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

[YoIaMoNwater]

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.

Yea I think it would be a much nicer comparison if some night shots were tested.

That being said I'm surprised no one here has actually asked the guy about the negative themselves (how they were processed and scanned). He literally pinned this in the comment section: "Let me know your thoughts what film should I look at next?"

 

[warden]

That being said I'm surprised no one here has actually asked the guy ....

I nominate pentaxuser.

 

[film_man]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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

 

[pentaxuser]

I nominate pentaxuser.

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.

From the cameras he uses I now know that in the case of both films, D400 and D3200 they are 35mm and both were developed in Microphen according to Ilford times for D400 at 3200 and D3200 at 3200. While he does not say it on this video I can say that on another he says he takes pictures of his negatives via a digital camera and it is these he uses. He states he does not use Photoshop. He does not appear to be any kind of a skilled manipulator of scanning
Based on what I have seen there would seem little or no likelihood that he is in anyway a con artist with a hidden agenda. Frankly his videos a presentations lack professionalism

However and maybe because he is new to YouTube there appears no way I can send him an e-mail to ask him questions. Other than YouTube he does not seem to have a website. In some videos there are no comments at all and I wonder if he has failed to set up the comments section to receive replies on some of them. Either that or I do not understand how to do this on YouTube

I am however now listed as a subscriber although this hasn't helped.

So anyone any ideas how to do this? What am I doing wrong? I have hit a road block as things stand

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The 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.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Lachlan Young is DD-X a solvent dev? Ilford keeps recommending it for everything in their PDFs.

Solvent & speed increasing, I think they see it as Microphen meets Xtol (DD is the replenishable form). Solvency is actually a good thing with most modern (post mid-50s or so) films as they are designed to exploit it (via iodide placement in the emulsions) to enable higher sharpness and finer grain (which enhances the ability of the film to usefully resolve fine details with usable contrast).

 

[Bill Burk]

I haven’t figured out the ISO of Kodak’s high speed black and white film but I think it gets its usable speed from its weird curve, not from where its speed point falls.

 

[pentaxuser]

The 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.

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

 

[pentaxuser]

. 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.

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

In another video he mentioned taking digital shots of his negatives and then turning them into to positives. Quite how he does this was not clear but he makes no mention of scanning manipulation and frankly my impression of his skills in this department was that they are at best very primitive. Maybe whatever he uses to get a positive image from his digital pic of his negatives involves manipulation that the "whatever" uses and he has not realised that what it is doing. However the "whatever" he is using to get his positives is the same whatever for both films and even if this is not possible to replicate in a darkroom when turning a negative into a print then it would appear to indicate that D400 pushed to 3200 has less grain than D3200 at 3200

There may be a flaw in my logic here and if so I am happy for anyone to point this out

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

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

Because of the curve shape (with the steeper shadow gradient), 'overexposure' would be using it at the ISO speed, rather than the 'box' speed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[pentaxuser]

Because 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

 

[Lachlan Young]

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

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The proof is in the pudding, the resultant prints themselves, not in anyone's "industry standard" speed point pontification or Ilford's marketing propaganda. They're nearly always too optimistic about speed ratings anyway, over their whole film selection. The "intended" speed rating is what works best for your own intended results. That's all that really matters.

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

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.

I do wonder however how the likely same process from digital pics of his negs to positives on both cases resulted in bigger grain for D3200 rather than D400 It might be that what results from D400 pushed 3 stops is better grain but under conditions of more contrasty scenes also loses some shadows. So its a trade-off which in not what happens in lower SRB shots such as did seem to be the case in his scenes

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

Yes and no - at 0.62 G-Bar, Delta 3200 (in a solvent developer) is best described as being aimed at having something like a 0.7 shadow gradient and a 0.5 highlight gradient - so you get your 0.62 average gradient & ISO speed point lands at 1000 under test conditions with ID-11 - but the shadow gradient's steepness is such that you are supposed to underexpose relative to the official ISO speed.

Whereas TMZ is designed to be used at CI 0.7-0.75 range to hit the P3200 rating - ie a more traditional push-process approach.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I was not necessarily responding to you, Pentaxuser, but just providing overall impressions of these films based on what has most successfully worked for me personally. And I really don't want to get entangled is the ulterior variables of loose-end, low-end scanning experiments. It's not that I'm not sympathetic. I have a friend who wanted to shoot film rather than digital, but didn't have a darkroom yet in his new home, so used a changing bag to reel his film drums, went ahead and developed in drum in daylight, then scanned the film afterwards and tried to anticipate print results viewing on a screen. But it seldom comes out the same way when actually wet printing. He had good intentions, but three babies soon arrived, his anticipated darkroom space has gone to family use, and it might be decades before he even has the time to learn actual darkroom printing. People make it so darn complicated when they try to jump through all kinds of secondary hoops instead of just taking it one step at a time, hands-on in the darkroom. Learning exposure, development, and actual printing all need to be integrated together. Otherwise, it's just a big guess or juggling various conflicting opinions. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Your solution will not work for shooting wildlife with the f/8 500mm Hasselblad lens with the 2XE extender on a tripod. Some of us non-photo-journalists have a real need for film that can be used at ISO 3200 without also standing on ones head.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ha! I'm not a wildlife photographer, but sometimes do stumble onto nice wildlife shots. I have a P67 300EDIF which needs just as much support as my 8x10; in fact, I use the same tripod. But I also have a Nikon adapter for it. I've never found the need for high speed films for anything other than windy conditions etc where any kind of tripod would be unrealistic. Horses and so forth don't always stand still either; and I've used even Pan F for those kinds of shots. And yep, I've actually done a few wildlife shots with full 8X10 format, but more frequently with 4x5.

No need to stand on your head to understand the upside-down image on the groundglass - just relocate to the southern hemisphere and everything will be rightside-up. But exactly on the equator, the image will be sideways. I guess with the square Hassie format it makes no difference. The coriolis effect also differs in the sourthern hemisphere; you'd need to spool your film rolls in the Hassie backs the opposite direction.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you really want to see an exaggerated S-curve, look up old Kodak Recording Film, "detective film". Grainy as heck too.

 

[Bill Burk]

You mean TMZ? According to Kodak it is ISO 800 (or 1000 with TMax dev).

Look closely they do not put the acronym ISO near the number 800.

 

[awty]

That last shot is a Cindy Sherman Hollywood still, one of my favorites from you. The shadow is perfect.

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.
But the point being is the d3200 makes a nice negative to work with, compared to a underexposed over developed negative.
I can control grain in developing and some films look more grainy on the scanner than on the print.