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

[snusmumriken]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[drmoss_ca]

120 film in Rodinal 1+100 for one hour semi-stand, shot at 3200:



35mm in Diafine, shot at 3200:

 

[MattKing]

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]

Wow, nice. Looks like Diafine is very viable for Delta 3200.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've only ever used this film in my Holga. It can give lovely results. Developed in Xtol stock.

 

[albireo]

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.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

 

[snusmumriken]

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]

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]

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?

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]

. Even a full 300 ml tank is problematic with 1 + 3.

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]

only besides the cost of a Rollei with a fast lens I'd need another enlarger, for which I don't have space...

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

 

[Maris]

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.

 

[awty]

Bergger ber49 is exposed to be similar to Emofin.

Recommended developers are ILFORD ILFOTEC DD-X, ILFORD MICROPHEN and ILFORD ID-11.

I use microphen 1:1 or d76 straight.

 

[Ulophot]

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]

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.

ID11 or D76 both at 1+1are not known for high acutance but give nice smooth tonality!

 

[pentaxuser]

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]

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]

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. 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.

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]

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.

 

[Agulliver]

Here is another that I like, taken in Las Vegas February 2015, Nikon F601M, Tamron 38-100 lens (rather soft lens)