Would you rather...?

sbmphoto · Sep 5, 2012

Fishing for ideas out there...

Whilst waiting for my Mamiya 645 ProTL (120 film) to arrive and having the opportunity to test it out myself, here is my question to you. Would you rather :

A) Use Ilford HP5 and push it to 3200

or

B) Use Ilford Delta 3200

or

C) Other BW film (I am not equipped to develop C-41)

This will be for available light snapshots/portraits. Please feel free to express opinions, indicate processing and include sample pictures.

Thanks and happy shooting! :munch:

Ian Grant · Sep 5, 2012

Other, I used XP-1 then later XP-2 pushed to 3200 in C42 chemistry for many years

Ian

sbmphoto · Sep 5, 2012

Unfortunately, XP-2 and BW400CN films are out of the question as I am not equipped to self-develop C-41

Thanks for your reply though!!

Gerald C Koch · Sep 5, 2012

I am not a big fan of pushing film. Professional photographers use passive reflactors to place more light on the subject.

sbmphoto · Sep 5, 2012

Gerald C Koch said:
I am not a big fan of pushing film. Professional photographers use passive reflactors to place more light on the subject.

So I'll take your comment as a vote for the delta 3200. Thanks!

Ian Grant · Sep 5, 2012

sbmphoto said:
So I'll take your comment as a vote for the delta 3200. Thanks!

Actually Delta 3200 is a 1000 EI film designed for uprating, there's nothing new in this both Kodak and Fuji once made special high speed push process E6 films with a truer speed of 800 EI. The idea is that the films achieve optimal contrast and tonality when pushed in the development stage.

Ian

David Brown · Sep 5, 2012

I have had very good results with Delta 3200 in medium format. I meter and shoot at 1600, but process as if shot at 3200. Since it's really an ISO 800-1000 film, that's underexposed and then over-developed; which is what "pushing" is.

To me, this gives better results than HP5 (or Tri-X) since the push is not as much and you have the advantage of the T grains. I have had much experience with Tri-X pushed to ISO 1000 in Acufine, and find the Delta results to be superior.

As always, YMMV.

sbmphoto · Sep 5, 2012

Thanks for your input guys!

pgomena · Sep 5, 2012

+1

Peter Gomena

Roger Cole · Sep 6, 2012

Delta 3200. I use it regularly in 120 and love the results. I develop in T-Max developer (because it's what I have but I'm sure DD-X would do just as well) per Ilford's instructions for 6400. Very good film.

rippo · Sep 6, 2012

Gerald C Koch said:
I am not a big fan of pushing film. Professional photographers use passive reflactors to place more light on the subject.

As a professional photographer, I rarely have time for reflectors.

As for delta 3200'vs hp5 pushed, depends on what you like more. Do you want grain the size of Toledo, or do you want all the tonality of a chessboard? It's a trade off. For medium format mostly I'd go for the delta as the grain is acceptable and the shadow detail pleasing. If it were 35mm and the appropriate subject matter, I might push the hp5. I really don't like the look of 3200 film in 35mm except in limited circumstances.

removed account4 · Sep 6, 2012

sorry to suggest this
but why don't you try a roll
of each for similar subject matter
and see what YOU like the best ?
everyone has different shooting styles
and processing methods, so what works
for one person and looks "great ! " looks
like junk to the person who sits next to them.

me?
3200 speed film processed in coffee

Roger Cole · Sep 6, 2012

rippo said:
As a professional photographer, I rarely have time for reflectors.

As for delta 3200'vs hp5 pushed, depends on what you like more. Do you want grain the size of Toledo, or do you want all the tonality of a chessboard? It's a trade off. For medium format mostly I'd go for the delta as the grain is acceptable and the shadow detail pleasing. If it were 35mm and the appropriate subject matter, I might push the hp5. I really don't like the look of 3200 film in 35mm except in limited circumstances.

For 35mm I prefer TMZ to Delta 3200, at least slightly. At 3200 it makes very nice 5x7s and 8x10s can be good depending on subject matter. There's grain, but it can work well for some subjects. It's very sharp. Just as for Delta 3200, I develop in T-Max developer per Kodak recommendation for 6400 (or one stop more than whatever I expose it at.)

For 1000-1600 I prefer Tri-X in Diafine. Superb combo. 1600 is quite usable in dim/overcast daylight, but it seems to be slower under tungsten, maybe 1000. I only go to TMZ when I need more speed than that.

fastw · Sep 6, 2012

Why do you need 3200?

lxdude · Sep 6, 2012

Gerald C Koch said:
I am not a big fan of pushing film. Professional photographers use passive reflactors to place more light on the subject.

There's not always much to reflect!

sbmphoto · Sep 6, 2012

jnanian said:
sorry to suggest this
but why don't you try a roll
of each for similar subject matter
and see what YOU like the best ?

As I mentioned in my original post, have not yet received my 645 ProTL to do the trials myself. Obviously, when I do, I will be trying this myself. ;-)

rippo said:
you want grain the size of Toledo, or do you want all the tonality of a chessboard?

I love the comparison!

fastw said:
Why do you need 3200?

I'll be shooting mostly indoors, mostly in the evening. I'd like keep my shutter speeds up and travel light without tripods, triggers or speedlights.

Slixtiesix · Sep 6, 2012

I would chose Delta 3200 but wouldn´t expose it at ISO 3200.

Would you rather...?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency