Ilford Delta 3200

[Guest Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What I'm saying is that I haven't wet printed a photograph for 40 years.

 

I couldn't care less if they were designed for wet printing as there's no possibility of me ever doing that, therefore _I_ judge the film film from how it scans.

 

You wet print, and that's fine too.

 

I was not aware that there were scanners 40 years ago.

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

Steve never said he was scanning 40 years ago. I had a break from wet printing when I left school and have never re-started and I suspect that Steve did too.

 

I shot slides in the interim. And C41 snaps.

[stunsworth]

I was not aware that there were scanners 40 years ago.

 

I've no idea if there were or there weren't.

 

I spent the intervening years shooting slides or colour print films processed by high street labs. It was the purchase of a Leica IIIC and a Nikon film scanner in the 1990s, together with the home processing of b&w film, that rekindled the interest in photography I'd had in my teens.

[Guest Ornello]

Steve never said he was scanning 40 years ago. I had a break from wet printing when I left school and have never re-started and I suspect that Steve did too.

 

I shot slides in the interim. And C41 snaps.

 

Regardless, I think it makes sense to see how films print.

[Guest Ornello]

I've no idea if there were or there weren't.

 

I spent the intervening years shooting slides or colour print films processed by high street labs. It was the purchase of a Leica IIIC and a Nikon film scanner in the 1990s, together with the home processing of b&w film, that rekindled the interest in photography I'd had in my teens.

 

 

OK, well the way you said it was confusing to me.

[stunsworth]

Regardless, I think it makes sense to see how films print.

 

Not if you've no way of printing them. I had some prints made by labs and to be honest the results were expensive and mediocre, I get far better results from scanning and printing on an Epson 3800.

[Guest Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not if you've no way of printing them. I had some prints made by labs and to be honest the results were expensive and mediocre, I get far better results from scanning and printing on an Epson 3800.

 

I am not surprised. Kodak and the other firms have always stated that their B&W films were meant to be processed and printed by hand. My experience with B&W labs has been likewise poor.

 

Regardless, to steer this back to the original question, I don't think much of Delta 3200.

[andybarton]

If you want decent wet prints from negatives, you either have to send them to a real professional printer, or learn to do it yourself. My experience of labs reflects Steve's.

 

However, with the quality of modern scanners and black & white printers, these days, the opportunities for high quality black & white prints made in your study are there for everyone, and at a fraction of the price of a darkroom.

[stunsworth]

I am not surprised. Kodak and the other firms have always stated that their B&W films were meant to be processed and printed by hand. My experience with B&W labs has been likewise poor.

 

I agree, that's why I think I've got far better results from home developing, scanning and inkjet printing.

[Guest Ornello]

If you want decent wet prints from negatives, you either have to send them to a real professional printer, or learn to do it yourself. My experience of labs reflects Steve's.

 

However, with the quality of modern scanners and black & white printers, these days, the opportunities for high quality black & white prints made in your study are there for everyone, and at a fraction of the price of a darkroom.

 

But you don't get the same beautiful blacks. Just does not compare.

[andybarton]

Have you tried it?

[Guest Ornello]

Have you tried it?

 

I have seen what others have done and have not been impressed.

[stunsworth]

But you don't get the same beautiful blacks. Just does not compare.

 

The quality of the blacks depends on the paper you use. Some of baryta papers are superb. I'm not saying that they look identical to wet prints, but the blacks can be outstanding.

[andybarton]

I have seen what others have done and have not been impressed.

 

Interesting. My experience is different from yours.

[stunsworth]

I have seen what others have done and have not been impressed.

 

I've seen poor wet prints too, but you should judge something by the best that can be achieved whether it's a wet print or an inkjet print.

[CalArts 99]

Ornello, I suggest that you remove the subjective blinders and perhaps investigate what can be produced these days by the top studios using digital and/or a mix of digital and analog processes. Drum scanned film, digital capture (e.g., Phase One backs), digital Lightjet prints on RA paper in chemistry, B+W prints on cotton rag with carbon based inks, etc., etc..

 

I think you'd be quite surprised. It also would open a new world to you, a world of amazing progress in the digital and hybrid realm that would impress even someone who has their boots still stuck in the mud.

 

Send your best piece of film or digital capture here: Laumont Photographics : NYC's photography studio and ask for the finest inkjet print they can produce.

 

However, you don't have the spend the kind of money that someone like Philippe Laumont will charge for their work. You can adopt this sort of hybrid workflow, and along with some basic consumer hardware produce much better results than what I've seen you post here on the forum.

 

And I mean this with good intention.

 

We have a wide array of excellent materials to work with these days and it's a great time be using photographic media. Although no one should forget that the image and content itself should always be paramount to materials and technique.

[Guest Ornello]

Ornello, I suggest that you remove the subjective blinders and perhaps investigate what can be produced these days by the top studios using digital and/or a mix of digital and analog processes. Drum scanned film, digital capture (e.g., Phase One backs), digital Lightjet prints on RA paper in chemistry, B+W prints on cotton rag with carbon based inks, etc., etc..

 

I think you'd be quite surprised. It also would open a new world to you, a world of amazing progress in the digital and hybrid realm that would impress even someone who has their boots still stuck in the mud.

 

Send your best piece of film or digital capture here: Laumont Photographics : NYC's photography studio and ask for the finest inkjet print they can produce.

 

However, you don't have the spend the kind of money that someone like Philippe Laumont will charge for their work. You can adopt this sort of hybrid workflow, and along with some basic consumer hardware produce much better results than what I've seen you post here on the forum.

 

And I mean this with good intention.

 

We have a wide array of excellent materials to work with these days and it's a great time be using photographic media. Although no one should forget that the image and content itself should always be paramount to materials and technique.

 

I would say that digital is fine, but I would never shoot B&W film, scan it, then have inkjet prints made. I would just shoot digital to start with. But I have no interest in shooting digital. Ergo.....

[CalArts 99]

I would say that digital is fine, but I would never shoot B&W film, scan it, then have inkjet prints made. I would just shoot digital to start with. But I have no interest in shooting digital. Ergo.....

 

An advantage with film would be that you'd have a bigger file size for exhibition prints with the wide dynamic range inherent in film (via a drum scan and assuming you don't plan to capture digitally with a CV-50 or something similar in size.) You also get the benefit of a physical negative that can be archived and last 100+ years (assuming you don't go back onto film from digital with a film recorder.) And lastly, you have the option to make a conventional B+W analog wet print from that same image. You get the best of all worlds, but of course at more cost and effort than originating with a digital capture.

 

 

 

p.s., the appearance of Dmax in a print varies depending on reflectivity. As we all know, the reflectivity of matte paper diminishes the appearance of Dmax on a conventional analog print. The surface of inkjet substrates along with the type of ink (dye versus pigment, etc.) act the same way. Dmax can be improved under glass or plexi (while being certain not to use UV glass if the paper has UV brighteners that are activated by UV, of course.) Dmax can also be improved substantially by coating the print with products made specifically for that purpose, such as Clearshield or those made by Neschen AG. The surface will then take on the appearance of Agfa Brovira or Ilford Galerie, etc.. In addition, carbon pigment inks used for inkjet B+W prints can produce rich and deep blacks as the B+W is not made up of color pigments as with inks such as Epson's Ultrachrome inks sets. They also exhibit substantially reduced metamerism when viewed in various light sources.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[giordano]

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

 

Not so. Film speed - for the usual kinds of film - is an objective characteristic of the emulsion, measured according to the procedure in the relevant standard (e.g. ISO 6:1993 for B&W neg film). The number you set on the exposure meter is the exposure index (EI). Usually, the manufacturer's recommended EI is the same as the ISO speed, but with some films - e.g. Delta 3200 - the recommended EI can be very different from the ISO speed.

 

With all films, users are free to adjust the EI in order to get the results they want with the exposure and development techniques they prefer - but the the speed of a film can only be changed by reformulating the emulsion or revising the ISO standard.

[Guest Ornello]

Not so. Film speed - for the usual kinds of film - is an objective characteristic of the emulsion, measured according to the procedure in the relevant standard (e.g. ISO 6:1993 for B&W neg film). The number you set on the exposure meter is the exposure index (EI). Usually, the manufacturer's recommended EI is the same as the ISO speed, but with some films - e.g. Delta 3200 - the recommended EI can be very different from the ISO speed.

 

With all films, users are free to adjust the EI in order to get the results they want with the exposure and development techniques they prefer - but the the speed of a film can only be changed by reformulating the emulsion or revising the ISO standard.

 

Well that's not quite accurate either. The expression "film speed" refers to either the official ISO or the working speed that each photographer determines. The ISO speed specifies a particular developer and contrast, which individuals may prefer not to employ in their own work.