Ilford 3200 what developer do you use and why?

[normsgonewild]

Hello, what developer do you use with Ilford's 3200 at box speed (35mm), I have a roll I wish to try but I am not sure what to develop it in, home brew suggestions welcome, Thankyou in advance.

 

[Mark Antony]

I have to say I like it in Microphen or DDX for 35mm, but perversely I like 120 pushed to 3200 in Rodinal.
Yes I know I'm quite mad.....
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2008_02_10_archive.html
Above are some results from that 'shouldn't work' combo
Mark

 

[pentaxuser]

Hi. I am sure you'll have several answers. I have used ID11 at box speed and Perceptol at EI1600 but not unfortunately Perceptol at 3200. Ilford gives a time for 3200 but I believe that better negs result from increased time and with Perceptol it doesn't list a time for EI 6400. I mention this because the accpeted wisdom is to use the dev time for the next speed. So for example expose at 3200 and develop for 6400.

DDX is often quoted as the developer for D3200 and there arer times for DDX at 6400 if you've exposed at box speed which is what I'd do if I was intent of exposing at 3200.

Personally if you don't need to go to 3200, I'd expose at EI1600 and use the Perceptol time for 20 mins. Ilford say 18 mins but in my limited experience of Perceptol and D3200 I'd say that the even the Ilford times for 3200 are short. EI1600 will take care of most low light situations. I got some amazing shots at EI 1600 on a seafront prom just after dark

I wouldn't use ID11 unless I wanted very grainy negs and prints. Perceptol and to a lesser extent DDX, produce smaller grain.

Hope this helps but do wait for others to respond before deciding on the speed and developer.

pentaxuser

 

[df cardwell]

Withut knowing what you want to do with 3200,
this is kind of pointless because different developers do different things.

But for me, concerned with full shadows in contrasty light (stage light, etc)
there is one clear and excellent choice,
followed by 2 acceptable choices,
and an arty choice when speed isn't the issue, but a pretty 'look ' is the goal.


First Choice, XTOL 1+1. By a wide margin.

Second, DDX

Third, D-76 1+1

Fourth. (pretty) Rodinal 1+50

 

[jim appleyard]

Interesting dev that Ed Buffaloe uses for D3200 (sounds like a D*&%ital camera, doesn't it?) here. I'm going to try a roll souped in P'Cat tonight.
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/D3200/d3200.html

Also a good thread going on at our friends site:http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00RY79

 

[Thanasis]

Withut knowing what you want to do with 3200,
this is kind of pointless because different developers do different things.

But for me, concerned with full shadows in contrasty light (stage light, etc)
there is one clear and excellent choice,
followed by 2 acceptable choices,
and an arty choice when speed isn't the issue, but a pretty 'look ' is the goal.


First Choice, XTOL 1+1. By a wide margin.

Second, DDX

Third, D-76 1+1

Fourth. (pretty) Rodinal 1+50

How does the grain look in Xtol 1+1 compared with DDX?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Tmax Developer.

Shot in very contrasty light, EI 1600, with a Hasselblad. I used Tmax because its my favorite developer for Kodak's own 3200 black & white film and I figured it would be good for Ilford's similar film. It was. I haven't Tried anything else for Ilford 3200 but I know I don't like Xtol as much for Tmax 3200. Xtol was a bit finer grained but I liked the tonality of Tmax Developer better. This all might be different on the Ilford film though.

Here's another Ilford shot, EI 1600, Tmax Developer. This one is 35mm:

 

[jim appleyard]

My negs from last night appear to be a bit thin, but printing will tell. My change on the next roll, if any, would be to use an EI of 800-1250 instead of the 1600 I shot this one at.

 

[Mattjcuk]

Hi,

I've used Ilfosol 3 @ 20c, 1+14 dilution for 17.30 minutes with good results, I've been recomended to try Illfotec DD-X which I think I will on the next roll.

Thanks

Matt

 

[2F/2F]

Hi,

I use Ilfotec HC or D-19 with Delta 3200. I use D-19 when I have to underexpose like crazy and/or want lots of grain or contrast (or both), and I use the HC in all other cases. I have tried various other developers, and could see how they might be superior for pushing (X-Tol especially), but not enough so to make my lazy ass want to keep them around when HC does the job just fine. HC is pretty much infinitely versatile, never goes bad, and is as convenient as it could get, short of being able to buy single-shot working solutions off the shelf. Its weakest point compared to other developers is its sharpness, and even then it is not "bad", and is not even noticeable once you go to 6x4.5 or larger. If I want real crazy tack sharpness, I simply do not use 35mm (and certainly do not use a super-fast film), with any film or developer, so I am not bothered by this.

There are some things to understand about Delta 3200 before taking off and running with it.

There is no box *speed* for Ilford Delta 3200. Nowhere on the box does it state *ISO* 3200. 3200 is simply part of the product name. The ISO is stated in the data sheet as 1000. This means that the film is an ISO 1000 film, period. Nothing ever changes that. Exposure and development can change the contrast and other characteristics, but it will always be an ISO 1000 film. You have to realize that limitation and know how to meter for it so you know what to expect from it and what not to expect.

Using an EI ("rating" the film) anything higher than its ISO of 1000 causes an underexposure. 3200 is on the box because it sounds good, and it is a usable EI when metering for the film (unless the lighting is just tremendously flat). What you are doing when you do this is simply underexposing your film by almost two stops. In other words, you cut out almost 3/4 of the light you want for a "proper" exposure. This means that if you develop normally, everything that would have been a shadow tone will end up pitch black. Your midtones will become dark greys, and your highlights will become midtones and light greys.

You cannot change the speed of the film except for very slightly. (This is the biggest misunderstanding about overdeveloping.) By overdeveloping, you can increase contrast, and thus make the film easier to print. However, when you overdevelop to increase the contrast, you make the compromises (of course) that you always make with underexposure and overdevelopment: reduced shadow detail, increased grain, and usually decreased sharpness.

The key to understanding why you overdevelop is this: Overdeveloping does not simply linearly increase the density of your emulsion. It increases density proportional to the amount of exposure received. Therefore, the less exposure a certain piece of silver gets, the less it will increase in density upon overdevelopment. What this means, simply, is that your shadows cannot be pushed, but your midtones and highlights can be. So, you are not increasing the speed of the film. You are simply adding contrast before the printing stage, because you know it will be underexposed, flat, and hard to print. The above mentioned side effects are what you have to sacrifice to get this.

For low-light shooting, the best (and only) way to minimize the grain and loss of sharpness drawbacks of the necessary overdevelopment is to use a larger format. (There's nothing to do about the shadow tones, as that is independent of format.) Then, of course, you become limited by aggravating f/2.8 max. lenses. There is the Mamiya f/1.9 medium format lens, but still, you see the aggravation of having to compromise something at every turn....since with an 80mm lens and a big-ol' mirror slapping about, you are having to use faster shutter speeds to shoot hand held. In the end, you realize that nothing beats 35mm for low-light hand held work, and just deal with the drawbacks.

 

[michiel fokkema]

ISo 3200 is too much for me. I don't get good negatives.
I tried xtol and ddx at 1600 iso. Both gave me good results but I slightly prefer xtol.

Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema

 

[Bosaiya]

I use Rodinal 1:25. It works like a champ and I only need to keep one developer around. I rate it at 1600 and it comes out smooth and creamy.

 

[dpurdy]

http://dennispurdy.com/delta 3200 u of o.html

This is a test I posted a year ago. I don't like to push D3200 up to box speed, I find it works better for what I like at 800 or 1000. This test is in XTOL straight.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Rodinal 1:25. Beautiful.
Great portrait Bosaiya.
G.

 

[white.elephant]

(snip)For low-light shooting, the best (and only) way to minimize the grain and loss of sharpness drawbacks of the necessary overdevelopment is to use a larger format. (There's nothing to do about the shadow tones, as that is independent of format.) Then, of course, you become limited by aggravating f/2.8 max. lenses. There is the Mamiya f/1.9 medium format lens, but still, you see the aggravation of having to compromise something at every turn....since with an 80mm lens and a big-ol' mirror slapping about, you are having to use faster shutter speeds to shoot hand held. In the end, you realize that nothing beats 35mm for low-light hand held work, and just deal with the drawbacks.

2F, for me this was the best most concise explanation of these trade-offs I've found anywhere. Thank you.

 

[Bosaiya]

Rodinal 1:25. Beautiful.
Great portrait Bosaiya.
G.

Thanks! I've found Delta 3200 and Rodinal to be a very forgiving combination for my less-than-controlled style. Never had the massive grain others have complained about, but I've never pushed it too far either.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Agree with Guillaume that it's a beautiful portrait. Rodinal can indeed be used with grainy films and if treated right, the grain is beautiful and unobtrusive.

- Thomas

 

[Bosaiya]

Thanks. I've found that to be the case as well. It seems that whenever I read about Rodinal and Delta 3200 all I see are posts about the massive, skull-crushing grain, even without pushing. It's not like I do anything special, so I can't figure out how people are getting that without extreme pushing.

Agree with Guillaume that it's a beautiful portrait. Rodinal can indeed be used with grainy films and if treated right, the grain is beautiful and unobtrusive.

- Thomas

 

[DanielOB]

2F/2F
I use Ilfotec HC or D-19 with Delta 3200. I use D-19 when I have to underexpose like crazy and/or want lots of grain or contrast (or both), and I use the HC in all other cases. I have tried various other developers, and could see how they might be superior for pushing (X-Tol especially), but not enough so to make my lazy ass want to keep them around when HC does the job just fine. HC is pretty much infinitely versatile, never goes bad, and is as convenient as it could get, short of being able to buy single-shot working solutions off the shelf. Its weakest point compared to other developers is its sharpness, and even then it is not "bad", and is not even noticeable once you go to 6x4.5 or larger. If I want real crazy tack sharpness, I simply do not use 35mm (and certainly do not use a super-fast film), with any film or developer, so I am not bothered by this.

There are some things to understand about Delta 3200 before taking off and running with it.

There is no box *speed* for Ilford Delta 3200. Nowhere on the box does it state *ISO* 3200. 3200 is simply part of the product name. The ISO is stated in the data sheet as 1000. This means that the film is an ISO 1000 film, period. Nothing ever changes that. Exposure and development can change the contrast and other characteristics, but it will always be an ISO 1000 film. You have to realize that limitation and know how to meter for it so you know what to expect from it and what not to expect.

Using an EI ("rating" the film) anything higher than its ISO of 1000 causes an underexposure. 3200 is on the box because it sounds good, and it is a usable EI when metering for the film (unless the lighting is just tremendously flat). What you are doing when you do this is simply underexposing your film by almost two stops. In other words, you cut out almost 3/4 of the light you want for a "proper" exposure. This means that if you develop normally, everything that would have been a shadow tone will end up pitch black. Your midtones will become dark greys, and your highlights will become midtones and light greys.

You cannot change the speed of the film except for very slightly. (This is the biggest misunderstanding about overdeveloping.) By overdeveloping, you can increase contrast, and thus make the film easier to print. However, when you overdevelop to increase the contrast, you make the compromises (of course) that you always make with underexposure and overdevelopment: reduced shadow detail, increased grain, and usually decreased sharpness.

The key to understanding why you overdevelop is this: Overdeveloping does not simply linearly increase the density of your emulsion. It increases density proportional to the amount of exposure received. Therefore, the less exposure a certain piece of silver gets, the less it will increase in density upon overdevelopment. What this means, simply, is that your shadows cannot be pushed, but your midtones and highlights can be. So, you are not increasing the speed of the film. You are simply adding contrast before the printing stage, because you know it will be underexposed, flat, and hard to print. The above mentioned side effects are what you have to sacrifice to get this.

For low-light shooting, the best (and only) way to minimize the grain and loss of sharpness drawbacks of the necessary overdevelopment is to use a larger format. (There's nothing to do about the shadow tones, as that is independent of format.) Then, of course, you become limited by aggravating f/2.8 max. lenses. There is the Mamiya f/1.9 medium format lens, but still, you see the aggravation of having to compromise something at every turn....since with an 80mm lens and a big-ol' mirror slapping about, you are having to use faster shutter speeds to shoot hand held. In the end, you realize that nothing beats 35mm for low-light hand held work, and just deal with the drawbacks.

excelent
Daniel_ob

 

[johnnywalker]

2F, that is an excellent summary of the film. I usually use ISO 1600 and develop it as if it were shot at 3200. If I shot it at 1000, would you still increase the development time to, say Ilford's recommendation for 2000 (not that I expect that they give times for that speed, but you get the drift)?

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Xtol 1+something. Decent grain, which is not too large and remains crisp. Tonality is nice in my book. I use roughly the 3200 dev time but rate at 1200-1600. Gives good shadows and controlled highlights. Contrast is good even on my soft enlarger head. This is a wonderful combo as the grain is super crisp, yet fine. I might experiment with FX-39 or similar for super crunchy grain.