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?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.
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.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.
Point of order quibble here:
"Pushing" the film is increasing the development.
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.
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,
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?
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?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.
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.
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+?
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".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.
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 really don't like the ultra contrasty pushed look.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Please feel free to show some examples, then.Go argue with my prints, not with me.
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.
Never tried Rodinal with it
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.
I am aware.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?