Pull Delta 3200, push Delta 400... or use Neopan 1600?

[BigTed]

It's for a wedding - so indoors and probably a bit gloomy, no flash.

I'd have to downrate the 3200 anyway, because I don't have a camera that fast - probably Pentax ME (1600 max) and a vintage 35mm 3.5 lens.

It would just make a change from all those silver handbag digital compacts flashing away....

Any thoughts anyone?
Thanks!

 

[Gary Holliday]

I used Delta 3200 rated at 1000 and processed in DDX for a recent wedding..looked great. Have fun focusing at low light levels!

 

[Mike Crawford]

Downrated Delta 3200 should be ideal but I wouldn't try uprating Delta 400. I don't think Ilford recommend pushing the 400, (unlike HP5 and TriX), and think what the increased contrast will do if it is a white wedding dress?

 

[BigTed]

Thanks both (too right about the low light focussing - not a whole heap of margin there).
General concensus is down-rate 3200 rather than uprate say HP5?

 

[2F/2F]

Delta is a 1000-speed film, so you do not need to down rate it. If you set you meter at 1600, it will, in fact underexpose it by 2/3 stop. I would forget the meter entirely and use recommended exposures from a chart, unless of course you know what a reflected meter is telling you and how to adjust off of it to get the best exposure. In low, flat, indoor lighting, and going with whatever the reflected meter tells you, it will hurt you more than help you because everything will be placed at a lovely muddy grey tone or thereabouts in a low-contrast situation.

As to uprating HP5 or downrating Delta, it depends on what EI you will need to use and how much contrast you want on your neg. HP5 is easily usable up to EI 1600 or so, and more contrasty. At 1600, Delta will still be somewhat low in contrast. If you think you can get good exposures at EI 1600, I would decide based on the amount of contrast you want. If you want more, go with HP5, and if you want less, go with Delta.

 

[BigTed]

Thanks 2F/2F - so where would I find the chart?
Sorry, I've always been a ISO50/64/100, ambient, outdoors sort of person (why I don't use flash, I suppose)

 

[Michael W]

Delta 3200 rated at 1600 & processed in DDX gives good results.
Likewise Neopan 1600 shot at 1600 & processed in Diafine.
I would do either of them before pushing a 400 film 2 stops, unless you are going for that high contrast look.
I can't give a direct comparison of the Delta & Neopan as I shoot Neopan in 35mm & Delta in 120.

 

[23mjm]

I find that if you develop D3200 in DDX at the given time it turns out flat--underdeveloped. I have had beautiful negatives when I shoot at 1600 and develop for 3200. But shooting D3200 at 1600 is nothing, but good clean photography

 

[oldlugs]

I often shoot HP5+ at EI 1600, and I think it looks pretty good in D-76 and also Atomal:

@ 1600 in D-76
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldlugs/2662417826/

and in Atomal @ 1600
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldlugs/2339272229/

I wouldn't hesitate to push HP5+ to EI 1600. That said, I also like Neopan 1600... I really don't care for Delta 3200, but have only shot a couple of rolls. REALLY BIG grain.

 

[2F/2F]

Hi, Ted.

Exposure charts can be found in textbooks and are also published (or WERE published at some time in the past) by film manufacturers. The lighting situation are often listed as being so many stops more than BDE (except in a few cases, like bright snow or sand), which is Basic Daylight Exposure. BDE is AKA the exposure you use when applying the "crystal clear and sunny f/16 rule", which around these parts is usually the "somewhat less than crystal clear but close enough to fool most people who are used to it f/11 rule".

Kind of confusing. I would check a library for a textbook, or maybe look around on the Internet.

But if you know how to take what your reflected meter is telling you and adjust off of it to get the best exposure, instead of just going with what it tells you, I might just do that. Just remember that an in-camera reflected meter tells you the most accuracy-rendering exposure ONLY for a scene in which all the tones metered average out to middle grey. So, you might get a fine exposure in flat light, but it would, of course, look flat on the print as well.

From experience, in your situation, if I had to use the in-camera meter instead of an incident meter, I would be tempted to rate the film at 800 or 1000 just to get an accurate meter reading at first. Then I would probably get whatever exposures I could at a fixed fast enough shutter speed, whether the meter sez it's OK or not. Take note of how far off from your meter you are actually exposing, and develop it for extra time to increase the contrast the necessary amount to compensate.

As for particular developers that others like, forget it. All developers work fine, and there is not a huge make-it-or-break-it difference in results between them in my experience. Just use what you normally use, and go with what the box sez using distilled water, which is likely more similar to what Ilford uses to arrive at their recommendations than your tap water is.

Someone had the good shortcut of rating at 1600 and developing with the recommended time for 3200. That's a great shortcut for flat light. What this does is darkens your shadows about 2/3 of a stop, without moving the tones TOO far down the characteristic curve for the film, thus maintaining a nice placement of tones that will give you you lots of control with development. Then the development brings up the contrast and brightens most of the tones in the composition except the very lowest ones. Then you will probably end up with everything falling into a nice range on the neg. that will let you do whatever you want when you print the pix.

 

[Gary Holliday]

There's nothing gloomy or flat when photographing a wedding. Assuming it's a church you'll have plenty of light flooding through the stained glass windows...arched doorways provide great ambient lighting.

 

[kraker]

Of the options given, the only one I have tried is pulling Delta 3200 to 1600 (mind you, not for a wedding, just for some other low-light situations). I've developed it in Ilfotec HC, using -as suggested in other threads here- the dev. time for 3200 ISO. One sample here, scanned from MF negative.

Neopan 1600 may or may not be a good alternative. (Neopan 1600? So you're shooting 35mm? Hm, my Delta "1600" experience is in MF only...)

As others said, pushing Delta 400 is not the way to go. If you feel you need to push, use HP5+, not Delta 400. Better yet, don't push, pull!

 

[2F/2F]

Of the options given, the only one I have tried is pulling Delta 3200 to 1600 (mind you, not for a wedding, just for some other low-light situations). I've developed it in Ilfotec HC, using -as suggested in other threads here- the dev. time for 3200 ISO. One sample here, scanned from MF negative.

Neopan 1600 may or may not be a good alternative. (Neopan 1600? So you're shooting 35mm? Hm, my Delta "1600" experience is in MF only...)

As others said, pushing Delta 400 is not the way to go. If you feel you need to push, use HP5+, not Delta 400. Better yet, don't push, pull!

I would read the data sheet for the film to get a better handle on what you are doing, because it is not "pulling" in any sense of the word. Delta is a 1000-speed film. Look carefully and you will see that nowhere on the box does it say "ISO 3200". The "3200" is just part of the product name. Rating a 1000-speed film at EI 1600 underexposes it by 2/3 stop, which is not something you would do if pulling. Developing it at the recommended time for 3200 pushes the highlights, which is definitely not something you would do when pulling. What you are doing is pushing, through and through.

"There's nothing gloomy or flat when photographing a wedding. Assuming it's a church you'll have plenty of light flooding through the stained glass windows...arched doorways provide great ambient lighting."

That might be the case if things are on your side, but it just as likely might not be! You never know until you see the location. I would say that weddings are more flat than contrasty in my experience, at least when shooting indoors with available light.

 

[BigTed]

I think the answer has to be 'try both' (ignoring the Neopan)
That should give me the option of 400-1600 depending on the weather/conditions
I'll take another body, and 1.7 lens as well, and the Sekonic (and a trailer to carry it all in )

Having read, and appreciated all this, I know if it all goes wrong it was OE (Operator Error) not the concept
Thanks very much folks!

 

[kraker]

I would read the data sheet for the film to get a better handle on what you are doing, because it is not "pulling" in any sense of the word. Delta is a 1000-speed film. Look carefully and you will see that nowhere on the box does it say "ISO 3200". The "3200" is just part of the product name. Rating a 1000-speed film at EI 1600 underexposes it by 2/3 stop, which is not something you would do if pulling. Developing it at the recommended time for 3200 pushes the highlights, which is definitely not something you would do when pulling. What you are doing is pushing, through and through.

Yes, I know. It's pushing 1000 to 1600 and push development as well.

I was just trying to keep the same "nomenclature" as in the subject of the OP...

(Jeez...)

Still, the point I was trying to bring across is that IMHO Delta 3200 would be a better choice than Delta 400 (or HP5+, for that matter). It's pushing in all cases, but it's less pushing for the Delta 3200.

I don't know about the Neopan 1600, though. According to the data sheet, that's an EI 1600 film; it's just that I've never used it, so I can't comment on it.

To the OP: if you still have some time to go before the wedding shoot, just try one or two rolls of each in a similar setting. Better to find out what suits you best in advance.

 

[Steve Smith]

I wouldn't try uprating Delta 400. I don't think Ilford recommend pushing the 400.

I have done this and I was quite surprised at how well it turned out. I can't remember if I went to 800 or 1600 at the moment.

Interestingly, the data that comes with Ilford's DD-X developer starts with a minimum speed of 500.


EDIT: Just looked at the notes on one of my gallery pictures and it would appear I used Delta 400 at EI1600.



Steve.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Bring fast glass and all of those films should work for you.

Ilford Delta 3200 can be used at 1600 very nicely. So can Neopan 1600. I've tried both. I shot at a wedding last weekend, I used medium format Delta 3200 in a Mamiya 645 with a 150mm f/4 lens. I wish I had had one more stop, like an f/2.8 or an f/2. But I got reasonable shutter speeds, like 1/125th second or thereabouts. I used the film at EI 3200, and processed it according to Ilford's recommendations for EI 6400. Worked great. The film is drying as we speak. I used HC-110 by the way, but I normally process it in Ilfotec DD-X. I'll post a scan when I get home this evening.

Note about lighting: I went to the church prior to the wedding and used my meter in the locations I knew the participants would be situated. I made notes and remembered the shutter speeds I needed for the different locations within the church. Come prepared. Only problem I had was I didn't bring enough film.

- Thomas

It's for a wedding - so indoors and probably a bit gloomy, no flash.

I'd have to downrate the 3200 anyway, because I don't have a camera that fast - probably Pentax ME (1600 max) and a vintage 35mm 3.5 lens.

It would just make a change from all those silver handbag digital compacts flashing away....

Any thoughts anyone?
Thanks!

 

[denmark.yuzon]

have you guys tried pushing neopan 400 to 1600? i wanted to buy some neopan 1600, but, i cant find one yet.. so im pushing my 400 to 1600.. any sample pictures you might have?

 

[john_s]

Whatever film you decide to use, try to take a test roll in the church and develop it before the wedding. You can learn a lot from that one roll.

 

[Harry Lime]

>I don't know about the Neopan 1600, though. According to the data sheet, that's >an EI 1600 film; it's just that I've never used it, so I can't comment on it.

The true speed of Neopan is around 640asa. In my experience it has tight grain, but loses shadow detail quickly. I think Delta 3200 @ 1600 is the best vs Kodak P3200, Neopan1600 or pushed Tri-X.

 

[wogster]

Thanks 2F/2F - so where would I find the chart?
Sorry, I've always been a ISO50/64/100, ambient, outdoors sort of person (why I don't use flash, I suppose)

Check here

 

[Gary Holliday]

Bring fast glass and all of those films should work for you....................

Note about lighting: I went to the church prior to the wedding and used my meter in the locations I knew the participants would be situated. I made notes and remembered the shutter speeds I needed for the different locations within the church. Come prepared. Only problem I had was I didn't bring enough film.

- Thomas

Good point, I do this also and make a plan of the light readings and where I need to be. Don't always have time to look at my notes, but at least I feel prepared!

 

[df cardwell]

The first big mistake we can make is to look at the numbers on a film box and think that they describe the pictures we want to make. Neopan 1600 and Delta 3200 are both 'push films', low contrast films meant for maximum speed,
and speed isn't necessarily all that we want. We want a 'portrait curve' which lightly compresses the shadows, renders midtones naturally, and opens up the highlights without making them too dense to print. The problem with using D3200 or Neopan1600 is they tend to expand the shadows and midtones while compressing the highlights. So, we print on a higher contrast paper to make the faces look nice,and burn in the shadows. And compared to D400 @1600, they are grainy with low acutance/

If you use Delta 400, expose it at 1600, and develop it in DD-X
(using minimal agitation technique, which effectively 'pushes' the shadows whilst 'pulling' the shadows)
you end up with a fine grained image that naturally places the tones of a wedding where they are easier to print
than had you shot them on a low contrast film with a severe shoulder. The tone curve of the Delta 400 will be only slightly more contrasty than normal,and can easily be accommodated by using a half grade softer paper.

A good starting point for DD-X and Delta 400 @ 1600 would be 16' @ 20˚, and agitate the film
for ten seconds at the beginning, then at the 5th, 10th, and 15th minute. The result will be a nice, clean image, that is easy to print. The biggest reason that this works is the long, linear scale of D400 (and TMY2) that is easy to manipulate.

 

[CuS]

I agree - neopan 1600 in diafine

with flat lighting - expose at 1600 and develop diafine 3+3.

I do like the delta 3200, but I think im becoming a fuji man - well, as soon as my bulk rolls of apx100 and apx400 go the way of the dodo.

Delta 3200 rated at 1600 & processed in DDX gives good results.
Likewise Neopan 1600 shot at 1600 & processed in Diafine.
I would do either of them before pushing a 400 film 2 stops, unless you are going for that high contrast look.
I can't give a direct comparison of the Delta & Neopan as I shoot Neopan in 35mm & Delta in 120.

 

[Medusa83]

I love pushing delta 400 to 1600. It is the only film I like to push. It has a beautiful old grain look to it and very nice tonality. I develop it in DDX.