Ilford Delta 3200

[Uhner]

and they are?.....

Tonality, grain, contrast – the look of the resulting prints.

 

[srs5694]

I use Delta 3200 in 120 rated @ around 1600 - developed with Xtol, stock if you want to minimise grain, otherwise 1 : 1 works fine.

What times do you use? As noted in an earlier post of mine, the Massive Dev Chart has some suspicious entries for this combination.

 

[catem]

What times do you use? As noted in an earlier post of mine, the Massive Dev Chart has some suspicious entries for this combination.

Sorry, I missed that bit.

I process with stock Xtol for 7 and a half mins. (at 20 degC) which works for my negs. I don't often use 1 : 1 (in fact thinking about it, have only done so quite some time ago for 35mm, not for 120, but the time difference is similar). I think the times stated are about right - that's one reason why I tend to go for stock, as it's a long time to be processing when you use 1 : 1.

 

[srs5694]

Cate, thanks for the time information.

 

[2F/2F]

If you actually want to place shadows at certain tones, I would start by rating it at 800 or 1000, and learn to develop to get the highlights where you want them. It's a beautiful, low contrast film with a nice, neat grain pattern. You may want a neat grain pattern for some things, and you may want a more clumpy, random type of grain for other things. This is definitely more of the neat grain wash look than the grungy clumpy grainy look. It can be stunning, or very ugly depending on how much testing you put into it. It has a very neat look in medium format. It's also a great way to get grain without getting excessive contrast.

However, most don't use this film in the most controlled situations, and/or situations where shadow detail is all that important. Therefore, it is most often rerated on folks' light meters as opposed to being used with a personally established EI and tightly controlled for contrast with film testing and the like. In these cases, you should realize that whatever EIs you use that are above 1000 will really be based only on how far you can push the highlights, and not on an actual "shadow film speed". Your shadows start going down the tubes when you rate it over 1000. Not a bad thing, but something to be aware of. Delta 3200 is not unique in this, though. It's the same with uprating any film with the intent of pushing it in development. Delta holds the shadows better than most films, though. It's great because it is so low contrast to begin with, therefore holds both shadows and highlights very well, so it can be pushed quite far before it becomes hard to print.

Check development charts for starting times when rated at various speeds. Ilford charts tend to be very close to the way I process film. That is not always the case, though, so you should do your own tests.

I love this film. It has so many uses, some of which are obvious, and others which are not so.

Also of note is that the term "ISO" is not connected to the "3200" in the film's name. That's because Ilford says it is ISO 1000 if you read the data sheet. "Delta 3200" is simply a product name, not a statement of true film speed. I would prefer if they simply called it "Ilford Super Speed Delta" or something like that.

As far as your actual question:

If you want to use it at 3200, you can. All you are doing when you set your light meter's ASA is telling it how much to amplify whatever level of light it is reading. You are not actually changing anything about the film (obviously). So, it is really just a shortcut to underexposing the film, which you can do manually anyhow. If you can get it to 1600, and your camera also has a -1 setting, you are in business. If not, simply give half as much exposure as your meter indicates. This means one smaller aperture or one faster shutter speed. This will give the same exposure as rating it at 3200. Then develop for 3200, or course.

2F/2F

 

[aparat]

In my experience, Ilford DD-X for 9.5 min. (EI 3200) or 7.5 min. (EI 1600) at 20C. I have used this combination primarily for stage use. I try to expose at EI 1600, if possible, and develop for 7.5 min. to minimize excessive highlight contrast. In 120 size, this film is fantastic for its speed.
aparat

 

[carmenloofah]

Thanks to everyone for replies to my post. I have now developed 2 rollS of Delta 3200 at 6400 and I am disappointed with the results. I am looking for a far grainer result at 10x8 size.

 

[Mark Antony]

Well push it further, or if you want grain like sand try Tri-x at 3200 dev in Rodinal at 1:50 for 30 mins agitation once every 2 mins. If its still not enough 6400 or more and stand dev in Rodinal for an hour.
Grain will be defined ;-)
Mark

 

[carmenloofah]

I will try this thanks Mark. I am also going to try developing in Dektol, that's suppose d to give an almost charcoal drawing effect sort of grain.

 

[Mark Antony]

Dektol is a print dev, I'm sure you'll get loads of grain and probably quite high contrast if you dev Tri-x.
Depends on the effect, light, how much shadow detail you want (not much I'm guessing).
Experimentation.
Mark

 

[carmenloofah]

Does anyone know if Dektol and Tri-x can be used when lith printing?

 

[2F/2F]

Does anyone know if Dektol and Tri-x can be used when lith printing?

I don't really understand the question. What good would a film be if you couldn't print it?

If you want a lot of gnarly, clumpy, random grain, overexpose HP5 or TRI-X. If too thick, then bleach back the neg. I will make it thinner, but keep the grain. If you are not getting grain from Delta 3200 at 6400, then something is wrong. It has easily visible grain in 4x6s even if you downrate it. The grain is like a neat wash, though. Kind of like sand on a geologically old beach, while HP5 and TRI-X are kind of like the sand on a newer, more rocky beach like the natural beaches here in CA: Bigger, more jagged grains mixed with all sorts of other size grains.

D-19 or a Strong dilution of Dektol will give you more exaggerated grain, however they will also give you a ton of contrast.

 

[frotog]

Here's d3200 with stand development, rodinal 1:100, 73 degrees f., 1.5 hours. Film does not become any more or less grainy with changes in development. It's the film's acutance, or the grain's edge that changes. Sorry about the rotation problem.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

Here's d3200 with stand development, rodinal 1:100, 73 degrees f., 1.5 hours. Film does not become any more or less grainy with changes in development. It's the film's acutance, or the grain's edge that changes. Sorry about the rotation problem.

Hey, what EI did you use with such a long time, or is that just because you're using Rodinal, a developer whose properties I am not familiar with?

 

[Simon E]

Thanks to everyone for replies to my post. I have now developed 2 rollS of Delta 3200 at 6400 and I am disappointed with the results. I am looking for a far grainer result at 10x8 size.

Try Rodinal. Or try Tmax 3200 in Tmax dev or ID-11, that film is grainier again, though you might find you lose highlight detail more easily.

 

[carmenloofah]

thank you everyone, I am saving all your suggested experiments

 

[Harry Lime]

Has anyone developed Delta3200 in Diafine?
If so, how did it look and what speed did you rate it at? 1600?

thanks

HL

 

[frotog]

Diafine is nice, AB 55 is nicer. Either way 1000 asa (actually a little less than that), regardless of which dev., turns out to be 3200's nominal asa. The folks who enjoy pushing this film beyond that must not like shadow detail.

 

[strangepics]

I tried this film numerous times. The film suffers from terrible base fog off-the-shelf, while Neopan 1600 doesn't have this problem. It's only slightly slower, much cheaper and finer grained, and has very quick development time.

 

[2F/2F]

How old was your Delta, frotog? I have never had terrible fog off the shelf...only on years-old film.

 

[strangepics]

delta 3200 fog

Straight off-the-shelf, way before expiration date.

I even called freestyle and b&h to choose the film which has better expiration date.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Strangepics,

DELTA 3200 does not suffer base fog ' off the shelf ' none of our films do, as every single mill reel that is ever coated is checked ( along with 126 other parameters for film products, after finishing and before shipment ) for base fog, if it was too high it would have been destroyed.

Regardless, we will always check it out, thats our job, so please return the film to us, we hold control strips ( unexposed strips ) from every coating of every film coated in the last 6 years, we will check against your film base level fog.

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[dfoo]

I bought 2 rolls of delta 3200 a while ago that were both due to expire next month, and one roll showed high base fog and the other did not (the two sets of contact sheets were exposed on the same paper, for the same amount of time, and on one the contact sheet shows very "bright" film, and on the other the sprocket holes are basically invisible. They were both developed in tmax dev for the same amount of time.

 

[2F/2F]

What was the density of your FB+F, strangepics? I'll find out mine, you find out yours, Simon can tell us his and then we can all compare. Very curious about this, as I think you are wrong in your blanket statement of fact that "the film suffers from terrible base fog off-the-shelf", and I want proof if this is not the case. If it is, then, as Simon said, you can return the film and they will test it properly for problems. If you don't know what the density is, take it to a pro lab and ask them to read an unexposed section on one of their densitometers.

Our different methods of development will produce different FB+F densities, but not a "terrible" difference. I can tell you that I get 0.10 FB+F for the way I process FP4: Ilford HC 1:63 at 24C in Arrowhead brand distilled water, developed 9 minutes for normal, agitated 10 sec at the end of every 50 sec. (I also get a film speed of 200, probably due to a shutter that is slow.) One of my friends develops differently (Kodak HC-110 1:31 at 20C, 5 sec. agitation after every 25), and gets a different EI and a different FB+F (0.08) on the same densitometer. This means that our FB+F densities are 1/15 of a stop different from each other. If anyone can see 1/15 stop difference on a print, I will hang up my cameras for good. Will have to go to A and I and measure my first tests for Delta 1000.

Storage conditions would affect Neopan the same way they would affect Delta or T-Max. Also, it is mostly everyday radiation that fogs the film over time, not temperature.

 

[strangepics]

Dear Strangepics,

DELTA 3200 does not suffer base fog ' off the shelf ' none
:

Maybe not right out of the factory. But off the shelf. Doesn't this film need to be refrigerated, and well?? Who knows what the shippers and resellers do with it?