Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was shooting a live gig few weeks ago and I had my Contax T3 loaded in my pocket. I just picked up the negs from the lab the other day to find out some really bad results. Possibly my fault but I just wanted to check your opinions.
So, the first roll I had was Kentmere 400 (pushed to 800), and everything is good:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

I was using flash against the spotlight in the back. After that, I loaded the Delta 3200 and everything is dull and messy:

From what I see, I think the flash probably didn't fire (hard to see it during the performance) maybe the meter registered enough light not to fire the flash?! I'm not sure...or could it be the lab didn't dev this correctly?! The whole roll it's like this, I vividly remember I had the flash set ON and wasn't expecting these bad results....barely salvageable. 
Not sure what to think, I've used Delta 3200 on a T2 before and never had any problems...

Thoughts?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you remember to specify to the lab to process the Delta 3200 for EI 3200? Which requires an extended development time ("push-processing," in the vernacular).

From Ilford's Delta 320 Technical Information sheet:

ILFORD DELTA 3200 Professional is a high speed, black and white professional film for making quality
photographs in difficult exposing conditions. It is ideal for action and available light photography. It is
designed to be exposed at EI 3200/36 and given extended development.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1913/product/682/

Delta 3200's nominal ISO speed (i.e. based on the exposure required for normal shadow detail, as tested to ISO standards) with "normal" processing - is about ISO 1000.

Without the extended development, it will effectively be underexposed by almost 2 stops. ISO 1000 > EI 2000 (one stop underexposed) > EI 4000 (two stops underexposed).

The thing about Delta 3200 is that at ISO/EI 1000, it will be ideally exposed overall, but a little flat in contrast, as intentionally designed by Ilford's chemists.

Which allows it to be push-processed (overdeveloped) to up to EI 6400 or more - with a minimum of the "chalk & charcoal" excessive contrast effect, which "normal" films (e.g. Kentmere 400 or Tri-X or Delta 400 or HP5+) produce when overdeveloped that much, or more.

But it still needs the extra ~50% time in the developer when shot at EI 3200, to get a "normal looking" density overall.

Definitions:

ISO is the single actual base film speed as determined according ISO (International Standards Organization) testing parameters and standards for shadow density.

EI is the Exposure Index, as chosen by the photographer in setting a light meter/shutter speed/aperture..... AND then compensated for with development time.

It is a little hard to tell from the small images - but it looks like the flash fired OK (shadowless light on the singer's jacket = light directly from the camera position.)

Edited by adan
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adan might be on the money, but the first thought I had was film speed setting. The T3 has DX coding? If so, did the Delta 3200 also? The strip looks a fairly under-exposed, so maybe the camera defaulted to whatever it defaults to if the cassette lacks the DX coding?

Might be barking up the wrong tree of course.

Edited by gbealnz
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jonnyboy said:

What a pity. Shall I drop a line to the lab? Not trying to mess around too much just giving them a heads up?

Honestly, it is quite hard to tell what is going on from those pictures because the black level is set to the background. Can you just take a regular photograph of the negatives against a backlight or just held up in the air? It looks like there is a ton of base fog, but it might just be underexposure or underdevelopment. Delta 3200, like all very fast films, keep like fish. The minute they are made they are being bombarded by cosmic radiation and slowly developing due to heat. The faster the film, the quicker this process. Kodak stores Tmax 3200 at the bottom of an abandoned iron mine to try to minimize the effect of cosmic rays on the film. To me it looks like the film might have aged or been exposed to heat, as the base level noise is really high. It may well have been underexposed or underdeveloped as well, at least in this photo it looks like there is a very high level of base fog. High base fog and underexposure leads to this kind of unusable result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the feeling it could have been a damaged DX Code or maybe the film had some mysterious fault. The lab is a pretty good lab so I kinda trust them.
 

ISO film speed for negatives is determined based off the minimum exposure required for density in the negative under general processing conditions.
 
So your shadows should have similar density between both negatives but mids and highlights are less on the Delta because it wasn't pushed I imagine.
 
This is scanned, without any contrast added:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Couple of minutes on my iPad…seems like maybe they’re not so bad after all?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too would be interested to see what Stuart suggested, simple pic of the negs, especially showing the film edges (numbers etc) as well as the images themselves. Not the whole film, just a random couple of neg strips. Hold in one hand and up towards some light. Might help.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, jonnyboy said:

I have the feeling it could have been a damaged DX Code or maybe the film had some mysterious fault. The lab is a pretty good lab so I kinda trust them.
 

ISO film speed for negatives is determined based off the minimum exposure required for density in the negative under general processing conditions.
 
So your shadows should have similar density between both negatives but mids and highlights are less on the Delta because it wasn't pushed I imagine.
 
This is scanned, without any contrast added:

 

But I doubt that your lab used the Ilford recommended DD-X developer or compensated for the subject, it will have gone through their regular soup meant for all films. Ilford themselves see D3200 as a moving target, if box speed is used extended development is needed, if development is standard the ISO needs to be lower, etc. On the cassette are four reminder tick boxes because of this variability, a box for 1600ISO, 3200ISO, 6400ISO, and one empty box for your own ISO setting. Many people rate D3200 at 1000ISO if used in similar conditions, over exposing so an automatic meter isn't tricked by stage lights. So without testing first there isn't a reliable way to determine how to expose and develop D3200 other than what you've done, trial and error. Personally I'd start by pushing a regular fast film to 1600ISO than bring D3200 down to 1600ISO, it's less finicky. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
1 hour ago, PetPhoto said:

in those last snips of negative, there is an issue going on. its like every other image is crap

Perhaps not enough time is being given between shots for the flash to recharge? I don't know how the T3 operates but some better cameras allow you to press the shutter anyway instead of being blocked waiting for the flash to catch up, especially if it's been on full power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...