Using Ilford 3200 with XTOL

[tkamiya]

I am looking for a suggestion from someone who has done this personally.

I've done a test shot with Ilford 3200 film in 35mm. EI was 3200 and I let the camera meter the scene. Lighting conditions were awful but then again, that's was the purpose of my using this film. Developing it with D-76 using spec time and tempearture per ILFORD literature has resulted in very thin and low contrast negative.

I'm aware, ILFORD recommends DD-X and according to ILFORD, it gives extra speed and rich dense black. I'm not wanting to add, yet another developer. I know XTOL is also known as giving extra speed and giving nice rich black.

Has anyone used ILFORD 3200 with XTOL before? How did it come out? Did you do 1:1 or streight? Anything you'd like to share? Once again, I am looking for suggestions and opinions from folks who has done this personally. Thank you.

 

[Marc Leest]

I used this combo (Delta3200, 35mm, and XTOL 1:1 with great succes. Crispy and sharp negatives. Recommended. Shadows seemed to block-up a little-bit so i would recommend a starting IE @1600

greetz, Marc

 

[tkamiya]

Marc,

Thank you! What development time (relative to what the ILFORD documentation says) compensation did you use? Did you shoot with EI=1600 or 3200??? My result was super grainy but with so many problems with development and exposure, I'm not sure if this is a typical result or not...

 

[michaelbsc]

Cannot say about X-tol, but the published time for DD-X are wrong and give exactly the results you have.

I expose at EI 3200 and develop for the time published as 6400.

 

[frotog]

Xtol and DDX are both good choices for maximum film speed with delta 3200. Many photographers who use this film are hoping to get film speeds above 1000 asa, the film's nominal speed. In my experience with this film, testing numerous developers, rating above 1000 asa and extending developing time does not bring up the shadows proportionate to the highlights resulting in an overly grainy, high-contrast, difficult to print negative with blown out highlights. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that most low light scenes have a tremendous subject brightness range. For these reasons I prefer delta 3200 in a two bath compensating developer or in a stand development both of which will give you all the shadow density that your exposure will yield. BTW...choice of developer has no bearing on how "rich" the blacks in the print appear (excepting excessive developer fog and/or staining).

 

[Laurent]

Xtol and DDX are both good choices for maximum film speed with delta 3200. Many photographers who use this film are hoping to get film speeds above 1000 asa, the film's nominal speed. In my experience with this film, testing numerous developers, rating above 1000 asa and extending developing time does not bring up the shadows proportionate to the highlights resulting in an overly grainy, high-contrast, difficult to print negative with blown out highlights. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that most low light scenes have a tremendous subject brightness range. For these reasons I prefer delta 3200 in a two bath compensating developer or in a stand development both of which will give you all the shadow density that your exposure will yield. BTW...choice of developer has no bearing on how "rich" the blacks in the print appear (excepting excessive developer fog and/or staining).

This is exactly the iformation I was looking for tonight !

I had to shoot at 3200 due to the lighting conditions, and the films I developed yesterday (XTol stock, 10 minutes at 20°) seem to be lacking density.

I prepared some Emofin today so that I can give this a try tomorrow. Would you ave some starting point to share in this developer ?

 

[frotog]

Hi, Laurent,

Not sure on emofin as it's no longer available here in the states. Never tried it with the delta 3200. However, I've developed this film in two part developers like diafine and cachet ab55 (sorely miss this deleted developer - my favorite with 3200) and it responds extremely well. Again, delta 3200 looks best rated at 800 - 1000 asa. If you underexpose this film the shadow detail is lost. If I were you I'd go with the strongest dilution, longest time and highest processing temp. that emofin allows. As of late I've been souping my delta 3200 in rodinal 1:100, one gentle inversion and then stand for one hour - beautiful tonal gradation from top to bottom, high acutance and open shadows that are eminently printable.

 

[michaelbsc]

As of late I've been souping my delta 3200 in rodinal 1:100, one gentle inversion and then stand for one hour - beautiful tonal gradation from top to bottom, high acutance and open shadows that are eminently printable.

What EI do you meter for exposure for this?

 

[frotog]

I always rate this film at 800-1000 asa no matter what developer I choose.

 

[Allen Friday]

I have shot a lot of this film and developed it in D-76. I rate the film at 1600 and then develop it for the time and dilution recommended for the film shot at 3200. I'm at the office and my notes are at home, so I don't have the exact times, but it is somewhere around 12 minutes at 1+0.

 

[Laurent]

OK. I decided to bite the bullet, and processed two rolls in Emofin at 20° for 10 minutes. The negs are still naging (I finished developing 10 minutes ago) but seem nice.

I might give a try at the continuous agitation use of Emofin, to boost the contrast a bit though. I NEED to proof print before next Monday, so that when the workshop opens again, I can decide if I stay on 3200 ISO or get back to 1600.