Ilford delta 3200 help

[jensenhallstrom]

Hello all, this is my first activity of any kin on this website, i do need much help with many different topics and i heard this was a good resource, so my name is jensen and i have been shooting film for about a year almost, i took a photo film class this year at my highschool and that is how i was introduced, also, id like to help others with the info i do gain. I have recently purchased some delta 3200 expired in 2008, now ive heard 5 years is ancient for high speed films, and to make matters worse this film was not cold stored. I shot a roll at E.I. 1600 and developed in microphen stock at 75 F for 8 and a half minutes, and used agitated 10 sec per min. The film has crazy base fog, how could i compensate for this correctly? Has anybody had very good experience with delta 3200 in microphen with the times i described? Thank you.

 

[clayne]

I'd shoot it anywhere between 1000-1600 and develop for 3200. The Ilford times aren't accurate and I don't know why they still issue those times when everyone uses the time for 1 stop faster EI. I've shot d3200 that was a few years old and didnt have any extreme issues. The trick is to hit it with a lot of light.

 

[cliveh]

Throw the film away and start again.

 

[jensenhallstrom]

Thank you for your input, i appreciate it.

 

[clayne]

Do not throw the film away. Shoot another roll, expose longer or for a lower EI, and develop accordingly. Base fog does not mean the film is unusable.

 

[markbarendt]

Do not throw the film away. Shoot another roll, expose longer or for a lower EI, and develop accordingly. Base fog does not mean the film is unusable.

Yes, experiment and have fun.

Shoot it at 400 and see what prints.

 

[jensenhallstrom]

Yes, experiment and have fun.

Shoot it at 400 and see what prints.

Wow 400 defeats the purpose of the film but if it salvages it, it salvages it. Haha. Thank you all for your input.

 

[markbarendt]

Well actually, the original owner ignoring them for many years is what defeated the purpose of these particular rolls.

Salvaging it means giving enough exposure to get the image you want above the fog, so to speak.

These particular rolls I'd shoot at 400 and develop per Ilford's instructions for 800 or 1600.

 

[markaudacity]

HC-110 dilution B is the fog-killer.

 

[jensenhallstrom]

HC-110 dilution B is the fog-killer.

Really? Id have to go try it out then! Can somebody clarify how a developer would help reduce base fog?

 

[tkamiya]

Delta 3200 does have high base fog even when it's relatively fresh.... but oddly enough, prints much better than it should. OP, are you comparing your aged film with a brand new film when you say "crazy fog"?? Have you tried printing from it or are you just looking at it on a light table? You may be (as I was) pleasantly surprised....

As far as dev time goes, I usually shoot it at ISO x and develop it using time for ISO 2x (meaning use the time for rating it twice as much) Otherwise, on top of high base fog, I'd end up with thin negative.

and welcome to APUG!

 

[polyglot]

Like tkamiya says, it looks foggy anyway so it's probably not as bad as it looks. Which isn't to say that yours isn't grossly fogged. The usual recommendation with Delta-3200 (for any speed above 1000) is to develop it for the next stop higher EI, e.g. if you expose at 1600 then develop for 3200, etc.

Exposing at lower EI will get the image above the fog. You do lose a little dynamic range though because there's less density range available in the film to work with. 400 is pretty slow for that film and will result in really low-contrast negatives; I would have suggested 800. But then, you might need to shoot at 400 or even 200 because of the fog; we can't say without seeing how your first roll came out.

The presence of restrainers in a developer will reduce fog, as will the use of high-activity developers for short times that tend to work more on the highlights than shadows. HC-110 and Rodinal tend to give less base fog, but they also give poor film speed. They're a good choice if you have old film that you plan to over-expose.

You might find the FAQ link in my signature useful since you're newish to developing film.

 

[clayne]

I believe it's base speed is 1000iso. I don't think it's necessary to shoot this film any lower than 800 unless it's 20 years old.

 

[markbarendt]

I once souped some D3200 that was refrigerated and only a month past expiry in WD2D+ and wow did the fog show. It printed reasonably though.

I will disagree a bit Polyglot about shooting D3200 @ 400 making the negative low contrast.

First, shooting at 400 or 3200 is just a placement choice, contrast is controlled by the development time and temp.

Second, the ISO speed of D3200 is actually 1000, so shooting at 400 is really only 1-1/3 stops extra exposure.

 

[tkamiya]

Yes, it is a choice of placement in the response curb and it doesn't necessary affect contrast. But one will typically process differently to put it in more useful density range. So if one exposes D3200 at 400, then the processing is usually done much shorter, ie pulled processing - reducing contrast. In a practical sense, I think Polyglot is right although in purely technical sense, you are....

Either that... or strange things happen in down-under....

 

[jensenhallstrom]

I once souped some D3200 that was refrigerated and only a month past expiry in WD2D+ and wow did the fog show. It printed reasonably though.

I will disagree a bit Polyglot about shooting D3200 @ 400 making the negative low contrast.

First, shooting at 400 or 3200 is just a placement choice, contrast is controlled by the development time and temp.

Second, the ISO speed of D3200 is actually 1000, so shooting at 400 is really only 1-1/3 stops extra exposure.

How exactly do you control contrast during processing?

 

[clayne]

Well, it's 1.3 stops over the raw ISO. Normal EI for that film is 1600-3200 which is already almost 1-2 stops over. Simply dial back from that and you're back around 1000 again. This is why I believe 400 is a bit unnecessary.

 

[markbarendt]

Yes many people do reduce development when they add exposure, it is even part of the normal instructions given by Ilford and Kodak and Fuji.

That doesn't mean we really should.

What I want from a print/scene doesn't change with the rating I use to shoot the film. If my expectations of the scene and for the print haven't changed there's no reason for me to adjust development, in essence there isn't a more useful curve/contrast rate.

This does assume that I know what contrast rate I want, and I normally do, that doesn't mean the OP does. All of us are just taking wild ass guesses as to what will workfor him.

 

[markbarendt]

Well, it's 1.3 stops over the raw ISO. Normal EI for that film is 1600-3200 which is already almost 1-2 stops over. Simply dial back from that and you're back around 1000 again. This is why I believe 400 is a bit unnecessary.

And you may be right, OP needs to go shoot and see.

 

[markbarendt]

How exactly do you control contrast during processing?

More time, higher temperature, and extra agitation all will increase the contrast.

Less time, lower temperature, and reduced agitation all reduce contrast.

You can adjust each variable individually or adjust them all, one at a time is easier to learn things from.

Here's an artical for a start on adjusting a curve. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I have recently purchased some delta 3200 expired in 2008, now ive heard 5 years is ancient for high speed films, and to make matters worse this film was not cold stored.

And yet you still bought it?!

 

[polyglot]

I will disagree a bit Polyglot about shooting D3200 @ 400 making the negative low contrast.

First, shooting at 400 or 3200 is just a placement choice, contrast is controlled by the development time and temp.

This is true but not the whole story: if you shoot a contrasty scene at 400 and develop normally (for 3200), the highlights will be crimped by the shoulder of the film and you will only get good contrast in the shadows & midtones, maybe up to about Zone VI. The density that the brightest highlights should be at (to maintain a linear response) is past the film's D-max. The end result is that the print looks duller because of the reduced highlight contrast; it will lack sparkle and is a similar look to using a compensating developer.

In order to prevent the highlight destruction, one typically reduces development when over-exposing in order to ensure that you don't get much of your image up on the film's shoulder and therefore mushed. The global reduction in contrast (which can be rectified by printing a grade or two harder) is preferable (for most people) to keeping full shadow/midtone contrast and losing most of the highlight contrast through what is effectively an overdevelopment for that EI.

Of course if you shoot a scene of little dynamic range (4 stops), there will be no problem with the extra development. But such a narrow scene doesn't need the extra exposure either...

Anyway, I stand by my original suggestion of shooting at 800-1200 and developing for 1600. D3200 looks foggier than it really is, if that makes sense. There's an image hiding in there somewhere!

 

[jensenhallstrom]

This is true but not the whole story: if you shoot a contrasty scene at 400 and develop normally (for 3200), the highlights will be crimped by the shoulder of the film and you will only get good contrast in the shadows & midtones, maybe up to about Zone VI. The density that the brightest highlights should be at (to maintain a linear response) is past the film's D-max. The end result is that the print looks duller because of the reduced highlight contrast; it will lack sparkle and is a similar look to using a compensating developer.

In order to prevent the highlight destruction, one typically reduces development when over-exposing in order to ensure that you don't get much of your image up on the film's shoulder and therefore mushed. The global reduction in contrast (which can be rectified by printing a grade or two harder) is preferable (for most people) to keeping full shadow/midtone contrast and losing most of the highlight contrast through what is effectively an overdevelopment for that EI.

Of course if you shoot a scene of little dynamic range (4 stops), there will be no problem with the extra development. But such a narrow scene doesn't need the extra exposure either...

Anyway, I stand by my original suggestion of shooting at 800-1200 and developing for 1600. D3200 looks foggier than it really is, if that makes sense. There's an image hiding in there somewhere!

I thank you for your effort in response but may i ask if you could help me understand what you are saying by telling me what the shoulder of the film is, d-max and well quite frankly even then i would still be confused.

 

[jensenhallstrom]

And yet you still bought it?!

I like saving money.. It was only 3 dollars a roll.

 

[polyglot]

I thank you for your effort in response but may i ask if you could help me understand what you are saying by telling me what the shoulder of the film is, d-max and well quite frankly even then i would still be confused.

You're going to have to get a book because there's way more that needs to be explained than I could possibly do justice to in a forum post. If you want to read about the technical side of photography, I strongly recommend getting Way Beyond Monochrome and reading through it, or at least using it as a reference.

Don't worry about it for now though. Get a stash of relatively fresh film and shoot it normally (box speed, normal development, etc) until you've done a couple tens of rolls. All this sensitometry crap, pushing, pulling, etc can wait. It's just a confusion at this point.