[phonoline]

I shot these at 3200. Someone told me it wouldn't be such a great idea to shoot the Delta 3200 at 1600 or less. I forgot why. Never did it anyway and I am always very happy with the results. Right after the TMAX 400 this is my second-favourite film.

[dugrant153]

Sorry to bump, but just came back from a shoot!

So I recently shot an indoor venue Battle of the Bands gig and shot both 135 film format and 120 film format on Delta 3200. Both I shot at 1600 and had lab develop at 1600 (pull 1 stop... or atleast hope they did).

Will post up pics soon. But my overall impression is that I don't like Delta 3200 on 135 film as it's very grainy, but love it on 120 film for tonality!

135 film shot at full evaluative metering, and I think the 120 film (older Pentax 645) uses spot meter or center-weighted? This may explain some of the results too. Not I scanned on an Epson 4490 flatbed scanner, which I believe does decent job of medium format but not for 35mm scans (better than my lab though).

[asahijock]

I cannot speak of scanners and the like as I am solely a darkroom person myself but D3200 in 35mm is grainy. Least grain is probably with Perceptol stock but if you develop yourself or have to get a lab to do it AND can get the lab to use Perceptol(unlikely) then the Ilford(now called Harman) times are way too short.

At EI3200( true ISO speed of D3200 is about 1250 max in the likes of DDX) try at least 24 mins. Harman says 18 but IMO that will give very thin negs.

I have yet to try D3200 in 120 in my P645N but will use Perceptol to see how the grain is.

I don't think there is any way of avoiding grain in 35mm. It becomes very obvious at anything bigger than a 5x7 print.

With 120 and Perceptol I am hoping that 8x10 is almost grainless.

asahijock

[dugrant153]

Sorry for the delay, folks. I had a few other projects going on and finally am in the process of uploading the set!

Here is an image of Ilford Delta 3200 - shot at 1600 and I think pulled 1-stop. Shot from a PZ-1p, FA31 Ltd.



And here is a similar image taken with Ilford Delta 3200 - shot at 1600 and also pulled 1-stop. Shot from Pentax 645, 645-A 75mm F2.8




This is part of the reason I have invested more in 645 format now. In essence, I can get some pretty good low light capability if I can shoot at 1600-3200 ASA. To me, the 645 results look cleaner and sharper.

MIND YOU, these are scanned on an Epson 4490, which does pretty good for 120 film but just "okay" for 135 film, in my opinion. I'm sure a really good 35mm Minolta, Nikon or other scanner could pull out more detail, but I'm beginning to really like the results from 120 film.

[asahijock]

dugrant 153, I am interested in what pulled one stop means in terms of developer and development. It has been my experience that while most Ilford dev times for most films are very good, it underates what is needed for D3200.

I have found that using the dev time for the next speed higher is the best approach. So if you rate the film at 1600 then dev it as if it was 3200 in effect a form of extra push development.

Hence my interest in your phrase "pulled one stop" What dev did you use and for what time? Thanks

asahijock

[dugrant153]

To be honest, asahijock, I don't really know as I get my lab to do all my developing. That being said, next time I'm down there I'll ask them what they use and see if I can let you know

[asahijock]

To be honest, asahijock, I don't really know as I get my lab to do all my developing. That being said, next time I'm down there I'll ask them what they use and see if I can let you know

Thanks. If you use film on a regular basis and you probably do then you might want to consider doing your own film processing. It takes a changing bag and a tank plus the chemicals and these pay for themselves in next to no time.

It gives you freedom to use any dev you like and to test your film for your own speed. You may find that your best film speed isn't the "box speed" on the film.

If you have silver gelatin prints made by your lab then processing your own film may give you better negs but won't necessarily be cheaper. Labs tend to process cheap and print dear if they print on genuine darkroom paper.

However if you scan negs and print very few and those you do are inkjet prints and you only have the lab do the film processing then it really is cheaper, more satisfying and better to have a go yourself.

End of sermon.

asahijock

[GeneV]

The choice of developer is the main reason I process my own negs. This film, especially, would seem to deserve its best shot at its rated speed, and, according to other forums, that means DDX or TMax or something similar. My local lab is exclusively D76.

[asahijock]

Dugrant are these scans of negs or scans of prints and if so what size prints? If the actual prints are about the size as on my screen ( about 7x10) and there is no more grain than there appears on the screen I'd say you have done very well in 35mm. In fact the 645 neg/print doesn't look much better but there is no substitute for two prints of identical size from 35m and 645 to compare the difference.

My experience with ID11(D76 equivalent and as Gene says the usual dev of choice for most B&W labs) is that in MF( mine was 6x6) is that grain only starts to show at about 16 x 16 so maybe a little smaller in 645 but that ID11/D76 is very grainy at even 5x7 in 35mm. DDX is less grainy and Xtol 1+1 is about the same as DDX so Xtol stock might give even less grain.

If you were contemplating having say 11x14 or 12 x16 prints done then 35mm is a NO NO unless you like grain and it might be pushing it in ID11/D76 at these sizes but no problem at 8x10.

If it were a crowning glory wedding shot of the bride and groom at 12 x16 with D3200 then I'd want to use DDX or Xtol stock.

Of course if it were the bride and groom shot it would likely be a daytime shot in good indoors or outdoors light and something like TMax 400 would be the film and grain in any dev at 12x16 would not be an issue with 645.

asahijock

[GeneV]

I've finished processing my 3 rolls of Delta Pro 3200 from the 645. I've learned a few things. First, this film is at its best at ISO 2000-2400. It is very nice at ISO 3200 as well, but shadows can start to get a bit grainier than the film is normally.

Second, the rule given on other boards for using this film with Ilford developers--develop using Ilford's recommendation for one stop higher in ISO--is pretty close. I got my best results from DD-X 1:4 at 22deg C, 10.5 min. Ilford's recommendation for 3200 ISO will yield very thin negs with less shadow detail than this film can give.

Here is a shot from a family visit in December at ISO 2000:



And from a folk dance night shot on another roll at ISO 3200:


I can play with reducing her contrast a bit in post processing and get an even nicer shot. The guy has had some pp, but everything else is pretty much as on the neg.

Still another roll is drying. From the density (and because it is a third try) it is probably the best.

[asahijock]

In shots where there is no real shadow zones say zone III as in the top shot then an EI of 2000 or slightly more may be possible but in a shot with a full range of zones from say II to IX I have yet to see D3200 at better than 1600 produce any shadow detail at zone III.

It is a niche film, needed when light conditions prevent any decent shots at less than 1600 and may require even 6400. In those extreme conditions it comes into its own but at a cost of no shadow detail.

In reasonable daylight you can get decent shadow detail at EI 1000 but that kind of speed isn't required and a 400 film( say TMax 400) will give you what you want and with less grain and scope for bigger enlargements without grain.

Some of our ancient Stately Homes in the U.K. now handed over to an organisation called the National Trust are kept dim to protect paintings etc( no flash allowed) and if you have one camera and want both indoor and outdoor shots then D3200 or TMax 3200 are your only options and in those situations D3200 is invaluable.

asahijock

[GeneV]

In shots where there is no real shadow zones say zone III as in the top shot then an EI of 2000 or slightly more may be possible but in a shot with a full range of zones from say II to IX I have yet to see D3200 at better than 1600 produce any shadow detail at zone III.

It is a niche film, needed when light conditions prevent any decent shots at less than 1600 and may require even 6400. In those extreme conditions it comes into its own but at a cost of no shadow detail.

In reasonable daylight you can get decent shadow detail at EI 1000 but that kind of speed isn't required and a 400 film( say TMax 400) will give you what you want and with less grain and scope for bigger enlargements without grain.

Some of our ancient Stately Homes in the U.K. now handed over to an organisation called the National Trust are kept dim to protect paintings etc( no flash allowed) and if you have one camera and want both indoor and outdoor shots then D3200 or TMax 3200 are your only options and in those situations D3200 is invaluable.

asahijock

If your point is that you only use D3200 when you really need ISO 3200, then I agree. It is certainly not an all-purpose film, and where ISO 800 or less works, then Neopan is still my film.

I'm not sure I get your point about the rest. I posted a few more shots from the ISO 3200 roll here https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1461677-post5171.html . I actually darkened the shadows because it looked more like the scene, so I'm not sure I'm really giving a full demonstration of the film at Zone III. I'm also not sure I've given a full demonstration of the film's best at ISO 3200, because the camera meter was distracted by the shiny objects in the ceiling, and its operator failed to take that into consideration. However, what I did do is get some nice shots under challenging lighting. That is what I pay extra for with D3200.