Push processing Ilford Delta 400 to 3200 v Delta 3200 at 3200

Nige · Mar 11, 2021

Just checked my records as I remember shooting some HP5 @ 3200 due to turning up at an Kick boxing event with only 2 rolls of D3200 and my mate got me ringside. Comparing scans of the rolls, the D3200 definitely handled the conditions better. There were a couple of other times I tried shooting in light not really conducive to my equipment or abilities.

One can measure and bang on about shadow detail (or lack of it) and all that techy stuff, however I'd rather look at it in terms of "can I get a shot doing this where other I wouldn't otherwise" and I'd have to say back then I would have given it another go if needed. These days, well... I'd reach for the dSLR

I'll attach some examples (resized down from 2400ppi Epson V700 scans)

Karting

Nikon FM2n, D3200 @ 1600, DD-X (1:4) 8mins @ 20C(2nd image is 1:1 crop of image 1)

Kick Boxing

Nikon FE, HP5+ @ 3200, LC29 (1:9) 10mins @ 20.5C

Nikon FE, D3200 @ 3200, DD-X (1:4), 10mins @ 20C

Moomba Carnival

Yashica ME1, HP5+ @ ? (set camera to max aperture of f2.8 and hoped for the best) , LC29 (1:9) 11mins @ 20C

Duck Feet

Nikon FE, D3200 @ 1200, DD-X (1:9), 5mins @ 20C

film_man · Mar 12, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
To calibrate your statement, what are you using to develop D3200 ISO 3200 in 35mm?

See the last sentence in my post: "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."

film_man · Mar 12, 2021

Sirius Glass said:
One should expect grain on high speed film and the grain to cause problems for 35mm enlargements. Just one of many reasons some of us use the wonderful Hasselblad. You really should buy a Hasselblad system for yourself. Then you will not complain about mushy 35mm enlargements.

I did, 2x 501CMs and a 500ELX. But if your light is 1/60 at 60/3.5 with the hassy you can shoot the same scene at 1/30 with a 35/1.4 which is more than 3 stops of light, so the real comparison would be Delta 3200 on the Hassy vs Delta 400 on the Nikon. I'll take the 400.

pentaxuser · Mar 12, 2021

Lachlan Young said:
No, the point is that it's intended to be used at 3200, not 1000 or slower. Exposure at too low an EI will send your exposure too far up the scale because of the steep shadow gradient, then your highlights get shoved further on to the much softer upper scale, causing problems when you come to print. Delta 3200 is not really designed to deliver opened shadows when used with more solvent developers.

So are there losses i.e. drawbacks at lower speeds such as 1600 and if so, are there any counterbalancing benefits in so doing or is it the case that there are none and users should always use it at 3200? If so what is the best developer? Is this Rodinal as I note you mention Rodiinal at 1+25

Thanks

pentaxuser

warden · Mar 12, 2021

awty said:
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.

For sure, I didn't mean to imply that you had her in mind, it just reminded me of that series in a good way.

Nige said:
Just checked my records ....Duck Feet

More quality images here, thanks for sharing these. Duck Feet is great!

Paul Howell · Mar 12, 2021

pentaxuser said:
So are there losses i.e. drawbacks at lower speeds such as 1600 and if so, are there any counterbalancing benefits in so doing or is it the case that there are none and users should always use it at 3200? If so what is the best developer? Is this Rodinal as I note you mention Rodiinal at 1+25

Thanks

pentaxuser

My thinking is that DDX would be "best" developer at least would my choice for Delta 3200.

john_s · Mar 12, 2021

film_man said:
I did, 2x 501CMs and a 500ELX. But if your light is 1/60 at 60/3.5 with the hassy you can shoot the same scene at 1/30 with a 35/1.4 which is more than 3 stops of light, so the real comparison would be Delta 3200 on the Hassy vs Delta 400 on the Nikon. I'll take the 400.

I agree. I have done the same comparison with similar lenses, but not exactly the same, and have concluded that 35mm TMax400 does better for me than 120 Delta3200, given that I have a good f1.4 lens. Depth of field is obviously part of the equation.

I love medium format for everything else, just not very low light.

pentaxuser · Mar 12, 2021

"I know that Delta 400 is stellar even when underexposed by three stops in my experience"

No, not my words but that of a photographer called Simon King who was featured in one of IlfordPhoto's articles. So there would seem to be some admirers of pushing it 3 stops

Of course it all might depend on what Simon's definition is of "stellar" but allowing for the youthful(he's 26) use of the word which may be the equivalent of only "very good/ does a great job/ meets what I'd expect to be very acceptable" to we older generation it does tend to suggest that 3 stops under is at worst OK and it has a fan in someone who is a photojournalist and teaches "Street Photography " at the University of the Arts in London

pentaxuser

awty · Mar 12, 2021

Nige said:
J

Duck Feet

Nikon FE, D3200 @ 1200, DD-X (1:9), 5mins @ 20C
View attachment 269201

Very nice example of what d3200 can do. Works especially well in high contrast scenes.

cliveh · Mar 12, 2021

Why would anyone want to push or pull processing? What's wrong with box speed?

Tom Kershaw · Mar 12, 2021

I'm not sure a scanner is really the best way to work with Delta 3200. I could imagine using it in certain situations with my Mamiya 7ii but generally for my low light applications I rate TMY-2 @ 800 and hope for the best...

Bill Burk · Mar 12, 2021

michael_r said:
No, but in the tech pub in the section on exposure they say the nominal speed was determined "in a manner published in ISO standards". Must be pretty close.

Weasel words if I ever heard them.

warden · Mar 12, 2021

Tom Kershaw said:
I'm not sure a scanner is really the best way to work with Delta 3200.

I agree - most of my scans of it, especially 35mm, don't look good. But when printed in the darkroom the grain makes sense. It's less of an issue with MF.

Sirius Glass · Mar 12, 2021

cliveh said:
Why would anyone want to push or pull processing? What's wrong with box speed?

Absolutely nothing. If one wants more shadow detail use the Zone System metering technique. There no need for the Zonistas nonsensical mindless endless redundant unnecessary life long testing.

pentaxuser · Mar 12, 2021

jawarden said:
I agree - most of my scans of it, especially 35mm, don't look good. .

Well somehow the presenter of the video which started this whole discussion going somehow did manage to make a scan look good r so I thought in comparison with D3200. Yes it was only a marginal improvement but even to me who often fails to see differences in scanned negs that others see, I could clearly detect a difference. Would that translate as a better print be that inkjet or darkroom print I have no idea but if the scans he showed could be reproduced on paper be that inkjet or silver gelatin then the case would appear to have been made

None of Simon King's ( he of the Ilford article ) pictures were of his "stellar " D400 pushed 3 stops and I would have to check to see if his pics are straight scans of negs or scans of silver gelatin prints from his negs

Sadly we lack real hard evidence of Simon's stellar D400 under-exposed 3 stops and if a photographer wants to say that D400 3 stops under-exposed is stellar then is Ilford likely to suggest that he may want to modify his language if it feels that stellar might be a slight exaggeration

pentaxuser

warden · Mar 12, 2021

pentaxuser said:
Well somehow the presenter of the video which started this whole discussion going somehow did manage to make a scan look good r so I thought in comparison with D3200.

Yes, but I said my scans don't look good, not his. I scan 35mm negatives with a Nikon consumer grade scanner and it only goes so far. A DSLR "scan", drum scan, etc of a 35mm negative would be much better but I don't own that equipment. When I darkroom print the D3200 negative all is right with the world again.

I've found the finer grained films scan better, but I'm not so interested in scanning anyway.

Tom Kershaw · Mar 12, 2021

pentaxuser said:
Sadly we lack real hard evidence of Simon's stellar D400 under-exposed 3 stops and if a photographer wants to say that D400 3 stops under-exposed is stellar then is Ilford likely to suggest that he may want to modify his language if it feels that stellar might be a slight exaggeration

I suspect marketing hysteria may have taken hold...

Tom Kershaw · Mar 12, 2021

michael_r said:
Gerald Koch used to say testinistas. I always liked that.

I consider the zone system but I don't do all the testing. I'd actually like to go and use the camera and make prints for practical purposes once in a while. There is probably enough variation in metering technique to cover a stop of variation in exposure, not withstanding personal EI ratings.

Tim Gray · Mar 12, 2021

Never really shot Delta 3200, but I always felt the grain of TMZ looked worse scanned than wet printed. Grain aliasing? I also always felt that TMZ looked and printed pretty normally at 800-1000; none of this “low contrast curve” stuff that is sometimes mentioned.

Lachlan Young · Mar 12, 2021

Bill Burk said:
Weasel words if I ever heard them.

Or perhaps it's because the characteristic curve behaviour, when used as intended, doesn't necessarily comply with the film characteristics envisaged by the ISO standard?

Tim Gray said:
Never really shot Delta 3200, but I always felt the grain of TMZ looked worse scanned than wet printed. Grain aliasing? I also always felt that TMZ looked and printed pretty normally at 800-1000; none of this “low contrast curve” stuff that is sometimes mentioned.

TMZ is fairly normal in characteristic curve behaviour compared to Delta 3200 - TMZ was aimed at the pushed Tri-X market, Delta 3200 tries to take a somewhat different route to make printing potentially less tricky in the sort of situations you would be using that speed of film in.

Juan Valdenebro · Mar 12, 2021

Lachlan Young said:
TMZ is fairly normal in characteristic curve behaviour compared to Delta 3200 - TMZ was aimed at the pushed Tri-X market, Delta 3200 tries to take a somewhat different route to make printing potentially less tricky in the sort of situations you would be using that speed of film in.

Best description I've read. They're so different.

Tim Gray · Mar 12, 2021

Lachlan Young said:
TMZ is fairly normal in characteristic curve behaviour compared to Delta 3200 - TMZ was aimed at the pushed Tri-X market, Delta 3200 tries to take a somewhat different route to make printing potentially less tricky in the sort of situations you would be using that speed of film in.

Makes sense. It never matched my experience with TMZ when it got lumped in with that statement.

Lachlan Young · Mar 12, 2021

michael_r said:
The curve is certainly special - actually somewhat similar to what people think they are aiming for with "compensating" development.

Absolutely - and it also shows how much of a pickle some would get themselves into if their effective 'gamma infinity' approaches actually had real compensating behaviour.

pentaxuser said:
So are there losses i.e. drawbacks at lower speeds such as 1600 and if so, are there any counterbalancing benefits in so doing or is it the case that there are none and users should always use it at 3200? If so what is the best developer? Is this Rodinal as I note you mention Rodiinal at 1+25

Pretty much all the developers Ilford lists (at the recommended dilutions!) for Delta 3200 will do an excellent job - the problems come from the curve differences between solvent/ non solvent developers & people not wanting to understand that Delta 3200 is intended to crush down shadow values in reproducing low light (where there's not much in the shadows anyway), relatively high contrast situations in a manner that makes visual sense as to how you would perceive them - as opposed to the sort of people who seem to think that fully opened shadows are truly representative of contrasty night-time scenes...

I've used D3200 in Xtol, ID-11 - both at stock strength (I've also tried ID-11 1+1, I'd strongly hesitate to recommend it) and Rodinal 1+25 (again, Ilford recommend these dilutions for good reason). All are fine, if you understand & work with the characteristic curve/ effective EI (not the ISO speed point in this case!) they deliver, rather than trying to play silly zone system games with it. Used it in in 135 & 120 & it prints & scans fine - if you use a scanner that's up to the task of representing the visible granularity (ie, good MTF) reasonably well.

pentaxuser · Mar 13, 2021

Tom Kershaw said:
I suspect marketing hysteria may have taken hold...

Well whose market hysteria? Not Mr King presumably as he doesn't market products. It may be of course that Ilford knows D400 underexposed by 3 stops cannot be defined as stellar by any stretch of what the word usually means but made no attempt to ask him to qualify "stellar". Well it wouldn't would it if that is what he believes but he does say he has experience of its stellar performance at 3 stops under so unless there is reason to believe that he has not tried D400 at 3 stops under then all we can conclude is that a photographer who does have some pedigree did say this and based on his experience of what a good photograph the word "stellar" does indicate at worst that its performance in producing negs that can be printed in an acceptable fashion is OK for someone whom from his background should be able to recognise what most of us would regard as OK

Unfortunately he is not as far as I know a member here so we are not in a position to ask him to show us his "stellar" performance negs and prints from D400 under-exposed 3 stops

pentaxuser

RalphLambrecht · Mar 13, 2021

pentaxuser said:
Recent threads and often ones by our newcomers would suggest that high speed films are of interest and tonight I came across what I thought was a novel video on the above. I had always assumed that D400 especially would "run out of steam" quite markedly beyond 1600 max and that at 3200 only D3200 stood much of a chance of producing anything like decent shots

Well this video which is only about 3 weeks old produced some surprises for me and I suspect from his comments the photographer/presenter as well

I liked what appeared to be a grounded, almost downbeat style that seemed refreshingly honest without gimmicks and had
no hidden agenda.

Anyway enough of my reaction and here is the video for anyone interested

Thanks for sharing that. It was extremely interesting and also very surprising to me.
Thanks

pentaxuser

Push processing Ilford Delta 400 to 3200 v Delta 3200 at 3200

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency