Ilford DELTA 3200 Film (35mm) - Your views?

pentaxuser said:

Ted, there are very few almost universally agreed upon "maxims" here on APUG but one which almost qualifies for that accolade is D3200 processed in DDX but at the time for the next speed up. So at EI1600 process for the time allotted to 3200 in the Ilford dev time. Even on a very dull winter's day in the U.K. you should get 1/500th at EI1600 provided that the shoot doesn't stretch beyond mid afternoon. Unfortunately at this time of year, light loss accelerates almost exponentially in that last hour of daylight.

I found DDX to give me a lot less grain than ID11.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

The amazing thing is, this is exactly my experience as well!

Just checked. £3.35 per roll for 35mm D3200 at 7Dayshop for packs of 10+. No delivery charge.

pentaxuser

IMO it really is an excellent film, but to get the best from it you really need to develop it yourself - it really isn't - Ilford do a very handy guide to home-processing on their website. You can get a second-hand tank off ebay for a lot less than the price of lab processing a single film. The only issue you might have is that a film of this speed needs to be loaded in absollute, total darkness. I usually rate it at 1600 in 35mm and develop in Microphen, which gives a good compromise (for me)between graininess and contrast. Delta 3200 also scans well (although perhaps I shouldn't mention that here!)

Rob

I bought my roll from SecondHandDarkroom.co.uk at a cost of £4.49 (http://www.secondhanddarkroom.co.uk/www.secondhanddarkroom.co.uk/info.php?p=9&cat=16919) and it arrived the next day I think.

I shot the roll the other day - it was a clear sunny day, but most of the shots were taken out of direct sun. I rated the film at ISO1000 because I'm a chicken and haven't yet got my head round all this pushing and pulling. Looking at the shots, I think I would have been better rating it at 1600 or 3200 as the images don't quite have enough contrast for my liking. I like the grain in the shots though.

I'm told this film is best for dealing with heavily backlit subjects? I intend to use my rolls of Neopan 1600 which I'm told is better, although clearly opinions vary on that subject.

Here are few of the better shots from the day (the film was processed by The Darkroom UK and sent straight to CD using their 'standard 4Mb' service - none of the images have been touched with any software) :

Favourite 1
Favourite 2
Favourite 3
Favourite 4
Favourite 5
Favourite 6

Fuji Neopan 1600 is a good Ilford Delta 3200 or Tmax 3200 alternative, and it works well at 1600EI, and it is cheaper.

Great shots Ted! So you were using this film to get the grain or just a faster shutter were you? I only ask because I'd never though about using it in normal daylight.

Can't you just increase the contrast now they're digital? I know if I scan a B&W neg and look at the image I have to play around a lot to make it look like my optical prints of the same image, increasing contrast being one of the parameters that needs attention.

ted_smith said:

I think I would have been better rating it at 1600 or 3200 as the images don't quite have enough contrast for my liking.

Click to expand...

Ted, the shots look fine as is. But decreasing exposure (by increasing your EI to 1600) won't help you increase contrast, if that's what you want to do.

You'll get less shadow detail than you currently have, and if anything the negatives will be thinner overall.

If you want more contrast, increase development; but that carries the risk of blowing highlights.

Ted Always difficult to tell with scans but I'd say the shadow detail in the dark dogs is spot on, Maybe the highlight detail is a little burned out on the dogs with "white fur" but not so as it spoils the shot. Did the processor know that it was shot at EI1000? If not, it might just be that the development time was a little too long for an EI of 1000.

Contrast looks just right for me but that's just me. What does the customer think? He's the one that counts.


pentaxuser

Ted,

I like shot #6 especially.

Just a thought here, since the labs that I use always adjust the scan or proof, I checked the website of your lab http://www.the-darkroom.co.uk/frames/

Have a look under "scan to CD", your lab claims to make the same adjustments as my labs do.

The only thing that this means is that the contrast in the scans you have doesn't necessarily mean much about your negatives other than it's the way some software or person at the lab adjusted it.

The film and development might be perfectly fine and your negatives perfectly printable or the scans might have a significant correction and be reaching a limit. I'm betting on the former.

Talking with the lab a bit more would be in order here. They may be able to shed more light on their process and even adjust to your preferences.

Once you've had that conversation and have an understanding with the lab then experimenting with Neopan 1600 or whatever else you might try will have more meaning.

Right now I'm betting their automation is masking reality some.

Jason Mekeel said:

Fuji Neopan 1600 is a good Ilford Delta 3200 or Tmax 3200 alternative, and it works well at 1600EI, and it is cheaper.

Click to expand...

I have never been able to retain good shadow detail with Neopan 1600, unless there is a minimal amount of ambient light. I like it on a heavily overcast day, because the grain is quite tight. Clocking in around 640 asa Neopan 1600 is the slowest film of the three. It is being pushed between 1 -1 1/2 stops more to reach 1600, than Delta3200 or Tmax P3200.

Harry Lime said:

I have never been able to retain good shadow detail with Neopan 1600, unless there is a minimal amount of ambient light. I like it on a heavily overcast day, because the grain is quite tight. Clocking in around 640 asa Neopan 1600 is the slowest film of the three. It is being pushed between 1 -1 1/2 stops more to reach 1600, than Delta3200 or Tmax P3200.

Click to expand...

I had heard that Neopan was really about 640 and believe that but have not been able to find a reference.

Actually a slight correction on the push math. T-MAX P3200 is ISO rated at either 800 or 1000 per Kodak (depending on the developer) and Ilford says Delta 3200 is an ISO 1000 film. That puts the "extra push" for Neopan at about 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop more than the others.

Ross :

Great shots Ted! So you were using this film to get the grain or just a faster shutter were you? I only ask because I'd never though about using it in normal daylight.

Click to expand...

- Thanks Ross. Yes, I was using the film for fast shutters. I thought it was going to be cloudier than it actually was and I needed 1/500th of a sec, or so, shutters. I didn't realise, at the time, that Delta 3200 is not really a daylight film - lesson learned. However, it did achieve my aim of fast shutters ;-)

Can't you just increase the contrast now they're digital?

Click to expand...

- I could, but the reason I shoot film is to avoid time sat at a PC, so I want to get it right on film.

PentaxUsers :

Did the processor know that it was shot at EI1000? If not, it might just be that the development time was a little too long for an EI of 1000. Contrast looks just right for me but that's just me. What does the customer think? He's the one that counts.

Click to expand...

Yes - I told them that I shot it at that ISO on the form. The shots are not 'paying' shots as such - it was more of a 'profile building' exercise and getting practice at action shots.

I will get any shots that the police like printed properly from the negs, so hopefully the finished prints will look much better. To be fair, I quite like the shots - I just always aim for the best shots I can get - as we all do

Nice shots! Makes me want to go out and take a few pictures.