[dugrant153]

Hey folks,

Curious if anyone has any experience with Ilford Delta 3200 (or even Kodak P3200) film?
I tend to shot a lot indoors and usually use my digital for the really low low light stuff, but recently I've been mixing it up with Ilford Delta 3200 in my film camera and I love the results so far. I've been shooting camera at 1600 and telling my lab to develop at 1600 as well.

I'm considering shooting at 800, 1000 and 1250 as well as 1600 in hopes of reducing the grain a bit and getting more detail. Basically, I'm hoping I can use the Ilford as an 800-1600 ISO film and just develop at 1600 ISO. Has anyone had any experience with this?

Thanks!

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, I've had some pretty nice results with the Kodak P3200, shot at 2000 and developed for 3200 in T-max developer, (on someone else's recommendation, but it works nice: (Let any flash part of the exposure be for the rated speed, and know you can certainly get away with exposing at 3200, if you must. )

I'm pretty sure it works OK in D-76, as well, if memory serves. (Yeah, that's right. Works well, same drill. Maybe a bit grainier, but I don't mind grain as long as it's not ugly grain. ) I laid hands to several rolls of the stuff, and I'd used the 80's predecessor of it. I approve, anyway. Actually, I have a couple of more rolls of this to do, that I've been putting off, and that's what I plan to use. Unless anyone has another idea. I've got some HC-110 and Rodinal around, but I don't think those are known for high-speed work. And Diafine. I'm almost out of the P3200, so I've been doing the Arista version of Tri-X for that. Much cheaper if it works out.

I haven't tried the Ilford to compare, though.

[Clicker]

pulling 1 stop is okay but prints won't be ideal, you'll be overexposing, grain will seem to be reduced but now you will lose in the shadow details.
t-max with its tighter grain/structure should be better for pulling and pushing b&w negs.

[kristoffon]

This film is good to be used from ISO400 to 6400. You can get the info sheet from Ilford's website. HOWEVER the sensitivity you choose affects development time. So pick one sensitivity for the whole roll and then make sure you tell the person doing the development what you used.

[lithos]

Diafine!

[HGMonaro]

it's really a 1000-1200 ISO film, 3200 is a push development. read the Ilford fact sheet.

Exposure controls the shadow details, so you'll get more exposing at 800 than 1600. Development controls contrast... how are your prints? If your happy, then all's well. If they require a G4/5 filter everytime then more development would be a good idea. If they print on G0-1, then a bit less development might be worth trying.

[dugrant153]

Hmm... so if I understand this correctly, if I keep my development time constant (as in my lab just does regular developing), and I shoot at various ISOs, I'm going to be changing the shadow detail, highlight detail and the grain?

[stevebrot]

Hmm... so if I understand this correctly, if I keep my development time constant (as in my lab just does regular developing), and I shoot at various ISOs, I'm going to be changing the shadow detail, highlight detail and the grain?

By Jove! I think he's got it!

...sort of...

Over/under development affects:

• Grain
• Contrast, local and global
• Shadow and/or highlight definition

I would suggest that you ditch the concept of mixing ISOs on a single roll. All you are doing is over/under exposing and/or under/over developing depending on how you do your processing. Roll film ISO cannot be approached in the same way as ISO on a dSLR. You can't just change the film speed when it starts to get dim and expect good results from all frames in the roll. If you really need to mix ISOs, you have two ways to go in the film world:

• Medium format with interchangeable backs. You have several backs with different films to be shot at specific EI and designated for certain processing based on that EI.
• Large format with sheet film. Each sheet is shot at a particular EI and processed individually based on that EI.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the pro's do it.

-- OR --

You can simply find a combination of film/developer that works well for your style of shooting and stick with it.


Steve

[tuco]

Stand development in Rodinal would be your best bet, I think, mixing ASA in one roll. You're not going to get a huge range though and probably better results with medium format and scanning vs wet printing.

I'm currently testing and measuring densities of Acros shot at different ASA on a single roll with Rodinal in stand development.

[lbenac]

Stand development in Rodinal would be your best bet, I think, mixing ASA in one roll. You're not going to get a huge range though and probably better results with medium format and scanning vs wet printing.

I'm currently testing and measuring densities of Acros shot at different ASA on a single roll with Rodinal in stand development.

Please don't forget to post your results - I would be very interested to know about it.

Thanks.

Luc

[whojammyflip]

I was reading "perfect exposure" last night by Hicks and Schultz and it goes over this in great detail. I think understanding the origins of ISO ratings helps. ISO ratings are proportional to 1/exposure required to get an exposure to the first acceptable level of density on the negative, ie have enough energy to get satisfactorily up the toe of the film, ie register anything on the negative. By increasing your personal EI, you just effectively say you are happier with a lower exposure...you will lose shadow detail, but higher levels of exposure on the same pic, will be further out on the density curve and still trigger the silver going.

By changing development time, you are changing the contrast of the negative. So a highlight in a negative (dark part) which is made lighter by reducing exposure, gets compensated for by the extra development. The digital equivalent would be -2 exposure compensation at point of capture, and then +2 compensation in the RAW processing.

An easy way to understand this push process is to look at teh characteristic curves on a datasheet for film:
http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/professional/films/pdfs/neo1600.pdf

if you see the three curves for the first developer (SPD), they show how for increasing development time, you get increased density. So, for example, if you were taking a pic with -2.0 "log10" exposure, and then develop for 2.75 minutes (bottom curve) you get a density of 0.75. Now if you shoot the same scene at -2.5 "log10" exposure (this is like pushing 1.5 stops, as 10^-0.5 is roughly equivalent to 2^-1.5), you will achieve the same density of 0.75 by developing for 6.25 mins.

Now if you are not completely bored by this post...consider the 0.0 exposure point on the curve...the 2.75min development gives density of 1.75. To get that density for a -0.5 underexposure, you now only need a development time of less than 4.25 minutes...you will end up blowing the highlights with your necessary 6.25mins development for the shadows...this is the problem with the curves not being linear. (I dont know what TMAX P3200 looks like, maybe its better. Neopan was on offer for me at 3 quid a roll so I bought it, but I guess these curves mean I am going to end up with contrasty negatives.)

Looking at the -3.5 exposure point on the figure, increasing development time will not change the density for anything. This is why there are limits to how much you can underexpose. If you don't break the energy barrier to put something somewhere into the toe of the film response curve, nothing is going to help you. I've been experiencing this problem recently with TMAX 400, hence my interest in Neopan 1600 at the moment, although I think the ultimate solution is to just open up the lens aperture or use flash.

[dugrant153]

Wow. looks like I've got some more homework to do!

Appreciate all the advice. Definitely going to do some experimenting and see what happens.

[lbenac]

You can simply find a combination of film/developer that works well for your style of shooting and stick with it.Steve

I subscribe to that after you have spent a little bit of time playing around for the fun of it and as a learning curve.

I have now almost settled down on certain combination of shooting, film and developer and I am starting to learn using these.

Tripod with Hasselblad 500 CM, Pentax 645 or LX with L bracket
120 - Efke 25 @ 25 Rodinal 1+50 16'
120 - Efke 25 @ 50 Rodinal Stand
120 & 135 - Across @125 Rodinal Stand
135 - APX100 @100 Rodinal 1+50 12'

Walking around medium light condition - no tripod - with Canon P or LX
135 - APX 400 @400 Studional 1+30 16'
Awaiting the new Adox 400 = APX400 in 120 to replace TriX in 120 at that speed
120 - TriX @320 Rodinal 1+50
This gives very nice tonality and reasonable grain

Walking around in low light - no tripod - with Minolta Autocord, Canon P or LX
120 & 135 - TriX @1200 Diafine 3'+3'
Not really for outdoor landscape that might require subtle tonality but anything with line and angles comes out great (disclaimer I am just starting using Diafine)

Note that I usually reduce agitation which explains the longer development time compared to suggested times in some cases i.e. this is not over development
In summer slow film can obviously also be used hand held sometime.
I never mix ISO in a single roll, other than silly exposure mistakes along the way....

Cheers,

Luc

[GeneV]

I'm glad to see a thread on this, since I loaded up the 645 with the Ilford 3200 a few weeks ago, but haven't gone much further. This looks like a lot of fun as a MF film.

[stevebrot]

I never mix ISO in a single roll, other than silly exposure mistakes along the way....

Steve