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

[-persimmon-tree-]

I have an Agat 18k half frame camera that I really enjoy and want to be able to use in lower light conditions. Because you can't modify the shutter speed directly, I had the thought of using Ilford Delta 3200 and overexposing it. I recently saw a video by Matt Day where he talks about accidentally exposing 3200 at 200 iso, because he was mistaken about what was in the camera. The results actually looked half decent, and although things were quite bright, the pictures were usable. I am curious if there is any set "research" about this anyone has done, or any advice that can be given. Just curious about this for fun/experimentation. Note that even on half frame, I enjoy grain and a lo-fi toyish look, so that's not a problem. Cheers!

 

[Steven Lee]

I remember reading somewhere that the characteristic curve of modern films, when extended it to the right indefinitely, follows the wave pattern. The density goes up and down as you keep increasing the exposure. If I am not hallucinating, it means that the answer to your question is infinity.

 

[xkaes]

Because you can't modify the shutter speed directly

Maybe you don't understand how the Agat 18 works. You CAN adjust the speed. The camera has no meter, so the ISO is irrelevant:

http://www.subclub.org/shop/mmz.htm

 

[-persimmon-tree-]

Maybe you don't understand how the Agat 18 works. You CAN adjust the speed. The camera has no meter, so the ISO is irrelevant:

http://www.subclub.org/shop/mmz.htm

I mean that you can't select the speed. The Agat 18k that I have has two dials: one for ISO and one for "conditions", which I assume gets you f stop and shutter speed together. I assumed (and may be wrong) that the iso goes into that calculation.

For example: I can set the exposure to the "sunny day" setting, which has a corresponding f stop. However, I assumed that the shutter speed on the "sunny day" setting wouldn't be the same for ISO 1600 as it is for ISO 50.

 

[-persimmon-tree-]

Maybe you don't understand how the Agat 18 works. You CAN adjust the speed. The camera has no meter, so the ISO is irrelevant:

http://www.subclub.org/shop/mmz.htm

From what I just read, apparently all the ISO dial does is prohibit some of the exposure settings. So, if you set it to like 1600, it just won't let you put it onto the super sunny sailboat setting because it thinks it's too bright. So I guess I would just be talking about putting Ilford Delta 3200 in the camera and setting the ISO to like 200 so I can use all of the settings.

 

[MattKing]

Well, the native speed of Ilford 3200 is about ISO 1000, so that is the starting point for any discussions about what constitutes over-exposure.
The film has relatively low contrast when exposed at ISO 1000 and developed for that, so keep that in mind if you are planning to add even more exposure.

 

[-persimmon-tree-]

Well, the native speed of Ilford 3200 is about ISO 1000, so that is the starting point for any discussions about what constitutes over-exposure.
The film has relatively low contrast when exposed at ISO 1000 and developed for that, so keep that in mind if you are planning to add even more exposure.

Do you have any insights into what the effect may be of shooting it at 800 iso but developing it at 3200?

 

[MattKing]

Do you have any insights into what the effect may be of shooting it at 800 iso but developing it at 3200?

A lot of shadow detail, but potentially too much density in the highlights.
Which may mean too much contrast.
If you use an EI (not ISO) of 800, some prefer development for 800, and some prefer development for 1600.
It is an unusual film, designed to minimize the penalty arising from under-exposing (metering at 3200) and partially compensating by extending (pushing) developing to 3200.

 

[-persimmon-tree-]

A lot of shadow detail, but potentially too much density in the highlights.
Which may mean too much contrast.
If you use an EI (not ISO) of 800, some prefer development for 800, and some prefer development for 1600.
It is an unusual film, designed to minimize the penalty arising from under-exposing (metering at 3200) and partially compensating by extending (pushing) developing to 3200.

Ok, thanks! I may try this in a normal roll as a test because doing a test in a half frame camera would take a billion years.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I have an Agat 18k half frame camera that I really enjoy and want to be able to use in lower light conditions. Because you can't modify the shutter speed directly, I had the thought of using Ilford Delta 3200 and overexposing it.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, second sentence does not follow the logic of the first. If you want to use a film in low-light conditions, you have to push the film, i.e., underexpose it.

Shooting Delta 3200 at 200 ISO in low light conditions would mean very long exposure times, which your camera is unable to do. If anything you should be shooting at 3200 or 6400.

Am I reading you wrong?

 

[-persimmon-tree-]

Unless I'm reading this wrong, second sentence does not follow the logic of the first. If you want to use a film in low-light conditions, you have to push the film, i.e., underexpose it.

Shooting Delta 3200 at 200 ISO in low light conditions would mean very long exposure times, which your camera is unable to do. If anything you should be shooting at 3200 or 6400.

Am I reading you wrong?

On a normal camera, if I put in 800 ISO film and set the camera to 400 ISO, the camera will think that the film needs more light and hence expose it for longer. So setting a lower ISO results in overexposure, if you develop at 800 ISO. Is this not correct?

 

[_T_]

Have you read the manual for your camera? Because I'm looking at it and it seems like you don't need to overexpose as you said you are planning on doing.

 

[ic-racer]

You will have to experiment to see what works for you. There is no universal answer.
Just remember the more the negative is enlarged, the greater the image degredation from over-exposure.

 

[xkaes]

From what I just read, apparently all the ISO dial does is prohibit some of the exposure settings. So, if you set it to like 1600, it just won't let you put it onto the super sunny sailboat setting because it thinks it's too bright. So I guess I would just be talking about putting Ilford Delta 3200 in the camera and setting the ISO to like 200 so I can use all of the settings.

Correct. The ISO is meaningless for your situation. Set it to whatever you want -- as a reminder. At f2.8, the speed is 1/60; at f16, the speed is f250. You can figure out the intermediate settings. Which you select depends on what ISO you want to use, and the lighting conditions. A light meter would make things easier than the f-16 rule.

 

[MattKing]

If you want to use a film in low-light conditions, you have to push the film, i.e., underexpose it.

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.

 

[xkaes]

I have several copies -- all in Russian.

 

[-persimmon-tree-]

Have you read the manual for your camera? Because I'm looking at it and it seems like you don't need to overexpose as you said you are planning on doing.

Yes, I have read it. But what makes you say that?

 

[xkaes]

On a normal camera, if I put in 800 ISO film and set the camera to 400 ISO, the camera will think that the film needs more light and hence expose it for longer. So setting a lower ISO results in overexposure, if you develop at 800 ISO. Is this not correct?

Sure, but your camera does not have a meter and does not adjust anything. You have to do it.

 

[xkaes]

Sure, but your camera does not have a meter and does not adjust anything. You have to do it.

In what language?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

On a normal camera, if I put in 800 ISO film and set the camera to 400 ISO, the camera will think that the film needs more light and hence expose it for longer. So setting a lower ISO results in overexposure, if you develop at 800 ISO. Is this not correct?

The camera — at least a mechanical one — doesn't think anything. It doesn't know you put a 800 ISO film in it. And it only knows you are shooting at 400 ISO if it has a light meter and you set that meter to that ISO. If it doesn't have a meter, you have to meter the scene manually.

Basic rule for low-light situation is having either high ISO films or pushing a 400 film to fit the needed ISO. This ISO will be determined by the scene you want to shoot — sometimes 800 will do, sometimes you have to push to 1600, 3200 or higher. This will depend on what the meter will tell you, but also — and this is even more important in your case — on the available speeds on your camera (which you also set up on you meter) and available apertures.

Maybe best if you give us an idea of what low-light situation you're talking about. From what I read, your camera can open up to f/2.8 and its slowest speed is 1/65.

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 know, Matt. But in some cases, when dealing with matters of overexposing and underexposing, it oversimplifying that's the best approach .

 

[Augustus Caesar]

The true speed of that film is ISO 1000. You can expose it at 500 or so without any problem.

 

[_T_]

Yes, I have read it. But what makes you say that?

Because you can simply set the ISO dial to 1600 and set the exposure setting to indoor and it should expose Delta 3200 pretty much normally for low light situations. And if you were to change the iso dial to anything lower you would be under exposing not over exposing.

 

[Romanko]

Just curious about this for fun/experimentation.

Don't overthink it. Go and shoot the same scene with multiple ISO/shutter speed settings, develop as normal and inspect the results. Modern film has a lot of latitude for overexposure. Chances are you won't see any difference in prints made from negatives overexposed 2 or 4 stops.

 

[Steven Lee]

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:

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.

 

[Romanko]

The maximum setting on Agat18 is ISO1600 as far as I understand. Use 1600 or 800 and she'll be right mate.