Show me the best image quality you have got from Delta 3200

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,521
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
I don't often use Ilford Delta 3200, but I have just a few shots on this film developed in Tetenal's Emofin that I feel pretty satisfied with. It was dusk in a fairground and the lights created a huge contrast range. Because Emofin produced higher-than-box speed with all other films I used, I had set the full 3200 ISO box speed. However, I metered off the better-lit parts of the scene, so the shadows are fairly featureless, although there is more shadow detail in a print than the scanner could pick up. These 35mm negs make very acceptable 16"x12" prints.

I'd like to be able to do this again. However, since Emofin was discontinued I have failed to find any developer that gets the same speed and quality out of Delta 3200. So I'd be really interested to see what others have achieved with this film and other developers. Please quote the ISO and developer used.


 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,313
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
You could do a lot worse than Xtol/EcoPro/XT-3 -- phenidone-ascorbate developers in general will give full true speed (which for Delta 3200 is around EI 800-1000) and with a little trickery you can gain up to about a stop (use maximum dilution, 1+3 in this case, and develop 50% longer than standard for the dilution you use, with agitation only every 3rd minute). This ensures full development of the shadows, but allows local exhaustion to compensate highlights.

Beyond that is push, with increased contrast -- but Delta 3200 is designed to be pushed about two stops to get to box speed anyway, so the contrast with another 50% time will likely be very acceptable.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,995
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Donald, have you got the 1+3 time for D3200 and is this a time you have used. Kodak makes no mention now of using 1+3 and while Covington Innovations does, it doesn't cover D3200

Does EcoPro and XT-3 give 1+3 times

Thanks

pentaxuser
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,313
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
I've never shot either Delta 3200 or T-Max P3200, or used Xtol 1+3. The combination of dilution, extended time, and reduced agitation is one I worked out when I was using mainly Parodinal, which is normally a speed losing developer; I was able to get good shadow detail with Fomapan 400 even at box speed (commonly reported as more like an ISO 200 film) in Parodinal with this method at 1+49; development times ran close to 20 minutes, as I recall (so plenty of time for shadows to develop completely).

EcoPro and XT-3, however, both use exactly the same times/dilutions as Xtol. Have you looked at the Massive Dev Chart?
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,995
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Thanks, yes and I should have mentioned this in my reply. There is a 1+2 time there of 20 mins but at 24C.

It would look as if D3200 at 3200 in either of the 3 "Xtol" developers would have to be a "suck it and see" approach

Pentaxuser
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,182
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
The 1996 datasheet for X-Tol included the three different dilutions: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j108-1996_09.pdf
Be cautious about using the more dilute versions - you need to make sure you have enough the stock in the tank to be able to develop the film without developer exhaustion.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,313
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Wow, nice. Looks like Diafine is very viable for Delta 3200.
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,424
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Such a great film in 120. Mind you I have only ever tried 10-20 rolls in total so I can't really say I know it that well. I should try more this coming Winter.

Rolleicord Va TLR w/ Xenar lens - handheld
Ilford 3200 - can't remember the exposure details but must have been 800/1000EI via incident metering with my Sekonic set for zone III in the shadows
Adox Rodinal 1:25 - standard inversion+agitation pattern.

Flat 16bit/channel linear negative scan - gamma adjusted. No dodge/burn or any other local edits.

 
Last edited:
OP
OP

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,521
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
I should have stated which other developers I have already tried with Delta 3200: ID-11, XTOL, and Barry Thornton's 2-Bath developer. Of these, I found ID-11 the worst, giving negatives with nice tones but no acutance. Actually I have the same complaint about ID-11 with all the other film types I use. For FP4+, Delta 100 and HP5+ I have now settled with BT2B in lieu of Emofin. It's only for Delta 3200 that I am still feeling lost.

Thanks for the images posted so far. Please keep them coming. I like the smooth tones from Rodinal 1+100 (drmoss_ca) and am pleasantly surprised by Xtol (Andrew O'Neill) although its hard to know whether the lack of acutance is the developer. Anyway, drmoss_ca has inspired me to search Flickr for images tagged 'Delta 3200', and although that hasn't helped me much over developer choice, it has encouraged me to keep up the quest. For instance, see this amazing panorama by Ludwig Römer.
 
OP
OP

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,521
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
albireo, that is stunning! Another strike for Rodinal, then. I am already more than half persuaded about the beauty of 120 format, only besides the cost of a Rollei with a fast lens I'd need another enlarger, for which I don't have space...
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,995
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Thanks Matt for the original Kodak doc which otherwise seems to have completely disappeared and without your doc I'd have never known it existed. I note that the later doc which I have mentions a min of 100ml of stock for each film so a min of 400ml at 1+3 but the earlier 1996 doesn't seem to say anything about a minimum of stock. Can I take it that 100ml was still the minimum at 1+3?

OP, I always find it difficult to judge the quality of what a print might look like from a scan but if yours is a scan of the print and represents the equivalent of a 12x16 print then it looks very good. In 35mm my negs in both DDX and Xtol at 1600 can show quite bad grain at even 5x7 depending on the scene and the best I'd be tempted to try is 8x10

Is there a magic developer to replace what you found in Emofin? I hope so.

pentaxuser
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,182
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I believe that the recommendations relating to the higher dilutions were removed because of the problems with people using too little stock developer. The 100 ml recommendation is dilution independent. There are, of course, people who use rotary agitation and very small quantities of chemicals, so for them a 1 + 3 dilution can be fraught with problems. Even a full 300 ml tank is problematic with 1 + 3.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,995
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
MattKing said:
. Even a full 300 ml tank is problematic with 1 + 3.
Click to expand...
Thanks Matt and yes based on a 100ml min for a single 135 or 120, the bigger 120 tank holding in my case 450/ 485ml is needed.

No point in using less than 100ml stock and spoiling the ship for a ha'penny of tar

pentaxuser
 

gone

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
snusmumriken said:
only besides the cost of a Rollei with a fast lens I'd need another enlarger, for which I don't have space...
Click to expand...

You're in luck. There are no fast Rolleicord lenses (all are f3.5 or slower) and a Federal enlarger (most of which can print up to 6x9) will be well below $100, shipped. You'll just need to upgrade the lens, and the 75 Nikkors are budget priced. These enlargers are simple and sturdy, but a bit fiddly to use, as are all the lower priced enlargers. Some of their suitcase enlargers can even print 6x9, which is pretty amazing.

Federals came in a bewildering amount of model numbers and capabilities, so this chart below comes in handy. I favor the diffuser models for my older, less than pristine negatives. The glass negative carriers are always w/ the enlargers when you buy them, and make for sharp prints. If you need a pocket rangefinder, the Federals are usually $10 and work as well as the expensive ones.
http://www.jollinger.com/photo/enlargers/federal.html
 
Last edited:

Maris

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
1,576
Location
Noosa, Australia
Format
Multi Format

Cemetery, Queenstown


Gelatin-silver photograph on Ilford Classic VC FB photographic paper, image size 16.3cm X 21.5cm,
from a 68 format Ilford Delta 3200 negative exposed in a Fuji GSW680 camera.
I find Delta 3200 is remarkably forgiving of exposure as long as it is enough, and development is not critical as long as it is enough,
This example was exposed at EI = 1000 and developed in replenished Xtol.

 

Ulophot

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
125
Location
Southeastern U.S.
Format
Large Format
I can offer my photos of the ballet from years ago, posted on my Flickr page, https://www.flickr.com/photos/156933346@N07/albums/72157715477671252. The were all taken in studio or dress rehearsals, 35mm, shot at 1600, which was necessary for minimally avoiding motion blur. My developer was Microphen, used with gentle agitation to achieve a supple negative. I use a diffusion enlarger and sometimes used Gene Smith's trick of a piece of black paint-sprayed window screen under the lens for part of the exposure to take the edge off the grain. At some magnifications, the effect was of decreasing the grain size significantly. These are from digital photos made from the mounted 11x14 prints on Ilford WT Fiber.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,658
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
ID11 or D76 both at 1+1are not known for high acutance but give nice smooth tonality!
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,995
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Few of the examples given by others, nice as they are, come close to being a 16x12 print size which the OP mentions and it is this with a 35mm film that strikes me as being remarkable so I can understand why he seeks a successor equivalent to Emofin

pentaxuser
 

Jonno85uk

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
188
Location
England
Format
Multi Format
120 645, @3200. I used to do everything in Rodinal when I took this so probably Rodinal 1+50 or 1+100


More recently I experimented pulling to 1000.
35mm. It needed more development time (i later read to develop at x2 rating) as they came out a little flat but DDX 1+4.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,995
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm

Can you give more details on how the black paint-sprayed window screen was used under the lens and how this took the edge of grain?

I cannot quite work out what the black paint-sprayed window screen is used and what it looks like

Thanks

pentaxuser
 

Agulliver

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
3,576
Location
Luton, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
The woman performing with the guitar was shot on Delta 3200 in a Zeiss-Ikon 520/16, the Sheperds Bush in a Praktica BX20S with Prakticar 50mm pancake lens. So one 120 and one 135. Both developed in ID-11 stock for Ilford's recommended time for box speed.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…