Ilford Delta 3200: Expose at Box Speed or not?

litody · Nov 2, 2012

lancekingphoto said:
Thanks, but unless my local photo supply store carries Microphen, I'll probably just stick with the D76 for now. I'd hate to risk messing up with an unfamiliar developer on something more important than a test shoot!

Well with D76 then the film iso is around 1000. For every stop of push you apply you will lose some shadow detail. Pushing film development increases film contrast. If your subject is low contrast then that can be a good thing and a one stop push to 2000 should yield perfectly good results. And if your subject is very low contrast a two stop push to 4000 should be acceptable too. The difficulty is getting the metering correct.
On the other hand, if your subject is normal or high contrast and you push the film development which increases film contrast, then you will end up with negatives that are very high in contrast.

This really means you should be picking a developer to suit not only the lighting level but also the subject contrast. But if you only have D76 then you ain't got much choice. Subjects by a window can be high in contrast with one side of subject in direct light and the other in deep shadow. if that is the case and you are using 2000 or 4000 or something in between, then I would suggest trying to keep subject back from window to reduce subject contrast or employ a reflector to bring shadow values up (keeping the subject contrast below normal so that film dev push brings it back to normal).

Roger Cole · Nov 2, 2012

lancekingphoto said:
Thanks, but unless my local photo supply store carries Microphen, I'll probably just stick with the D76 for now. I'd hate to risk messing up with an unfamiliar developer on something more important than a test shoot!

See if they have DD-X, T-Max or Xtol, especially if you have time to run a test roll. Any of those should give more speed than D76.

StoneNYC · Nov 2, 2012

If its any consolation, I just shot some 120 D3200 at 3200 and developed it in ilfsol 3 using the massive dev chart for 3200 and had good results... And there was virtually no light toward the end of the roll I was shooting 1/15th handheld and 1/8th to 2 seconds on tripod, all good images. (Mamiya 7 II rangefinder). I find ilfsol 3 very versatile, so I use that a lot, but as stated, if D67 works, then that's all that matters... (it was also much less grainy than the P3200 tmax film I used. Though to be fair I did NOT use tmax developer...

~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Harry Lime · Nov 2, 2012

I shoot it at 1000-1600 and develop in Ilford DD-X. Great combo.
I've also developed D3200 in Diafine with surprisingly good results.

One interesting thing to try is shoot it at 640 or 800. It's a low contrast film and the exposure range you will see is jaw dropping.

Personally I think D3200 is the best ultra highspeed b/w film out there (and it comes in 120!). I never could understand why people claimed that it was grainier than TMY 3200P. I've shot plenty of both and always found the opposite to be true. Does the Tmax developer make TMY3200 particularly grainy? It sure did give it a boost in the shadows.

Roger Cole · Nov 2, 2012

What kind of effective speed did you get with Diafine? Diafine seems to work best, in terms of speed anyway, with traditional films. Tri-X is effectively faster in it than TMZ is, so I never tried it with D3200.

I don't find TMZ "particularly grainy" with T-Max developer. It's grainy, sure, but not that bad. Very nice at 5x7 and not really obtrusive at 8x10. I'd hesitate to print larger from the combo though, unless the grain helped the subject.

pentaxuser · Nov 2, 2012

Harry, if I have read Stone's post correctly he is comparing P3200 in 135 with D3200 in 120. If I have understood this correctly then I'd expect the P3200 to be grainier. The general consensus seems to be that P3200 is slight less grainy than 135 D3200 but others' experience such as yours is that there is little in it or even that D3200 has the edge in lack of grain terms

I'd be surprised if there is much in it just based on the film technology and comparable expertise from both makers.

pentaxuser

MartinP · Nov 2, 2012

It's clearly too late for any worthwhile testing, especially as the OP can't be sure of the light conditions regarding brightness and contrast (who knows if the sky will be sunny or cloudy, and the windows south or north facing etc. etc). If not already doing so I'd suggest a tripod and several large reflectors, with possibly an assistant or stands to keep them in the right place!

DREW WILEY · Nov 2, 2012

I've never tried it with D76. I dev in my usual PMK pyro exposed at ASA 800 and get a superb scale.
But I tend to use it in a Nikon with a fast 85/1.4 lens, often in the rain.

StoneNYC · Nov 2, 2012

pentaxuser said:
Harry, if I have read Stone's post correctly he is comparing P3200 in 135 with D3200 in 120. If I have understood this correctly then I'd expect the P3200 to be grainier. The general consensus seems to be that P3200 is slight less grainy than 135 D3200 but others' experience such as yours is that there is little in it or even that D3200 has the edge in lack of grain terms

I'd be surprised if there is much in it just based on the film technology and comparable expertise from both makers.

pentaxuser

You did but I was tired and wrote it wrong, or unclear, I shot P3200 and D3200 at box on 135 and additionally D3200 at box on 120 I just was tired and didn't say that.

I still found D3200 less grainy but as I said I used Ilfsol 3 with both, and didn't use tmax developer at all, I suspect if unused tmax with the P3200 it would have had less grain.

I'll scan and post in about a week if you care. I also pushed tri-x400 3 stops to 3200... But on 120 if I recall, I have to look at my notes, I shot a lot, it was all hurricane sandy stuff so I was just go go go mode.

I hadn't really used 3200 before that, I prefer super low speeds usually 50-100 and no more (25 if I can find a good frozen roll of "antique" film) haha but then I don't often shoot hurricanes...

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

pentaxuser · Nov 2, 2012

My experience with D3200 at 1600 and 1250 in Xtol which I understand is a dev that is said to produce less grain than D76 is that even at 5x7 my prints show grain. It might be that Ilfosol being an Ilford developer does a better job in that respect. However when I move up to MF then grain ceases to be any problem in prints of 5x7 and 8x10 is still pretty good.

In 135 I suspect that fast films and grainless prints are essentially incompatible but I'd be interested in examples of D3200 in Ilfosol v P3200 in TMax, assuming of course that a scan of a print can convey the difference.

Thanks

pentaxuser

StoneNYC · Nov 2, 2012

pentaxuser said:
My experience with D3200 at 1600 and 1250 in Xtol which I understand is a dev that is said to produce less grain than D76 is that even at 5x7 my prints show grain. It might be that Ilfosol being an Ilford developer does a better job in that respect. However when I move up to MF then grain ceases to be any problem in prints of 5x7 and 8x10 is still pretty good.

In 135 I suspect that fast films and grainless prints are essentially incompatible but I'd be interested in examples of D3200 in Ilfosol v P3200 in TMax, assuming of course that a scan of a print can convey the difference.

Thanks

pentaxuser

I just realized something very critical that I made a huge mistake about, the tmax film had a red 25 filter on it... Duh! Ugh, so much for side by side comparisons... I assume because you are filtering certain wavelengths that grains don't get exposed and so you have a higher grain look?

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

StoneNYC · Nov 2, 2012

I vow now to do a fair test!

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Harry Lime · Nov 2, 2012

Roger Cole said:
What kind of effective speed did you get with Diafine? Diafine seems to work best, in terms of speed anyway, with traditional films. Tri-X is effectively faster in it than TMZ is, so I never tried it with D3200

I'm not sure, but I did not sense a loss of speed. What I did notice was good grain and the compensating action of the 2 bath developer allowing me to really expose for the shadows, while holding on to the highlights.

Roger Cole · Nov 2, 2012

Well...what speed did you shoot it at then? I mean, "no loss of speed" could mean it was good at 1000 as it's really about a 1000 speed film, or that it worked well at the "name" speed of 3200. Pretty big difference there.

I wouldn't want to use it in Diafine if it's only a 1000 or so effective speed. Not only can I get that out of Tri-X in Diafine with finer grain, but I'd be wary of very flat results - but I haven't tried it and you have so I'm curious.

Harry Lime · Nov 2, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Well...what speed did you shoot it at then? I mean, "no loss of speed" could mean it was good at 1000 as it's really about a 1000 speed film, or that it worked well at the "name" speed of 3200. Pretty big difference there.

I wouldn't want to use it in Diafine if it's only a 1000 or so effective speed. Not only can I get that out of Tri-X in Diafine with finer grain, but I'd be wary of very flat results - but I haven't tried it and you have so I'm curious.

I shot it at 1250-1600 for both Diafine and DD-X. I stopped shooting D3200 @ 3200 years ago.

It did not look radically different than developed in DD-X, except that the 2-bath nature of Diafine faded the highlights out more gracefully. I was able to shoot backlit characters without the light source ending up as a giant white orb. Grain was well controlled and maybe a little better than what I get out of DD-X.

Overall I think D3200 @ 1250-1600 in Diafine or DD-X showed better shadow detail than Tri-X @ 1250 in Diafine.

Interestingly what did turn out to be a good combo was TMY-2 400 in Diafine, perhaps because the toe is very linear. Grain was very tight.

Roger Cole · Nov 2, 2012

Interesting, thanks!

MattKing · Nov 3, 2012

lancekingphoto said:
I'm planning a boudoir-style shoot for tomorrow morning, shot entirely indoors with window light on Ilford Delta 3200 film. I've used this film before on a couple of occasions (once in similar conditions), and was generally pleased with the results I got shooting box speed. However, a photographer acquaintance of mine who has been shooting film far longer than I recently suggested to me that, in his experience, Delta 3200 is best when exposed at 2400.

Can anyone else confirm similar results? If it matters, I'll be using the 35mm version of the film. Depending on available light, I'd actually considered pushing the film up to 6400 as needed, but I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say.

A point of clarification:

The so called "3200" films are two films that I would avoid referring to with the phrase "box speed" - I think it just adds confusion.

In most cases, people referring to "box speed" are referring to the ISO rating. If you refer to Delta 3200's "box speed", how does anyone know whether you mean it's ISO rating (1000) or the number in the name (3200)?

StoneNYC · Nov 3, 2012

MattKing said:
A point of clarification:

The so called "3200" films are two films that I would avoid referring to with the phrase "box speed" - I think it just adds confusion.

In most cases, people referring to "box speed" are referring to the ISO rating. If you refer to Delta 3200's "box speed", how does anyone know whether you mean it's ISO rating (1000) or the number in the name (3200)?

Wasn't the old Tri-400 really 80 speed that pushed well to 400? I remember reading a development paper somewhere that said that.

My question, how many films are exactly the exposure level listed on the box?

Also, why can't they just make a film speed that is actually 3200? Are there/were there any? Is P3200 really 3200? Which is better for resolution?

~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

markbarendt · Nov 3, 2012

StoneNYC said:
My question, how many films are exactly the exposure level listed on the box?

All of them, yes every last one; that is with one caveat, that it is within the tolerance range of rounding to the closest "normal" ISO number. If a film measures 113 ISO it will be called 125 ISO, if 112 it will be called 100. So to within 1/6th of a stop, yes.

Every deviation we make from the ISO rating and the ISO processing standard to any other speed or process standard is a person specific speed known as an Exposure Index, an EI.

Everything from our metering methods to the accuracy of our thermometers to our choice of paper can affect our personal EI choices.

I'm going to hazard a guess that outside of those who actually do ISO testing for film manufacturers, few if any of us mimic the ISO standards in practice. The film speeds that people brag about "finding" are in fact EI's.

This doesn't mean these films don't or won't do a good job at an EI of 3200 or 400. Box ratings are just numbers.

Even Ilford and Kodak show us various EI's that are workable. This data sheet for Delta 400 is a great example, http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010628953322222.pdf see page 3, the numbers in bold.

If Ilford had chosen Microphen as the ISO stand developer for Delta 400 the ISO rating may have been 500, if Perceptol maybe ISO 250.

StoneNYC said:
Also, why can't they just make a film speed that is actually 3200? Are there/were there any? Is P3200 really 3200? Which is better for resolution?

In order;
They could, it would have a short shelf life.
None that I know of.
No. 800-1000, depends on developer, see Kodak tech pub.
Don't know.

StoneNYC · Nov 3, 2012

markbarendt said:
All of them, yes every last one; that is with one caveat, that it is within the tolerance range of rounding to the closest "normal" ISO number. If a film measures 113 ISO it will be called 125 ISO, if 112 it will be called 100. So to within 1/6th of a stop, yes.

Every deviation we make from the ISO rating and the ISO processing standard to any other speed or process standard is a person specific speed known as an Exposure Index, an EI.

Everything from our metering methods to the accuracy of our thermometers to our choice of paper can affect our personal EI choices.

I'm going to hazard a guess that outside of those who actually do ISO testing for film manufacturers, few if any of us mimic the ISO standards in practice. The film speeds that people brag about "finding" are in fact EI's.

This doesn't mean these films don't or won't do a good job at an EI of 3200 or 400. Box ratings are just numbers.

Even Ilford and Kodak show us various EI's that are workable. This data sheet for Delta 400 is a great example, http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010628953322222.pdf see page 3, the numbers in bold.

If Ilford had chosen Microphen as the ISO stand developer for Delta 400 the ISO rating may have been 500, if Perceptol maybe ISO 250.

In order;
They could, it would have a short shelf life.
None that I know of.
No. 800-1000, depends on developer, see Kodak tech pub.
Don't know.

Thanks, informative and not garbled with middle words (unlike my posts) haha

~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

markbarendt · Nov 3, 2012

StoneNYC said:
Thanks, informative and not garbled with middle words (unlike my posts) haha

~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You are welcome.

Mark Crabtree · Nov 3, 2012

StoneNYC said:
Wasn't the old Tri-400 really 80 speed that pushed well to 400? I remember reading a development paper somewhere that said that.

No.

johnnywalker · Nov 4, 2012

Allen Friday said:
The different speeds call for different development times, so this approach won't work.

For general work, I shoot D3200 at 1000 to 1600 and develop for the time specified for 3200. It gives good results.

This is what I do, also with good results using ID11 or D76.

Three Owls · Nov 5, 2012

I shoot D3200 at 1000-1250 with Pyrocat HD. Anything faster gets me impenetrable shadows, but I can push for highlight density. I only get about 800-1000 with Rodinal using semi-stand, 640-800 with PMK.

D76 is the devil, so can't tell you there, I just know that I hate blocked up highlights and don't get them with compensating development regimes.

lancekingphoto · Nov 6, 2012

I decided to go ahead and shoot the film at the "box speed" (by which I mean the speed the name suggests if not the actual rated speed), partly to play it safe but also due to the low existing light levels. Here's a sample of my results. It seemed much grainier than the 120 version of the same film, but I was still happy with what I got.

Ilford Delta 3200: Expose at Box Speed or not?

Moderator

lancekingphoto

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency