I think tests like this are more revealing when the lighting conditions actually demand iso3200 rather than a bright snowy overcast day, but this was still a fun video.
That being said I'm surprised no one here has actually asked the guy ....
My experience with D3200 is that it is basically unusable in 135, the grain just obliterates any detail to mush and the low contrast makes everything bleh. I much prefer TMax 3200 at 2000 or so and Delta 400 and XP2 pushed a couple of stops do just fine. I do get cleaner grain with the pushed films than Delta 3200 just like in the video, the issue is the contrast can go through the roof depending on the light. Bear in mind I get the rolls developed and scanned in a lab (I think they do them in Ilford DDX), obviously YMMV with own development.
I agree and would do so if I knew how. I now know a little more. He is very new to Youtube and is clearly finding his way on it. It became clear from other videos that he has recently returned to film photography after about 20 years. He has not got a darkroom and has said that while he would like to do his own printing he does not have the facilities, However he does do his own developing and one of his videos is a demonstration of film processing. He even has a video on Xtol.I nominate pentaxuser.
@Lachlan Young is DD-X a solvent dev? Ilford keeps recommending it for everything in their PDFs.
So what is the ideal exposure speed in terms of EI for D3200? I'd have thought that most users tend to underexpose it in the sense that they expose it at true box speed which is said to be about 1000 or may be 1250/1500 in a speed increasing developer like Microphen. Isn't over exposing it using it at less than ISO 1000. Some may do this but very few I'd have thoughtThe thing that people royally screw up when using Delta 3200 in most fairly common solvent-ish developers (especially the speed increasing ones) is that they overexpose it. It isn't really meant to be used for overexposure & underdevelopment approaches. You are supposed to use the EI 3200 index at 0.62 G-bar - overexposure will rapidly drop the contrast in your image because of the specifically engineered behaviour of the highlight part of the characteristic curve (in more active, solvent developers) - and overexposure will also send granularity up significantly. Used properly, the visual granularity is around that of 60s Tri-X. Delta 3200's characteristic curve is intended to effectively crush shadow values, yet not send highlights racing off the scale. If you want more 'normal' behaviour you need to use something like Rodinal 1+25 (or another definitively non-solvent, but active, dev), while still paying attention to the EI that's optimal for the results you want.
Drew, if this is what you think I said in#32 I did not. What the presenter was not to farm our film development to a lab. He developed both films himself in Microphen at the times recommended by Ilford for D3200 at 3200 and D400 at 3200. But farming out film development to a lab leaves you with limited options, as does scanned output. Since this is a darkroom thread to begin with, it's fair to say that if you want something done right, do it yourself in your own darkroom. Talking about "scanning", especially questionably, using a digital camera, introduces a whole other set of variables.
So what is the ideal exposure speed in terms of EI for D3200? I'd have thought that most users tend to underexpose it in the sense that they expose it at true box speed which is said to be about 1000 or may be 1250/1500 in a speed increasing developer like Microphen. Isn't over exposing it using it at less than ISO 1000. Some may do this but very few I'd have thought
So with Rodinal 1+25 what is likely to be the optimal EI for D3200 for "normal behaviour?
Thanks
pentaxuser
So I think you are saying that they should use D3200 at less than its ISO of 1000? This seems to defeat the object of bothering with a fast filmBecause of the curve shape (with the steeper shadow gradient), 'overexposure' would be using it at the ISO speed, rather than the 'box' speed.
So I think you are saying that they should use D3200 at less than its ISO of 1000? This seems to defeat the object of bothering with a fast film
pentaxuser
Drew, is this a reply to my #41 or in fact not a reply to it as it covers matters that are nothing to do with that post? I am just not sure. As long as I have corrected what I thought was a misinterpretation of what I had said in an earlier post then that was all I was trying to do but it might be that my use of your quote in my #41 was unnecessary as well as none of your posts refer to my posts anyway and there was no need of me to correct what may not have been a reference to my even earlier post in which I wrongly thought he hadn't said how he had obtained his development so it might have been a lab. As I discovered by more assiduous checking he did in fact make matters on development very clear.The very high speed ratings of both TMZ and D3200 are basically wishful thinking marketing. Yes, these two films are engineered so that you can get "something" way down there in the shadows: but what's the quality of the tonal separation way down there? That's often the more important issue unless you're a journalism photographer. I already stated that I get excellent full tonal range exposing D3200 at 800 for sake of PMK pyro processing. I used the same speed for TMZ. The developer itself is not the issue. For example, I use actual box speed for both TMX100 and TMY400 using the same developer. But they have a longer straight line and steeper native toe which can make the most of what's down there. D3200 and TMZ seem to be designed to tolerate more underexposure and still achieve usable results, but at the expense of ideal reproduction quality when so used. Makes little difference to me. I shoot 6X9 far more often than 35mm, and TMZ is not even available in 120 roll film size. I greatly prefer TMY400 anyway; and in real world apples to apples results, it's only one stop slower than either TMZ or D3200.
I don't think this is as complicated as we are making it.
The ISO rating tells you the real speed, using the standard criteria. D3200 is ISO 1000. Kodak TMZ is 800-1000.
What is different about these emulsions in comparison with other films is that they are basically designed to build less highlight density/contrast when developed to the ISO gradient. In other words, when developed to the ISO standard, the total density range of the negative is less than "normal". These two films are designed this way so that you need to overdevelop (push) them in order to get a density range comparable with normally developed negatives from regular films.
When you overdevelop/push regular films to higher EIs than ISO, contrast and density typically build quickly and become problematic ("soot and chalk"). Conversely, TMZ and D3200 are designed to essentially require pushing (overdevelopment) in order to get a normal density range. Ilford and Kodak are more or less recommending pushing these films two stops to EI3200 without resulting in the excessive densities one would normally need to deal with when pushing.
My experience with D3200 is that it is basically unusable in 135, the grain just obliterates any detail to mush and the low contrast makes everything bleh. I much prefer TMax 3200 at 2000 or so and Delta 400 and XP2 pushed a couple of stops do just fine. I do get cleaner grain with the pushed films than Delta 3200 just like in the video, the issue is the contrast can go through the roof depending on the light. Bear in mind I get the rolls developed and scanned in a lab (I think they do them in Ilford DDX), obviously YMMV with own development.
It's just as easy to develop D3200 to a higher contrast level as any other popular film. It's not inherently low contrast. Yes, it will look grainy if tiny 35mm shots are enlarged very much. That's neither a pro nor a con, just a potential choice of look. But farming out film development to a lab leaves you with limited options, as does scanned output. Since this is a darkroom thread to begin with, it's fair to say that if you want something done right, do it yourself in your own darkroom. Talking about "scanning", especially questionably, using a digital camera, introduces a whole other set of variables.
The very high speed ratings of both TMZ and D3200 are basically wishful thinking marketing. Yes, these two films are engineered so that you can get "something" way down there in the shadows: but what's the quality of the tonal separation way down there? That's often the more important issue unless you're a journalism photographer. I already stated that I get excellent full tonal range exposing D3200 at 800 for sake of PMK pyro processing. I used the same speed for TMZ. The developer itself is not the issue. For example, I use actual box speed for both TMX100 and TMY400 using the same developer. But they have a longer straight line and steeper native toe which can make the most of what's down there. D3200 and TMZ seem to be designed to tolerate more underexposure and still achieve usable results, but at the expense of ideal reproduction quality when so used. Makes little difference to me. I shoot 6X9 far more often than 35mm, and TMZ is not even available in 120 roll film size. I greatly prefer TMY400 anyway; and in real world apples to apples results, it's only one stop slower than either TMZ or D3200.
Look closely they do not put the acronym ISO near the number 800.You mean TMZ? According to Kodak it is ISO 800 (or 1000 with TMax dev).
Thanks, but I had no idea of Cindy Sherman when I took the shot, was trying to show some strength and assertiveness and shooting from a low angle creates this, shadow was about finding as much to tie in as possible.That last shot is a Cindy Sherman Hollywood still, one of my favorites from you. The shadow is perfect.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?