Shooting Delta 3200

I'm about to try a few rolls of medium format Delta 3200.

I gather it's true speed is 1600.

I am doing some portrait work with it and would love to hear some opinions on it.

I plan to use xtol 1+1.

So, any thoughts?

I have shot a bit of it and personally find the speed to be around 1000. Also I have personally found that the grain from Ilford DDX is much less than the grain from XTOL stock. Shooting 6x6 negs and printing to 7x7 inches processed in DDX the grain is not really pronounced.
Dennis

Actually, I am looking for a bit of grain. Nothing too crazy but a nice, noticeable grain.

Rumour has it that a certain director of Ilford Photo/Harman Technology who is known to post here from time to time is very fond of this film .

This thread may help you as well: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Matt

I recently tried some in Xtol 1:1. I rated it at 1600 but didn't do any speed testing. Quite noticeable grain, even in 8x10" enlargements from 6x9cm negatives. I was shooting at night so the extra exposure given to some parts of the scenes might have increased the appearance of the grain. Have fun and let us know what you think.

Matthew,
What was your developing time?

I got this with 120 at 8x10 with ID11 at 1+1. Nothing obtrusive but clearly there. Might be worth a try. As it was a 6x6 neg I was surprised but I put it down to it being a 1950s Agfa Isolette I with the basic lens. It was D3200 exposed at 3200. Thinking about it again and if you'll pardon the expression I blew up the wife( there goes the life insurance money) on the print as she was a little small on the neg so in reality it was a little bigger enlargement than 8x10.

pentaxuser

The plan is to shoot this in my Hasselblad and print no bigger than 10"x10".

We shoot at 800 and develop in Beutler's to emphasize the grain. My wife shoots 6x6 with a zone plate which is very soft, and the sharp grain produces quite a wonderful structure for that soft image. Here's where to see it if you are interested.

http://www.pbase.com/janealynn/janealynn

I tested this film rather thoroughly some time back. 800 turned out to be the right speed, although using it at 1000 is ok. 1600 is definitely overly optimistic, and at 3200 I am confident that you will lose a great deal if you are interested in retaining shadow values, regardless of what you develop it in. I think these superspeed films have been designed to lose less than other films, not to give you more.

I use Delta 3200 quite a bit, primarily 645, and find it a nice flexible film. I shoot mainly using EI 400, though depending on circumstances up to EI 6400. Processed in DD-X for 30% longer time than recommended in the Ilford fact sheets. I find the grain it produces is very attractive, especially at the higher speed ratings.

Read the data sheet before you gather too much...

It is an ISO 1000 film with Ilford's methods of testing. Notice on the package that it is NOT labeled as "ISO 3200", but only uses EI 3200 as part of the proper name for the film. IMHO, they should change the name to Delta Super Speed or something similar to avoid all the confusion. There must be one post a week asking the same basic thing about this film.

So, it is ISO 1000, but Like all films, you can get usable results at a variety of ratings, with certain trade offs, of course. It follows the general rule of thumb for films: the higher the speed, the lower the contrast, the more grain, and the less sharpness and resolution you will get.

The great thing about this film is that it allows you to get lots of nice, neatly-patterned grain without giving you too much contrast.

If you want a more grungy, clumpy grain, I would overexpose HP5 by about two or three stops and give it development in a weak dilution of a harsh developer for an extended time, at a high temperature. When I shoot for gnarly grain, I rate HP5 at 50 or 100, and develop in highly diluted D-19 at 75F for about 12-15 minutes. I often have to bleach back the negs a bit to make printing easier.

My zone system EI for this film in my C33 with the 80mm lens is 640...but that is for my particular setup and developing methods. Very rarely will I shoot this film in a situation in which I will be using the zone system. I find that, in non-zone system use, it needs to be rated at at least 2000 to get a "normal" looking amount of contrast in a "normal contrast" lighting situation. I usually rate it at 4000 or 8000 in a low-contrast lighting situation. In the situations in which I *most often* shoot this film, I don't give one hoot about shadow detail. All I care about is from about zone V on up.

I would start by calling it 1000, and see if it has enough contrast for your situation. If not, rate it higher the next time you shoot it.

So does this sound about right?

Delta 3200 at 1600 in xtol 1+1 for 20 minutes at 68 degrees ?

I don't know exactly, but it sounds long to me. I would just start with what the box sez to do for 800, and then add a little bit to that. Look at the box. Look at the data sheet. The info on them is published for a reason.

david b said:

So does this sound about right?

Delta 3200 at 1600 in xtol 1+1 for 20 minutes at 68 degrees ?

Click to expand...

the massive development chart shows 15 minutes at 75 so I am not sure if you are in ballpark or not.

david b said:

Actually, I am looking for a bit of grain. Nothing too crazy but a nice, noticeable grain.

Click to expand...

I've never understood this concept of nice, noticeable grain.

Chazzy said:

I've never understood this concept of nice, noticeable grain.

Click to expand...

Come on! Let's keep religion out of it! If I believed in smiley's I'd put one here.

Larry

david b said:

So does this sound about right?

Delta 3200 at 1600 in xtol 1+1 for 20 minutes at 68 degrees ?

Click to expand...

Why not run a test? It's not that hard to do.

I've shot a lot of Delta 3200 rated at EI 1600 and my standard roll film developer is XTOL 1+1. I found the optimal small tank processing time using 5 second inversions every minute to be about 12 minutes at 68 degrees for a condenser enlarger. My experience is that all the T-grain films look terrible (sooty/grainy) if overdeveloped, so, I'd run some clip tests and work your way *up* from a short developing time.

David,

Do you have a basic understanding of the Zone system? If so, you can learn to completely test in a film/developer in an afternoon's time. Empirical tests are ok; people generally do it that way because they don't want to take the time to do it using controls. A controlled test is not that difficult. A bit more time out front saves vast amounts of time and money later, and you can work from confidence, rather than uncertainty. Besides, the results you find would be very useful for others in the group.

I believe that the 35mm and the 6cm emulsions are the same. You can get two full zone tests out of one 36 exp roll.

If you are interested, I can work up a method over the weekend. I've made one before; just only have the hardcopy and I know it can be improved. I'm going on a trip this weekend and my wife does the driving (my driving scares her even more than hers scares me!), so I'll have plenty of time.

I've used some Delta 3200 in roll film and processed with D76 for about 20 minutes to get 6400 ASA that is grainy but makes an interesting image. I've used the Kodak Tmax 3200 in 35mm with good results, but the Delta 3200 seems to have somewhat different qualities.