Recommended developer for Kodak and Ilford 3200 speed 135 film

[herb]

Planning to shoot some night scenes inside restaurants and the like. I normally use Pyrocat Hd for developing, curious as to others' experience with these films. I also have Rodinal on hand, and som Xtol I have never mixed up.

 

[hpulley]

DD-X and HC-110 (dilution A 1+15) are what I generally use with my Ilford Delta 3200. I only shoot 135 and sub-35mm at the moment...

 

[ic-racer]

T-max developer will give the best shadow detail (speed) with the Kodak 3200, likely to do the same with Ilford.

 

[hpulley]

DD-X is similar to the TMAX developer I think people say though I haven't used TMAX developer so I could be wrong. Overall I find the grain, shadow detail and highlight detail are better with the DD-X, however it gives a very different negative to HC-110 so it depends what I want. For some shots I prefer the negative as developed in HC-110 if I want that look. The two developers couldn't be more different really, for slower films as well.

 

[Laurent]

Delta 3200 works fine in stock X-Tol, but I found the exposure to be very critical, whereas rating it at 1600 and developing in stock Xtol is much more forgiving. Depends on what you want in the shadows of course !

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have used T-Max developer on Kodak 3200 in the past and have gotten excellent results.

Jeff

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Ditto on the T-Max developer.

After that I would pick Xtol.

Rodinal suffers from poor shadow speed and poor shadow contrast (OTOH, it has lots of highlight contrast) and is a poor choice for this application here where shadow illumination will be lacking and there will be entirely too much contrast under the lights. The grain Rodinal gives to TMZ is unattractive to my eye.

 

[aldevo]

Planning to shoot some night scenes inside restaurants and the like. I normally use Pyrocat Hd for developing, curious as to others' experience with these films. I also have Rodinal on hand, and som Xtol I have never mixed up.

In general, if you have experience with any of these developers at the exposure index to which you are likely to expose the film - use it here. If these are important shots - do not experiment.

If you are not experienced with the film at the likely exposure index...

Xtol is probably the best choice among the developers that you currently have - assuming that the package is not old. While un-opened Xtol should, in theory, remain good for a while - it would be best to use a test roll to confirm that it is and then process your rolls as soon as you mix it up.

Looking past Xtol - Ilford DD-X has similar behavior and I find that Ilford's published development times for Delta 3200 film processed in DD-X are very good. DD-X is relatively easy to find. If the place sells Xtol - it probably sells DD-X.

Kodak Tmax developer gives good film speed but is not easy to use. Development times can be short and it is unusually temperature-sensitive. I would not use this developer unless you are going to process it in something like a JOBO machine. Some people probably get great results using it but I stopped using it because I found it difficult to be consistent. DD-X is almost as fast and is much easier for me to use consistently.

 

[hpulley]

Just souped a roll of Ilford Delta 3200 in DD-X this afternoon, 12:00 at 22.5C in tough indoor lighting at f/2 and f/1.8. Still wishing for more shadow detail by the look of the negatives, navy blue sweaters are tough.

 

[fschifano]

I use XTOL for these super speed films, and it does a good job. I've used TMax developer in the past and found that the performance isn't really all that good unless you're pushing the film to unusually high exposure indices over 3200. I did not need that,s o I saw no point in spending the extra $$$ for something that made very little difference. I've found that Kodak's recommended times for TMZ in XTOL tend to be a bit short. It works better if you develop for the next stop higher than what you've exposed the film.

 

[hpulley]

It seems that way for HC-110 and DD-X too. If you shoot at 3200 you develop for 6400, shoot 1600 dev for 3200. Means the film isn't really that fast though. Honestly I'm still trying to decide if it is worth it though it DOES let me get shots I couldn't get otherwise without flash and there are many times I just can't use flash indoors and 400 just won't cut it. I prefer Delta 3200 at 1600 to Delta 400 at 1600, the grain level is similar but the contrast, dynamic range and retained detail is better in the 3200.

 

[fschifano]

Well no, the film really isn't all that fast, and neither Kodak nor Ilford claim that it is. Real speed for both films comes in at around 800 to 1000, with the Ilford offering being the faster of the two. What both films offer is a low contrast medium that doesn't look too pushed when you do push it. That's all really.

 

[Tim Gray]

What both films offer is a low contrast medium that doesn't look too pushed when you do push it. That's all really.

In my experience, TMZ shot at 800 and developed in XTOL 1:1 for the published times gave very similar contrast compared to both Tri-X and TMY-2 shot at 400 and developed in XTOL 1:1 for the published times. This was with both wet printing (grade 2 on Ilford Multigrade) and scanning.

Not saying you are wrong. Just saying.

 

[hpulley]

Well no, the film really isn't all that fast, and neither Kodak nor Ilford claim that it is. Real speed for both films comes in at around 800 to 1000, with the Ilford offering being the faster of the two. What both films offer is a low contrast medium that doesn't look too pushed when you do push it. That's all really.

Yes I know they are EI speeds, not ISO speeds. However, the manufacturer's recommended developer times seem to yield thin negatives unless you overdevelop by at least one stop. Shadow detail is lost as if you are underexposing because of course you really are underexposing when you shoot at 1600-25600 EI. Since there is less underexposure than pushing a 400 film that high it does work a bit better but it is not magic, it is pushed box speed.