Pushed film or delta 3200

[marcello.brussard]

Thursday night I had the chance to go to a Jazz concert togheter with a friend of mine, we bot had our cameras. He had a nikon f3 with HP5@1600, I my contax 167 with Tri-x@1600 and delta 3200@3200.
The following night I have processed all the rolls in microphen stock and compared the results. HP5 has been developed following the times suggested by ilford. For delta 3200 I've used the ilford times plus one minute. For Tri-x, since it was the new one, I used a 20% shorter time than that suggested by digitaltruth for the old tri-x.

Here is what came out:
- delta 3200 large very nice grain, good overall tone rendition. The film is still a bit flat in contrast;
- tri-x grain smaller than delta but with a nice texture, good shadows but very high contrast ( a hell of burning and dodging while printing);
- HP5 good shadows and controlled lights, I was really impressed. Grain size similar to tri-x but with a mushy texture.

Delta 3200 provided the best overall result with an extra, usefull, stop. HP5 proved to be a very nice film to pull, the best bang for the buck of the lot (delta is really expensive in Italy). Microphen tri-x was the coupling that gave the worst results. Probably with a shorter time or used 1+1 instead of stock will give better results.


Ciao,

Marcello

 

[ThomHarrop]

Remember the old addage, "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights?"

When you push process film (in other words overdevelop it) you add density to the highlights. This is not proportional across the density range of the film so you will end up with contrast negs that propably still don't have much shadow detail.

If you shoot with a film that is rated for 3200 ISO, or a film like T-Max P3200 professional that was specifically made for over processing, you will get a better scaled negative.

Another thing that helps in these situations is using larger film. If grain reduction is your goal, 120 is always a good way to go. I use a Pentax 67 which is expensive but a Mamiya C330 or some other TLR can be had for less money and works great for shooting in clubs and crowds.

 

[Tom Duffy]

In 35mm, I think tri-x in Acufine developer (EI 1200) would be a better combination, in that you get an increase in shadow detail but the contrast of the negative is held down.
I prefer Delta 3200 in straight Xtol for 8 1/2 min at 68F, rated at EI 800. much better shadow detail, but also the grainiest. In 120 size I often use this as a general film to help keep higher shutter speeds and smaller f stops.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

.

If you shoot with a film that is rated for 3200 ISO, or a film like T-Max P3200 professional that was specifically made for over processing, you will get a better scaled negative.

Another thing that helps in these situations is using larger film. If grain reduction is your goal, 120 is always a good way to go. I use a Pentax 67 which is expensive but a Mamiya C330 or some other TLR can be had for less money and works great for shooting in clubs and crowds.

The thing is that D3200 isn’t really 3200 speed film. It’s real box speed is around 1000.

Also, in 120 format, usual best case scenario, you’re shooting at a f/2.8, while in 35mm, you can shoot at f/1.4, or maybe even f/1.2 or f/1. That 2 extra stops makes a huge difference in a nightclub.

The only exception is the f/2 80mm for the Contax 645, but you’re really only getting full transmission in the center with more like 2.8 transmission toward the edges of the image.

J

 

[Svenedin]

Ilfotech DD-X developer works very well with Delta 3200 (@ EI 3200 and higher) but it’s an expensive developer. Having said that, you used Microphen which is Ilford's recommended powder developer for Delta 3200.

 

[MattKing]

I hope the OP didn't wait 13.5 years for the last two responses .
I think these 10+ year old threads should show up as sepia toned when we see them on the list.

 

[Svenedin]

I hope the OP didn't wait 13.5 years for the last two responses .
I think these 10+ year old threads should show up as sepia toned when we see them on the list.

How strange! I didn’t even notice the thread was ancient

 

[MattKing]

How strange! I didn’t even notice the thread was ancient

I expect most of these "wake from the dead" threads are appearing because of the "similar threads" function that is now down at the bottom of the thread reading screens.

 

[Scott Micciche]

I prefer to push HP5+ to 3200 and develop in DD-X (20 mins @ 20C). I find the grain finer and the tonality is really nice. I can post up a recent sample if needed.

 

[David T T]

I think these 10+ year old threads should show up as sepia toned when we see them on the list.

Funniest thing I've seen on this site. Lol!

 

[David T T]

I prefer to push HP5+ to 3200 and develop in DD-X (20 mins @ 20C). I find the grain finer and the tonality is really nice. I can post up a recent sample if needed.

Please do!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I hope the OP didn't wait 13.5 years for the last two responses .
I think these 10+ year old threads should show up as sepia toned when we see them on the list.

Funniest thing I've seen on this site. Lol!

+1 Sean can you get the software to do that?

 

[bvy]

+1 Sean can you get the software to do that?

Funniest thing I've seen on this site. Lol!

I don't find it funny at all, but a very reasonable suggestion. I've suggested it before. Put any post more than a year old (or some interval of time old) in a slightly different color. It doesn't have to be fuchsia or lime green -- even just a darker shade of what's there now will trigger the eye to look at the date. What say you, @Sean ?

I was reading this too trying to think of some good advice for the OP not realizing he could have been shooting a Ray Charles concert.

 

[Scott Micciche]

Please do!

This is medium format, GF670 HP5+ @3200 20 minutes in DD-X 20C

 

[David T T]

I don't find it funny at all, but a very reasonable suggestion. I've suggested it before. Put any post more than a year old (or some interval of time old) in a slightly different color. It doesn't have to be fuchsia or lime green -- even just a darker shade of what's there now will trigger the eye to look at the date. What say you, @Sean ?

I was reading this too trying to think of some good advice for the OP not realizing he could have been shooting a Ray Charles concert.

"Sepia" toned is funny as hell, admit it. Or have all posts translated to Middle English! \m/ \m/

But yes, it would be practical no matter what.

 

[David T T]

This is medium format, GF670 HP5+ @3200 20 minutes in DD-X 20C

Wow, I'm impressed! Only ever shot it @1600, which I loved dearly in medium format.

 

[bvy]

"Sepia" toned is funny as hell, admit it. Or have all posts translated to Middle English! \m/ \m/

Touche. The sepia part.

 

[Scott Micciche]

Wow, I'm impressed! Only ever shot it @1600, which I loved dearly in medium format.

I forgot to mention, this is a raw scan inverted with colorperfect, then simple black/white point adjustments. I do not know how well it would print.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

And now to muddy the waters, Kodak has finally shipped their 3200

 

[Pioneer]

And now to muddy the waters, Kodak has finally shipped their 3200

It isn't muddy at all.

Choice is a great thing!

 

[pentaxuser]

It isn't muddy at all.

Choice is a great thing!

I think the muddying waters refers to the fact that instead of comparing and deciding the better out of push film X and D3200, we now have a choice of pushing film X v D3200 v P3200 so it now a question of deciding not the better of two choices but the best out of three

pentaxuser

 

[David T T]

I'm going to give this a bump, hoping some peeps can chime in with TMax 3200 comparisons.