Willie Jan
Allowing Ads
I use a different category of pyro - "PMK" and love the look with D3200; but I do rate it at 800. That's still plenty fast for handheld shooting.
The notion above of flat negs with Delta 3200 - can you extend the developing time and get better contrast? That's what I would do if I didn't have enough contrast. I've used Delta 3200 with many different developers and have found I have to sort of kick it down the road quite a bit and develop it for a very long time in order to get the contrast I want out of the negatives.
With Pyrocat I would also consider very frequent agitation, in order to overcome the shy contrast and the slightly compensating action that Pyrocat yields.
Not when I shot it. I only did a couple of rolls (120) with this combo and if I increase the contrast, my highlights would burn out. I was shooting in an old barn with window light. The highlights were borderline, but the shadow areas came out a bit on the muddy side.. P'Cat was an ok combo, but Diafine was better. IMO.
P3200 is an 800 ISO film, so getting 800 out of it is about right. I tried several rolls at 800 with Pyrocat-HD and also found that the negatives were a little flat when exposed in flat lighting situations. Exposing it at IS0 640 and giving it about 1.5-2 minutes more development would have perked things up a little. In contrasty lighting, I found it held highlights very well, which isn't too surprising if my results in flat light were a bit flat.
I don't quite understand. If you develop your negatives to the point of blocking up the highlights, obviously it's gone too far. But if you dial back development time to the negative density of where it doesn't block up, how can there not be enough contrast?
I always think about the printing paper when I think about contrast. The paper can handle a certain amount of negative contrast, low or high, and when you exceed the limits of the paper, you are out of range. If you take Tri-X, Pan-F+, and Delta 3200 and shoot them side by side to have similar shadow detail, and then develop them to similar total contrast, besides color rendition and grain, how can Delta 3200 be too low contrast?
Please help me understand. I'm not contesting what you say, I'm saying I might be missing something. I know you have a lot more experience than I, Jim, which is why I'm trying to understand.
Thomas, I'm not sure I can explain. The highlights weren't blown out with D3200 & P'Cat, but they almost were. Anymore time in the soup and they would have been. The shadow areas came out muddy. They probably needed more time, but then the highlights would blow out. P'cat was ok, but Diafine simply did a better job for me. Hard to describe.
As for me having more experience than you, not so fast. You know your stuff here!
John, this is quite possible as I was using VC paper.
I Always start with a graycard test. shoot a gray card, develop film, develop paper so that the Original gray card and the dried paper gray card have the value. Take the next negative and print it at the time of the gray card paper development time found (a blank part of a negative should be just at maximum black at that time). It will show if it is right. This method illuminates all variables between picture taken and print.
...
I guess if one prints using VC paper, using a staining developer with Delta 3200 might prove difficult, since you get a double whammy of effects of lowering contrast...
Printing Delta 3200 souped in pyro onto VC papers is super easy.... I don't get the contradiction at all. The exact opposite would appear to be
true, and certainly has been in my experience. The stain HELPS.
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?