Ilford Delta 3200 vrs. Kodak T-Max P3200

[Arthurwg]

I'm planning to shoot some fast B&W film with my very slow 28mm F6.3 Leica Hektor. Is one better than the other? Which has higher contrast and less grain? What ISO should I use? Normal development or Push/Pull?

 

[Paul Howell]

Of the two I like Tmax 3200 much better, if you sacrifice some shadow detail and develop in Tmax developer or DDX you can shoot at 3200. Most seem to shoot at 1200 or 1600, if 1600 is within the range you want to shoot you can shoot Tmax 400 with a 1 stop push, or at 800 without increase in development time. Delta 400, best speed I ever got was 800 with DDX. When I shoot Tmax 3200 I dont think about grain, it's all about speed.

 

[Hassasin]

All I will say they do not come out the same, they are different enough to display individuality.

I'd rather try one each and decide after that. You are asking personal opinions. If you go with one that gets most votes, won't you wonder what the other would have given you on same scenes?

 

[pentaxuser]

All I will say they do not come out the same, they are different enough to display individuality.

I'd rather try one each and decide after that. You are asking personal opinions. If you go with one that gets most votes, won't you wonder what the other would have given you on same scenes?

This sums it up rather well, I feel

pentaxuser

 

[Steven Lee]

I have much more experience with Delta 3200 than T-Max 3200, but recently have been shooting the latter. Both films have the same idea behind them: they are meant to be under-exposed and pushed. Their nominal ISO speed is around 1000, but they don't look good when exposed this way. TBH they don't look good pretty much ever. I see them as tools to get a salvageable image exposing at 3200 under EV 4-6. If you have a bit more light than that, underexposed HP5+ looks better than both of them.

Speed boosting PQ developers are often recommended for both. Interestingly, Xtol works far better for T-Max 3200 than Delta 3200.

 

[ooze]

If you anticipate scenes with bright highlights, like a concert at night or street lamps at night, then Delta3200. Delta has inherently low highlight contrast, which will help keep them under control.
For all else, Tmax3200.
If you want shadow detail rate both at around EI1000.

 

[abruzzi]

I prefer Delta, but thats because they don't make Tmax in 120. Delta in Xtol can look beautiful.

 

[Roger Cole]

Of the two I like Tmax 3200 much better, if you sacrifice some shadow detail and develop in Tmax developer or DDX you can shoot at 3200. Most seem to shoot at 1200 or 1600, if 1600 is within the range you want to shoot you can shoot Tmax 400 with a 1 stop push, or at 800 without increase in development time. Delta 400, best speed I ever got was 800 with DDX. When I shoot Tmax 3200 I dont think about grain, it's all about speed.

I've shot a fair bit of TMZ at 3200. Develop per instructions for 6400 and it's decent. That's been my rule since my first few rolls of the stuff when it came out. The instructions give too-short development. Use the recommendations for one stop faster than you actually shot it and it works well in T-Max developer.

 

[Roger Cole]

TMZ at 6400, developer in T-Max developer per recommendation for 12500 (or whatever, more than they said for 6400,) then printed on RA4 paper with filtration adjusted to look torch lit:

 

[snusmumriken]

I have no experience of T-Max 3200, but Delta 3200 is capable of very decent results. See the second photo in post #11 in this thread.

 

[otto.f]

If you want to reduce grain you can better stop with this plan altogether. There’s not a fundamental difference in grain per se between pushed Trix and TMZ. I use Kodak TMZ to create images where grain is an important aesthetic aspect of the image and I prefer it above Ilford because I can’t find where in the ISO/development range it is special. I use TMZ preferably in well lit situations, not necessarily for Jazz clubs, etc. because the grain is much nicer in normal light and high contrast scenes with bright sunlight.

 

[Radost]

I prefer Delta, but thats because they don't make Tmax in 120. Delta in Xtol can look beautiful.

The difference between TMAX and Delta in XTOL is night and day. TMAX has so much more resolution.

 

[abruzzi]

The difference between TMAX and Delta in XTOL is night and day. TMAX has so much more resolution.

perhaps, but I haven't shot 35mm in 3-4 years. Years ago a Kodak guy said they were working on TMZ for 120, but it never happened.

 

[Hassasin]

The difference between TMAX and Delta in XTOL is night and day. TMAX has so much more resolution.

Quick search for both films in actual use will show this would only be true, if what's day for one, it's a night for another, and vice versa.

Nobody should expect results from either film to be in the ball park of lower speed films.

 

[Agulliver]

Both have the same aim behind them.....films actually of ISO 1000 but designed to give the best images when pushed to 3200 or thereabouts. I've a lot more experience with D3200, shooting in night clubs, gigs and parties at 3200-12800. On scenes with bright highlights, eg concerts or stage productions with bright lighting, it's great. It has the advantage that it comes in 120 flavour too which means reduced grain.

TMZ I've used less simply because it's more expensive. It's better than D3200 in daylight where I've used it to gain the ability to do fast shutter speeds for action, shooting at 1600 or 3200. In gigs and parties, TMZ doesn't do as good to my eyes as D3200.

Horses for courses. Both are capable of delivering great results in different circumstances but either could be used and the scans/prints made to bring out the features the photographer wants.

 

[Radost]

Quick search for both films in actual use will show this would only be true, if what's day for one, it's a night for another, and vice versa.

Nobody should expect results from either film to be in the ball park of lower speed films.

Tmax3200 rated 800-1200 iso is a great film.

 

[Huss]

Ilford Delta 3200 rated at 800, Olympus XA2, Cinestill DF96 Monobath

 

[pentaxuser]

Ilford Delta 3200 rated at 800, Olympus XA2, Cinestill DF96 Monobath

Fine pics. Is the first one a picture of a headless man in a pale camouflage jacket reaching up to a tall tree?

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

Fine pics. Is the first one a picture of a headless man in a pale camouflage jacket reaching up to a tall tree?

pentaxuser

Maybe the hips in the air with the feet turning into branches and leaves. I will leave it at that.

 

[aparat]

@Huss These are very good! It's great to see the film used in this way.

For those of you interested in numerical analysis, here are summaries for the P3200 and Delta 3200. Overall, the Kodak film is faster, but its curves are rather lumpy and the B+F density pretty high. I did this test twice, using film from two separate orders to make sure I wasn't dealing with a faulty batch. Delta 3200 produces well-formed curves, but with less shadow detail. In XTOL, both film produce a little more speed, and the P3200 behaves a little more linearly, if you care about that sort of thing.

 

[Steven Lee]

@aparat Ilford is pretty clear about Delta 3200 not to be used with D76 1+1, they don't even offer that dilution as an option in the datasheet. They repeatedly state that DD-X or Microphen are required. I've tried Xtol with Delta 3200 and it was so much worse than DD-X or Microphen that my conclusion is that this film only works with some developers and not others.

I do not have any strong feelings towards Delta 3200, just can't shake off the feeling that your table above misrepresents the product. Labeling it ISO 640 must feel insulting to engineers who designed it. Simply upgrading the developer to full strength D76 brings the ISO up to 1000 (several folks have measured this, including Greg Davis whose results were just recently discussed here)

 

[Huss]

More Delta 3200 @ 800 w/ XA2 and DF96 Monobath