find any information that the use of Xtol and ID-11 is discouraged with Delta 3200. The data sheet provides development times for Xtol, ID-11, D-76, HC-110 and other developers.

You are right and that's why I am interested in Steven's bad experience with ID11 and Xtol. It sounds as if those experiences were bad but maybe a "no-no" is not so bad as I have assumed. My experiences with both were OK

pentaxuser

 

[albireo]

Point of order quibble here:
"Pushing" the film is increasing the development.

Not sure I've heard 'pushing' defined like that before. I always thought the following was true

• Pushing = the combination of underexposure and overdevelopment. Useful when detail in the shadows is not that crucial, and one is fine with losing (some of) it provided a sharp picture AND highlight detail is decent. Eg. taking pictures of a trumpeter playing in a jazz club. I don't care about the shadow detail, but I'd love for the face of the player and for the trumpet to have some detail AND be sharp (no motion blur!). So I'll 'trick' the meter to think I have a faster film than I actually do (underexposure, gets me faster shutter speeds) and I'll develop for longer to increase contrast and try to get readable upper midtones and highlights
• Pulling = the combination of overexposure and underdevelopment. Useful for many things, e.g. as a creative device, or when trying to fit a high dynamic range scene into the linear range of the film curve.

That change of development is usually employed to (partially) compensate for under-exposing it.
As a result, many people casually refer to the combination of under-exposing the film and then increasing the development as "pushing", but the critical part of what makes it "pushing" is the development change, not the underexposure.

I'd argue that for many people, the critical part of what makes it 'pushing' is the underexposure, because they want to use that roll of HP5+ in poor light or at night, while still getting a sharp picture handheld. 1/125th instead of e.g. 1/15th with an 85mm prime can make or break a photo.

 

[albireo]

From a pictorial perspective, Delta 3200 was designed to be under exposed. Using it as an ISO 1000 film is an exercise of frustration: you get decent shadows and garbage mid-tones and highlights,

Ilford Delta 3200 looks absolutely gorgeous exposed e.g. at 800 and developed in Rodinal 1+25 or exposed at 1000 and developed in Xtol 1:1 IME. It looks like crap (again IME) exposed/developed at box speed.

Edit: having said that I need to add that my impressions are based on my use case of negative scanning. Perhaps it's different for people who print their Delta 3200 in the darkroom.

 

[Steven Lee]

Can you say what differences you saw when you used the first 2 compared to the last 2? Can I take that all 4 were used at 3200 and in similar light conditions such that as far as is ever possible in the circumstances of exposing and processing all things apart from the developers were roughly equal?

The biggest difference between Xtol/ID-11 and Microphen/DD-X is the density range. The latter duo produces rich negatives with wider range of light values captured and higher overall contrast. That is what you get when using datasheet times. I tried cooking Delta 3200 in Xtol longer, sometimes a lot longer, and found it to be surprisingly resilient at building density.

Ilford Delta 3200 looks absolutely gorgeous exposed e.g. at 800 and developed in Rodinal 1+25 or exposed at 1000 and developed in Xtol 1:1 IME. It looks like crap (again IME) exposed/developed at box speed.

Never tried Rodinal with it, but Xtol is my primary developer so I saw what you see and I'm struggling with how someone would describe that as "absolutely gorgeous"... But may I suggest that the same scenes exposed at EI 1000 would have looked far better in HP5+? Although they say the beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

 

[DREW WILEY]

It is in fact a 1000 speed film, just like the fine print explains. For best results, I personally shoot it at 800, and pyro develop it. The advertised and labeled speed of 3200 tells you what you might get away with, if you don't mind a degree of shadow compromise. That's like lukewarm coffee - palatable, sorta, depending on your specific application. .. perhaps salvageable for dim-light journalistic purposes. But if you want full-range snap and clean tonal gradation, you need to shoot it closer to 1000.

Overexposing it forwards the scene the other direction, prematurely up onto the shoulder of the curve. You'll get something reproducible - but what will be the quality of the highlights?

On another note, I really dislike the ambiguity which the terms "push" and "pull" bring to such conversations. Those already held different specific meanings from current casual web lingo. If you mean "overexposure" or "underexposure", or "overdevelopment" or "underdevelopment", just use those expressions instead, and there will be less confusion.

 

[MattKing]

I'd argue that for many people, the critical part of what makes it 'pushing' is the underexposure, because they want to use that roll of HP5+ in poor light or at night, while still getting a sharp picture handheld. 1/125th instead of e.g. 1/15th with an 85mm prime can make or break a photo.

And I'd reply that the term "push" came from the change in development - traditionally one would have their lab adjust their development to "push" the density and contrast up, in order to deal with the under-exposure at your end.

It is a term that came from the days where a much higher percentage of film was developed by someone other than the photographer.

Either way, it is all probably moot, because the term is thrown around so loosely now that any attempt to clarify it is an impossible task.

My biggest concern, and the reason I regularly make a point about this, is that I encounter people who think simply under-exposing the film is "pushing" it.

 

[xkaes]

And I'd reply that the term "push" came from the change in development - traditionally one would have their lab adjust their development to "push" the density and contrast up, in order to deal with the under-exposure at your end.

Maybe "push" comes from the lab "pushing" up their price!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Push and pull still have quite specific meanings at commercial labs which process film using automated machinery and programs, especially when color film is involved. Nothing in that respect,
terminologically, has changed for decades. I need to soon pick up my C41 processed 120 and 4X5 color film at a large local lab which offers such options, and does hundreds of rolls of film a day.
Since the same types of automated machines are used for black and white processing too, the same restricted options apply.

In Zone System jargon applicable to personal black and white film work, the expression "Plus", "Normal", and "Minus" development are generally employed. But here again, it's just brings in confusion if one substitutes Push or Pull. They don't imply the same thing.

 

[albireo]

Never tried Rodinal with it, but Xtol is my primary developer so I saw what you see and I'm struggling with how someone would describe that as "absolutely gorgeous"... But may I suggest that the same scenes exposed at EI 1000 would have looked far better in HP5+?

I've never tried both side by side but I experimented a little with pushing HP5+ and I didn't like the results. I like HP5+ only at 250 and in D23. I really don't like the ultra contrasty pushed look.

 

[Steven Lee]

It is in fact a 1000 speed film, just like the fine print explains. For best results, I personally shoot it at 800, and pyro develop it. The advertised and labeled speed of 3200 tells you what you might get away with, if you don't mind a degree of shadow compromise. That's like lukewarm coffee - palatable, sorta, depending on your specific application. .. perhaps salvageable for dim-light journalistic purposes. But if you want full-range snap and clean tonal gradation, you need to shoot it closer to 1000.

You're butchering it. It's not meant for shadow detail chasers. Try using this film as intended and you will re-calibrate your definition of "best results".

But being honest here, I've never used this film with Pyro and I suppose it's possible that it flattens the right side of the curve just right. But there's a lot of flattening needs to be done so I remain skeptical.

 

[Steven Lee]

I really don't like the ultra contrasty pushed look.

This may be the root cause of why we interpret the results differently. If you're into "B&W pastel", for the lack of a better word, then I can see why you like Delta 3200 in Xtol with more light.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Butchering it?? I've gotten exceptional print tonality out it that way (mostly 120, but some 35mm). Yes, a bit grainy, but that's part of its personality. Who are you to tell me who it's meant for, and who it's not? Go argue with my prints, not with me. If I wanted a 3200 look, that's what I would have done instead. But I don't want that; and I know exactly what I'm doing, and so do quite a few other people who realistically rate it around 800 for sake of pyro development.

 

[pentaxuser]

The biggest difference between Xtol/ID-11 and Microphen/DD-X is the density range. The latter duo produces rich negatives with wider range of light values captured and higher overall contrast. That is what you get when using datasheet times. I tried cooking Delta 3200 in Xtol longer, sometimes a lot longer, and found it to be surprisingly resilient at building density.

Thanks. I think you are saying that the main problem with ID11 and Xtol is that the recommended development times for both are too short but that with Xtol you got better negatives with longer development times.

If my interpretation of what I think you are saying is correct then at least Xtol is OK once you have found the development time that corrects the problems

Even with DDX I found that developing to the next highest film speed was beneficial

I had initially wondered if the phrase "no no" might have meant that both ID11 and Xtol were per se in your experience a disaster for D3200 which they didn't seem to be for me

pentaxuser

 

[albireo]

This may be the root cause of why we interpret the results differently. If you're into "B&W pastel", for the lack of a better word, then I can see why you like Delta 3200 in Xtol with more light.

I wouldn't say I'm into 'B&W pastel' necessarily, but definitely not into high contrast/chalky shadows stuff or stuff where contrast is abused for dramatic effect. Eg stuff like Sebastiao Salgado Genesis or Daidō Moriyama makes me gag.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

From a pictorial perspective, Delta 3200 was designed to be under exposed. Using it as an ISO 1000 film is an exercise of frustration: you get decent shadows and garbage mid-tones and highlights, or as Matt puts it: "low contrast". I am amazed by how frequently people gradually drop the advice like "aaaaactually if you bother to read the datasheet, you'll see it's an ISO 1000 film, so shoot it properly". Nope. Ilford designed it with a specific usage in mind: meter for ISO 3200, accept the crushed shadows (by design), but the midtones and highlights will be awesome for so little light. This is not a good film to over-expose, as its curve is designed for under-exposure.

Look at how nonlinear it is, and how suppressed the shadows (that's where the ISO rating comes from) are:

View attachment 371918

Moreover, Delta 3200 produces vastly different results with different developers. Xtol and ID-11 are very much a no-no for it, but Microphen and DD-X are great. I haven't tried others.


TLDR: Expose at EI 3200, develop in Microphen.

Well, it depends on the dilution of the developer. It works better with higher concentrations. I have had good results when exposing at EI 1000 using FX-39 II at 1+9.

 

[koraks]

Go argue with my prints, not with me.

Please feel free to show some examples, then.

 

[snusmumriken]

I really liked Delta 3200 rated at 3200 ISO and developed in the late-lamented Emofin. For disbelievers, here's a 35mm example, not very well scanned. It looks fine printed to 16x12 (ie 10x), a bit sharper and less grainy than it appears in this scan. The situation was a fairground after dark, and essentially zero light was reaching the lady's black dress from the camera side.

I've since had nothing good with other developers, but learned after a while that Delta 3200 doesn't keep well, so I had actually been using stale material. I must try again, but I think it would be a mistake to imagine that D3200 could be used as a general-purpose film, because it definitely needs careful handling to get pleasant results.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The biggest difference between Xtol/ID-11 and Microphen/DD-X is the density range. The latter duo produces rich negatives with wider range of light values captured and higher overall contrast. That is what you get when using datasheet times. I tried cooking Delta 3200 in Xtol longer, sometimes a lot longer, and found it to be surprisingly resilient at building density.

If you are not getting incredibly similar negatives from Xtol/ DD-X/ ID-11/ Microphen at G-bar 0.62 (if they are exposed to normalise shadow speed differences), there is a very fundamental error somewhere in your process. They are incredibly close derivatives of each other - and I've used them all with Delta 3200, and you would probably have near impossible levels of difficulty picking them out from a double blind print comparison, no matter if they were scanned or darkroom printed. The sum total of the difference should be that for a given exposure, your shadow detail might improve a little with DD-X/ Xtol over ID-11, and maybe a little more again with Microphen - but this is where you need to be careful, because the differences in effect shrink towards unity at higher contrast indices/ G-bar - and as you pointed out upthread, Delta already has a steeper G-bar in the toe to begin with - i.e. you might find that reduced exposure given to satisfy your norms of Microphen/ DD-X's nominal shadow speed boost also need to be applied more universally (been there, got bitten by ID-11). The longer you process in these fairly solvent developers with films like Delta 3200, the more development inhibition agents you release from the emulsion, and the more inhibition effects you will get from certain developer characteristics - this enhances sharpness and holds down absolute highlight density (and Delta 3200 is really designed to do this strongly) - but if you overexpose a bit, you will make the inhibition components more easily released/ more effective - so you end up not just climbing on to the shoulder of the film, but further flattening the highlight gradient (and Xtol will do this more like Microphen and DD-X can than ID-11 is able to).

Never tried Rodinal with it

It has a different curve shape (essentially due to lack of solvency having a different effect on emulsion interaction) - don't expect speed, but the curve behaves some what more conventionally than the specific characteristics in more solvent developers. Most of the claims about exposure at nominal ISO rating are either because of people indexing their exposures in particular ways that effectively end up rating the film unintentionally correctly or because they are using very low/ no solvency developers (which might have inhibition effects under other circumstances (that are completely unrelated to any of the misleading stains/ dyes they might form), but Delta 3200 seems to demand quite specific characteristics of developers).

 

[warden]

I really liked Delta 3200 rated at 3200 ISO and developed in the late-lamented Emofin. For disbelievers, here's a 35mm example, not very well scanned. It looks fine printed to 16x12 (ie 10x), a bit sharper and less grainy than it appears in this scan. The situation was a fairground after dark, and essentially zero light was reaching the lady's black dress from the camera side.

View attachment 372000

I've since had nothing good with other developers, but learned after a while that Delta 3200 doesn't keep well, so I had actually been using stale material. I must try again, but I think it would be a mistake to imagine that D3200 could be used as a general-purpose film, because it definitely needs careful handling to get pleasant results.

You sure got every bit of light out of that scene. That’s a great shot!

I’m working through some expired D3200 as well and enjoying it. I rate it at 1000 or faster. I figure if I’m going to rate a film at 800 I might as well use TMax 400 or similar and save some money.

 

[MattKing]

Moderator's note: Sniping at other members is counter-productive, and subject to deletion.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Steven - I've made hundreds of densitometer plots. If I need it, I have industrial process control within 1/10th F. I personally built one of the most precise 8x10 color enlargers in the world. And I've had my prints displayed side by side beside some of the most famous photographers who have ever lived, some very famous painters too. I've never been called uneducated or "tech-helpless" in those circles, or really, anything nasty.

When I say, compare prints, that's exactly what I mean. The web is inherently incapable of conveying fine nuances of tonality, especially deep shadow values or subtle hues. You can show nominal subject matter and certain pictorial generalities over the web. But note the distinction. And yes, I have actually met one on one with certain people who flew in to settle certain debates - namely, visually, portfolios of actual prints in hand. But those were individuals with decades of serious experience themselves, where a discussion of different approaches was mutually beneficial. I learned from them, and they learned from me.

Speaking of different approaches - Warden - you get a quite different look shooting TMY at 800 versus D3200 at 800. TMY has a steep toe; so underexposing it makes the deep shadows crash pretty hard. I've employed that route to enhance bold graphic blacks in the image, the Brett Weston look, so to speak. But D3200 at 800 tend to open up the shadows a little more, just the opposite effect.

 

[koraks]

Look Drew, my comment about posting prints was not to suggest I think you're wrong, or that I doubt your assessment of the tonality. It's just that the argument "look at the damn prints" when there are no prints to see makes so little sense. You might as well (or perhaps, even better still) say something like "you'll just have to take my word for it". A more appropriate tactic IMO would be to describe in words the differences you see if there's really no way to illustrate them digitally. And yes, I think that to a large extent, it is perfectly possible to show that there's a difference even with compromised digital pictures of prints. Many of us do so all the time; we're all aware of the limitations and that the real thing is something else entirely, and yet, it gets the message across nearly all of the time.

So either leave it at a "you'll just have to believe me" or actually illustrate your point, but please refrain from the "it's in the prints and you're never going to get to see them." It's a very unfortunate turn of any discussion of technique or aesthetics and frankly, I don't think it really works very well in the sense of convincing people of the point you're trying to get across.

I say this with respect and appreciation for your commitment to the art and technique of photography, Drew. I just wish sometimes you did yourself a little more of a favor.

 

[warden]

Speaking of different approaches - Warden - you get a quite different look shooting TMY at 800 versus D3200 at 800. TMY has a steep toe; so underexposing it makes the deep shadows crash pretty hard. I've employed that route to enhance bold graphic blacks in the image, the Brett Weston look, so to speak. But D3200 at 800 tend to open up the shadows a little more, just the opposite effect.

I am aware.