TMax 3200, Delta, or Tri-X?

[DBP]

I'm going to be shooting gymnastics in low light Saturday and will need to carefully balance speed and grain. I suspect that I will be far enough away from the action to need to enlarge the resulting negative 8x to 10x. (I'm planning on using the fastest lenses I have - a 50/1.4, 85/2 or 200/2.8 depending on how close I can get and how much I think I can trade enlargement for shutter speed). So what are thoughts about the best way to minimize grain while maximizing EI? I expect the lighting will be pretty flat.

Normally I use Tri-X in Diafine when shooting at 1600, but I am concerned that grain will be too strong for that much enlargement. So I am also considering TMAX 3200, Delta 3200, or even the new TMAX 400. I normally use HC-110, Diafine, or Rodinal, but might pick up some TMAX.

BTW does anyone know if there are plans to update TMAX 3200 the way they did the others?

 

[waileong]

I think you should shoot at 400 or slower and shoot at 1/15 or 1/30. Movement in the shot conveys the energy and power of gymnastics much better than pics of gymnasts frozen in strange positions in mid-air.

 

[JMC1969]

If you are looking to stop action, I read recently of someone doing a test with Ilford delta 3200 and actually shot it at 25,000 with nothing but a computer lighting the scene, i wouldn't suggest it for this but it did produce pretty nice images. This tells me it may be a good thing for low light stop action. Then again, take one of each and you tell us. I would appreciate it.

 

[Harry Lime]

If you're worried about grain, then Tmax P3200 is not the way to go. It's a beautiful film, but produces a rather gritty look. Pushed Tri-X will be finer grained, but the shadows get dense at 1600. Same for Neopan 1600. Relatively fine grain, but lots of contrast.

I would go for Delta3200@1600 in DD-X. Good grain and excellent shadow detail. It's by far the best highspeed combo out there.

 

[Tim Gray]

In my mind, Tri-X will have less grain than TMZ or Delta 3200. The images will probably look better too in terms of exposure. Of course you know how Tri-X in Diafine works at 1600, so if you find the exposure and the resulting negatives satisfactory with this combo, why don't you go with that?

Though, it wouldn't hurt to take a couple rolls of TMZ and shoot at 1600 and dev in XTOL. You can get very nice looking 8x10s with that...

 

[MikeSeb]

Delta 3200 @ 1600 in Xtol; or Tri-X in Diafine @1250-1600.

 

[schlger]

Hello,
I am also looking for a high speed combination. Till now, I have used T-Max 400-2 in PMK with max. 640 ASA. At this speed, zone III is absolutely black, grain is good and sharpness is very good. I like the tonality of midtones and light tones much better with PMK than with any conventional non staining developer I have ever used (HC-110, D-76, HRX-2, ACU-1, Xtol). TMY-2 at its native speed of about 320 ASA in PMK is unbeatable in my opinion.
For a job 2 years ago, I compared TMZ 3200 in Xtol and ACU-1 at 1000 ASA. In my eyes, Xtol was not sharp enough. ACu-1 was very sharp with typical artefacts of Eberhard - effect at high contrasty borders. The loock was a bit harsh and the midtones lacked internal contrast for my taste but quality was acceptable.
Now I made a new atempt to develop TMZ 3200 in PMK. I tried 20 min 72°F and 13,5 min 80°F in a Jobo Autolab 25 rpm. with a nitrogen filled tank, for a moderate push to 1600 ASA. The base fog/stain was very high in both cases and the stain was even higher at the borders between the sprocket holes.
Now my question:
Do you have experience with TMZ or Delta 3200 in PMK or another developer with the unique benefits of staining developers. Has anyone tried Max Pyro with those films?

Thanks a lot
Gerhard

 

[arealitystudios]

I would go for Delta3200@1600 in DD-X. Good grain and excellent shadow detail. It's by far the best highspeed combo out there.

I would totally agree with this. I'm constantly amazed at how smooth high speed films look in DD-X.