Ilford delta 3200 development

wyofilm · Dec 12, 2020

My son and I videoed my daughter's skate club Christmas performance last night. While doing that I managed to shoot a roll of delta 3200. I shot it at EI 2500 and I have Ilord DDX, Ilford HC, and rodinal available for processing. Since I don't have much experience with delta 3200 I thought I would throw the question out there to the Photrio brain trust for suggestions. (If I had to do this on my own, I would develop with DDX for about 9min.)

Indoors/challenging light. Expectations moderate. Photos aren't of critical importance.

Thanks!

Rudeofus · Dec 12, 2020

Definitely DD-X, since it will give you best film speed of these three, and EI 2500 is already a moderate push for this film. Don't go easy on this film during development, most people use longer development times than what is proscribed by dev charts.

wyofilm · Dec 12, 2020

EI2500 is a moderate push because it isn't a true 3200? (This is my understanding of a film I don't really use.)

ic-racer · Dec 12, 2020

I'd process a test roll, exposed under similar conditions, first.

(EDIT: I noticed Kodak Alaris is giving an ISO speed of 1000 in the PDF file so the below is not up to date)

To be nit-picky, only a manufacturer can determine ISO, because the developer is to be established by the manufacturer; there is no ISO standard developer.
So the film has no ISO rating. As per the instructions with the film, you can use an exposure index suitable to your subject matter

When I use the film I use exposure index 1000 and set shutter speed to 1/30 and aperture to automatic. In low light I ignore any underexposure warning the camera might produce with those settings.

wyofilm · Dec 12, 2020

ic-racer said:
I'd process a test roll, exposed under similar conditions, first.

To be nit-picky, only a manufacturer can determine ISO, because the developer is to be established by the manufacturer; there is no ISO standard developer.
So the film has no ISO rating. As per the instructions with the film, you can use an exposure index suitable to your subject matter.

Normally, I would agree with you, but this this is a one off event. I knew this going in, so that is why expectations aren't high. Also, this is why the photos aren't of critical importance.

M-88 · Dec 12, 2020

Neither Delta 3200 of Ilford, nor Tmax 3200 of Kodak are actually ISO3200. One is ISO850-ish, while other is ISO1000-ish. Although I don't recall which is which. What I usually do with Delta 3200 is to expose it at 1600 and develop it with the times intended for ISO3200. Results look good. Although I do it with D-76 (ID-11) and Xtol. IIRC manufacturer recommends to develop this film either with DD-X, or with Microphen and ideally I that is what I would use. If I had any.

It's noteworthy that there is only 1/3 stop between 2500 and 3200. Overdeveloping a normal film shot at box speed by 1/3 wouldn't give dramatic change in the negative. I say develop at 3200.

wyofilm · Dec 12, 2020

Ok. Heading into the darkroom. DDX with manufacturer's recommendation for 3200. Sounds about right to me. Thanks! all.

M-88 · Dec 12, 2020

wyofilm said:
Ok. Heading into the darkroom. DDX with manufacturer's recommendation for 3200. Sounds about right to me. Thanks! all.

Best of luck to you! These "super fast" films are tricky and sometimes yield odd results.

Patrick Robert James · Dec 12, 2020

If you are scanning then develop for the recommended time. If you are printing it in the darkroom, develop for the time that is double what you shot it at.

john_s · Dec 12, 2020

If the skating was on ice, exposure can a bit tricky because so much of the frame is bright white which tends to lead to underexposure, depending of course on your metering technique.

wyofilm · Dec 12, 2020

Thanks for all the advice! The outcome is the neg is a bit thin, but I think printable. I'll take a look tomorrow. I think as many suggested longer development is the way to go. In the end, I developed for 9:30 with ddx. I could have gone a bit longer. I have another roll of it so I believe I'll give it another go ... (different subject as this roll was a one time deal.)

Adrian Bacon · Dec 13, 2020

M-88 said:
Neither Delta 3200 of Ilford, nor Tmax 3200 of Kodak are actually ISO3200. One is ISO850-ish, while other is ISO1000-ish. Although I don't recall which is which. What I usually do with Delta 3200 is to expose it at 1600 and develop it with the times intended for ISO3200. Results look good. Although I do it with D-76 (ID-11) and Xtol. IIRC manufacturer recommends to develop this film either with DD-X, or with Microphen and ideally I that is what I would use. If I had any.

It's noteworthy that there is only 1/3 stop between 2500 and 3200. Overdeveloping a normal film shot at box speed by 1/3 wouldn't give dramatic change in the negative. I say develop at 3200.

Delta 3200 is about 1000 and Tmax P3200 is 640-800. Less exposure than that and you'll need to add development time to get any kind of decent density.

pentaxuser · Dec 13, 2020

wyofilm said:
The outcome is the neg is a bit thin, but I think printable. I'll take a look tomorrow. I think as many suggested longer development is the way to go. In the end, I developed for 9:30 with ddx. I could have gone a bit longer.

Certainly my experience with DDX but admittedly only as high as 1600 is that this film can stand even more development that using the next speed up and you used 2500, I think. So on the basis of the next speed up this is development for 5000 rather than 3200. This certainly indicates more development that the usual time for 3200 if using the next speed up formula

I made a note in my developer book that ericdan had used or maybe suggested to use, based on experience, Microphen stock at 20 mins where Ilford suggests 9 mins only. OK Microphen is not DDX but the Ilford times for both developers are within 30 secs of each other at 3200

More than a doubling of the Ilford time does seem a lot but my experience of this film is that it is difficult to over develop. It might be a case of one speed, say 2500, then cutting the film into three for say 12, 15 and 18 mins development respectively

pentaxuser

Rudeofus · Dec 13, 2020

wyofilm said:
Thanks for all the advice! The outcome is the neg is a bit thin, but I think printable. I'll take a look tomorrow. I think as many suggested longer development is the way to go. In the end, I developed for 9:30 with ddx. I could have gone a bit longer. I have another roll of it so I believe I'll give it another go ... (different subject as this roll was a one time deal.)

Unlike most films, Delta 3200 has a strongly concave characteristic curve, i.e. contrast flattens noticeably at higher densities. This means, that you can develop much longer and still avoid runaway highlights, while lower densities slowly pick up speed.

Huss · Dec 15, 2020

I rate Delta 3200 @ 1000 and develop for 3200 in Cinestill DF96. Results are excellent.

Huss · Dec 15, 2020

abruzzi · Dec 16, 2020

my favorite was John Hicks' Xtol times--at 1:2 for EI3200:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/D3200/d3200.html

They were thin, but that's more what I was photographing.

Sirius Glass · Dec 16, 2020

abruzzi said:
my favorite was John Hicks' Xtol times--at 1:2 for EI3200:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/D3200/d3200.html

They were thin, but that's more what I was photographing.

Thank you. I am looking for replenished XTOL and Pyrocat-HD times for Delta 3200 in a Jobo processor. My experience is that XTOL 1:1 standard development times are the right time for replenished XTOL Jobo development times.

Anselm Green · Feb 4, 2024

Rudeofus said:
Unlike most films, Delta 3200 has a strongly concave characteristic curve, i.e. contrast flattens noticeably at higher densities. This means, that you can develop much longer and still avoid runaway highlights, while lower densities slowly pick up speed.

I appreciate I am reacting to a somewhat old/expired debate; I have come across some of your previous queries re Delta 3200; I wondered if you had any luck reverse processing delta 3200. I followed Ilford guidelines and rec chemistry and exposed at 400 according to dr5 and had very interesting results, mostly keepers. my main goal however is working with this film at 3200 and attempt to reverse push process. Any ideas?

DREW WILEY · Feb 4, 2024

It's an interesting film, that's for sure. I really like to optimize its potential rather than tempt it to do a risky high wire act; so I shoot it at 800 and develop it in PMK pyro. Lovely gradation results.

Rudeofus · Feb 5, 2024

Anselm Green said:
I appreciate I am reacting to a somewhat old/expired debate; I have come across some of your previous queries re Delta 3200; I wondered if you had any luck reverse processing delta 3200. I followed Ilford guidelines and rec chemistry and exposed at 400 according to dr5 and had very interesting results, mostly keepers. my main goal however is working with this film at 3200 and attempt to reverse push process. Any ideas?

How did your highlights turn out? AFAIK Delta 3200 has quite a dense base ... ?

Ilford delta 3200 development

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency