Ilford Delta 3200

[sksaito]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm confused about the Ilford Delta 3200 film. It's my understanding that the Ilford published developing time for the Delta 3200 film is incorrect for some reason. So if I expose for ISO 3200 and develop the film as 3200, the exposures will be UNDERexposed. So I should set the ISO at 1600 and develop it as 3200 to get the correct exposure with better shadow detail. If this is true, then shooting at 1600 and developing it at 3200 is not pulling; it's just correcting for an erroneously stated Ilford developing time. Pulling would be exposing for 1600 and developing at 1600. I'm just confused at what people really mean when they say they "pulled" the Delta 3200 film. I hope you guys can help me clear this up in my brain.

[giordano]

I'm confused about the Ilford Delta 3200 film. It's my understanding that the Ilford published developing time for the Delta 3200 film is incorrect for some reason. So if I expose for ISO 3200 and develop the film as 3200, the exposures will be UNDERexposed. So I should set the ISO at 1600 and develop it as 3200 to get the correct exposure with better shadow detail.

 

One possible source of confusion is that the Ilford Film Processing chart at http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20114271219521241.pdf has the EI numbers slightly misplaced. E.g. at first sight the recommended time for Delta 3200 in Ilfotec DD-X appears to be 8 minutes.

 

But if you look very closely the time is actually 9½ minutes. You can confirm this on the film data sheet at http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201071394723115.pdf.

 

If this is true, then shooting at 1600 and developing it at 3200 is not pulling; it's just correcting for an erroneously stated Ilford developing time. Pulling would be exposing for 1600 and developing at 1600. I'm just confused at what people really mean when they say they "pulled" the Delta 3200 film. I hope you guys can help me clear this up in my brain.

 

The actual ISO speed rating of Delta 3200 is 1000/31 not 3200/36(it's in the film adata sheet if anyone doesn't believe me). This means strictly speaking that at any EI over 1000 you are actually pushing, not pulling - and of course it's a film that Ilford intend to be pushed.

 

But B&W development times are only ever guidelines. The "correct" time is the one that gives the results you want.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Michael Hiles]

The "correct" time is the one that gives the results you want.

 

Same holds true for film speed. You have to test.

[stunsworth]

The true speed of Ilford 3200 is something like 1250 - if you look at the box unlike the other Delta films it doesn't say 'ISO 3200'..

 

So the published development times are in fact pushing it a stop or so. If you want to use it at 3200 use the 3200 times. If you want to use it at 1600 (which is what I used to do) use the 1600 times.

[Guest Ornello]

I'm confused about the Ilford Delta 3200 film. It's my understanding that the Ilford published developing time for the Delta 3200 film is incorrect for some reason. So if I expose for ISO 3200 and develop the film as 3200, the exposures will be UNDERexposed. So I should set the ISO at 1600 and develop it as 3200 to get the correct exposure with better shadow detail. If this is true, then shooting at 1600 and developing it at 3200 is not pulling; it's just correcting for an erroneously stated Ilford developing time. Pulling would be exposing for 1600 and developing at 1600. I'm just confused at what people really mean when they say they "pulled" the Delta 3200 film. I hope you guys can help me clear this up in my brain.

 

My experience with the film is that it is not very good. Very grainy and poor tonality. True speed is about ISO1000. Kodak T-Max P3200 is about ISO 800 but a much better film. Fuji Neopan 1600 is best of all, at about ISO 650. Fuji Neopan 400, Kodak Tri-X Pan, and Ilford HP5 Plus are all about ISO 250.

 

No film is going to give you a true ISO 3200 at this time.

[thrid]

I've had the exact opposite experience and believe that Delta3200 is by the best of the ultra high speed films.

 

Kodak 3200P is very grainy and the tonality feels compressed, almost like charcoal. Developing in Tmax gives you a substantial shadow boost, but you're still stuck with the huge grain. True speed is about 800-1000asa. XTOL gives finer grain, which helps the tonality. That said it's a beautiful film with a very distinct, gritty look. The grain almost looks like coarse sandpaper.

 

Neopan1600 has tight grain, but it's true speed is about 640 asa, so it builds contrast very quickly when pushed. But it's a mute point since the film has been discontinued.

 

I've shot hundreds of rolls of Delta 3200 and IMO it's by far the best of the three. True speed as stated by Ilford is about 1000-1200asa. It's a multi layered low contrast film, which very much works in your favour when shooting at night.. Delta3200 has an enormous dynamic range, which really comes to light if you shoot it at 400 or 800 in daylight. At 1250-1600 it's hard to beat. 3200 still gives good results, but obviously the shadows start to block up. Delta3200 works best in DD-X or XTOL, but I have also had very good results in Diafine. The film is sensitive to agitation during development, so that can have a noticeable effect on contrast. The developed negatives are very thin, but contain all the information they should. Grain is excellent for a film of this speed and certainly finer than Kodak 3200P. At 1600 in DD-X or XTOL the amount of grain is similar to Tri-X that has been developed in a film with a moderate solvent action. Also it's the only ultra high speed film available in medium format 120. It's pretty stunning with the large negative and being able to shoot a f2.8 lens with only a half stop push at 1600 is a whole different experience.

 

 

PS: Tri-X, TMY-2 400 and most other 400 asa film truly are 400asa films in the proper developer. Kodak used to rate Tri-X at 250 as a safety precaution, but that was a very long time ago. You may not get 400 asa out of Tri-X with something like a methol based developer, but certainly with D76, XTOL, etc.

Edited March 13, 2012 by thrid

[Guest Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've had the exact opposite experience and believe that Delta3200 is by the best of the ultra high speed films.

 

Kodak 3200P is very grainy and the tonality feels compressed, almost like charcoal. Developing in Tmax gives you a substantial shadow boost, but you're still stuck with the huge grain. True speed is about 800-1000asa. XTOL gives finer grain, which helps the tonality. That said it's a beautiful film with a very distinct, gritty look. The grain almost looks like coarse sandpaper.

 

Neopan1600 has tight grain, but it's true speed is about 640 asa, so it builds contrast very quickly when pushed. But it's a mute point since the film has been discontinued.

 

I've shot hundreds of rolls of Delta 3200 and IMO it's by far the best of the three. True speed as stated by Ilford is about 1000-1200asa. It's a multi layered low contrast film, which very much works in your favour when shooting at night.. Delta3200 has an enormous dynamic range, which really comes to light if you shoot it at 400 or 800 in daylight. At 1250-1600 it's hard to beat. 3200 still gives good results, but obviously the shadows start to block up. Delta3200 works best in DD-X or XTOL, but I have also had very good results in Diafine. The film is sensitive to agitation during development, so that can have a noticeable effect on contrast. The developed negatives are very thin, but contain all the information they should. Grain is excellent for a film of this speed and certainly finer than Kodak 3200P. At 1600 in DD-X or XTOL the amount of grain is similar to Tri-X that has been developed in a film with a moderate solvent action. Also it's the only ultra high speed film available in medium format 120. It's pretty stunning with the large negative and being able to shoot a f2.8 lens with only a half stop push at 1600 is a whole different experience.

 

 

PS: Tri-X, TMY-2 400 and most other 400 asa film truly are 400asa films in the proper developer. Kodak used to rate Tri-X at 250 as a safety precaution, but that was a very long time ago. You may not get 400 asa out of Tri-X with something like a methol based developer, but certainly with D76, XTOL, etc.

 

I tested almost all current films back in 2004-2005. I developed them all to the same contrast. The speeds worked out as I describe above. The finest-grain of the ultra-speed films was Neopan 1600 (at EI 650), then came T-max 3200 (at EI 800-1000), and then Delta 3200, which was much grainier and only a little bit faster (EI 1000-1250). It is in my opinion all but unusable. Films were developed in Paterson FX-39 and Acutol.

 

The Kodak film is noticeably less grainy that Delta 3200.

[stunsworth]

My experience with the film is that it is not very good.

 

I found the Ilford a lot better at 1600 rather than 3200. Much less grain and an attractive film.

 

However I preferred the Neopan when I wanted a 1600 film. More contrast that the Ilford, but with a lot less grain.

[andybarton]

Films were developed in Paterson FX-39 and Acutol.

 

.

 

Have you used a lot of Paterson developers? I use FX-39 for my Pan F+, but stick with HC110B for my Tri-X and Delta 100, as that gives me the results that I am looking for and allows me to scan very easily in the Nikon Coolscan V

[Guest Ornello]

I found the Ilford a lot better at 1600 rather than 3200. Much less grain and an attractive film.

 

However I preferred the Neopan when I wanted a 1600 film. More contrast that the Ilford, but with a lot less grain.

 

I developed all the films to the same contrast (trial and error, of course). The Neopan is not 1600, but 640. T-Max is 800-1000. Delta is 1000-1250 when all are developed to 'normal' contrast.

[Guest Ornello]

Have you used a lot of Paterson developers? I use FX-39 for my Pan F+, but stick with HC110B for my Tri-X and Delta 100, as that gives me the results that I am looking for and allows me to scan very easily in the Nikon Coolscan V

 

Yes, I have used a lot of the Paterson developers over the years.

[stunsworth]

The Neopan is not 1600, but 640

 

I know, but I liked the look of it at 1600 when I needed to use a film at that speed, and it scanned very well with less grain than Delta 3200 at the same speed.

[Guest Ornello]

I know, but I liked the look of it at 1600 when I needed to use a film at that speed, and it scanned very well with less grain than Delta 3200 at the same speed.

 

OK. The Delta is not really more than perhaps 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster, and much much grainier.

[stunsworth]

I should add this was processed with Xtol not Rodinal. I have a 10 year old bottle of that under the sink. Maybe one day I'll see if it really does keep for ever <grin>

[tgray]

The Neopan is not 1600, but 640. T-Max is 800-1000. Delta is 1000-1250 when all are developed to 'normal' contrast.

 

While Fuji never said anything about Neopan 1600's 'true' speed (that I know of), Ornello's observations about T-Max 3200 and Delta 3200 agree rather well with Kodak's and Ilford's statements about these two films in their respective tech sheets. And from what I've seen of Neopan 1600, 640 looks about right - maybe even a bit generous.

 

The nominal speed is EI 1000 when the film is processed in KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Developer or KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX RS Developer and Replenisher, or EI 800 when it is processed in other Kodak black-and-white developers. It was determined in a manner published in ISO standards. For ease in calculating exposure and for consistency with the commonly used scale of film-speed numbers, the nominal speed has been rounded to EI 800.

 

DELTA 3200 Professional has an ISO speed rating of ISO 1000/31o (1000ASA, 31DIN) to daylight.

 

That being said, I frequently shoot TMZ at 800 or 1600 and get stuff that I'm happy with. I do shoot it from time to time at 3200 and it can work, depending on what I'm going for.

[thrid]

I tested almost all current films back in 2004-2005. I developed them all to the same contrast. The speeds worked out as I describe above. The finest-grain of the ultra-speed films was Neopan 1600 (at EI 650), then came T-max 3200 (at EI 800-1000), and then Delta 3200, which was much grainier and only a little bit faster (EI 1000-1250). It is in my opinion all but unusable. Films were developed in Paterson FX-39 and Acutol..

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but most of your findings do not correlate with my own experience, nor with widely help opinions on sites such as APUG.

 

I agree that Neopan 1600 had the finest grain of the three, but at 650 asa it barely qualifies as a ultra high speed film. At 1600 the shadows totally blocked up, so I saw no real advantage in shooting it over something like TMY-2 400 pushed.

 

 

The Kodak film is noticeably less grainy that Delta 3200.

 

Stomping your feet does not validate your opinion.

[NB23]

I shoot at 3200, develop as 6400 for added (and much needed contrast) and I don't bother with the parhetic "true ISO" debate.

[Guest Ornello]

You're entitled to your opinion, but most of your findings do not correlate with my own experience, nor with widely help opinions on sites such as APUG.

 

I agree that Neopan 1600 had the finest grain of the three, but at 650 asa it barely qualifies as a ultra high speed film. At 1600 the shadows totally blocked up, so I saw no real advantage in shooting it over something like TMY-2 400 pushed.

 

 

 

 

Stomping your feet does not validate your opinion.

 

To compare films, you need to develop them to the same contrast. Through trial and error (shooting and processing dozens of rolls) I worked out development times for a good number of B&W films. I treated all the films the same, i.e., I developed them all to the same 'normal' contrast so that true comparisons could be made. The Neopan 1600 is a 500-640 speed film; TMax 3200 is about 800-1000; Delta 3200 is about 1000-1250; all the ISO 400 films look best around EI 250. Neopan 1600, at its true speed of 500-640, looks like Tri-X Pan, only about a stop faster. I will take my results over anyone else's reports.

 

None of the 'ultra-speed' films is anywhere close to the speed on the box.

[stunsworth]

To compare films, you need to develop them to the same contrast.

 

But sometimes you want to pick a film because of how it looks 'out of the box'. That's why I mainly used FP4, Tri-X and Neopan 1600. They looked different from one another, but I liked the different looks they gave,

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[andybarton]

To me, that's the whole point of using different films, not just for their various speeds. Delta 100 has a different look from Plus-X, even though they are similarly rated. Ditto HP5 and Delta 400.