Anybody use Ilford 3200?

[3js]

No no no, do not pull the Delta 3200, it is for pushing, not pulling. If you are goin to shoot it at 1600 you gain nothing. Use T-Max 400 @ 1600 instead, develope it in t-max dev(around 3-4 minutes more time), and the results are fine, much better than Delta 3200 @ 1600. And it´s cheaper that way...

 

[mich8261]

can I ask a question about this film and store processing? I have a roll of Delta 3200 currently in my camera which I have rated at 3200. When I send it in to be processed do I have to specified that I pushed it since it is recognized that this film's true ISO is 1250?

Thanks.

 

[ghost]

what 3js said. why would anyone want to pull a 3200 film down to 1600 when you can get better results pushing a 400 film up?

 

[willie_901]

Gabriel brings up an important point: Delta 3200 will fog. I suggest you buy the freshest film you can find.

willie

 

[like2fiddle]

can I ask a question about this film and store processing? I have a roll of Delta 3200 currently in my camera which I have rated at 3200. When I send it in to be processed do I have to specified that I pushed it since it is recognized that this film's true ISO is 1250?

Thanks.

You see, here-in lies the important fundamental question, what is the real iso of this film? If it is in fact 1250, then even at 1600 you are pushing it.

 

[kaiyen]

Allan, as I compare your chart to the Ilford data sheet, I notice that you develop the aforementioned film for 10 minutes vs. Ilford recommended time of 8 in Microphen at 1600 and for 13 minutes vs. 9 @ 3200.

Yes - the rule of thumb, if you're starting out, is to up Ilford's times by 1 stop. For me, I've tested my times out and that's what I use myself. I scan, and calibrate my exposure and development for that purpose. I'm kind of a zonie that way.

allan

 

[3js]

You see, here-in lies the important fundamental question, what is the real iso of this film? If it is in fact 1250, then even at 1600 you are pushing it.

Yeah, that´s true, but all the fast films are that way, the real iso is something else, that´s been taken care in the lab, and if it´s a good one, the results are usually quite good@ 3200, don´t need to tell them anything.

 

[BJ Bignell]

I've used Delta 3200 with good success in DD-X. Like Allan said, it's best to "over-develop" it, using the times for 3200 when shot at 1600, or 6400 when shot at 3200.

Some time ago, I posted examples shot @12500/12800 (is there a difference? 😉 ), and developing info: click here

Have fun!

 

[kaiyen]

Okay.

So, the real ISO is actually about 1000. I forget, but Ilford has a PDF of it somewhere (not the regular D3200 PDF, I don't think). However, in a speed enhancing developer, you get to about 1250. This is in comparison to TMZ, which gets to about 1000. This is with densitometer testing.

However, and this is the key thing - Delta 3200 and TMZ are both low contrast film. Just because the ISO standard testing method puts it at 1000, or the densitometer testing of Zone 1 puts it at 1250 in, say, Microphen, doesn't mean that it'll look the best at those speeds. in fact, it will look low contrast, but with better shadow detail.

Therefore, the film is well suited to pushing to at least 1600, and well beyond that. You don't block up the highlights as fast, plain and simple, while you are bringing the midtones up to an acceptable level.

As others have mentioned - why shoot D3200 when you can just push TMY or TXT? There are a number of reasons.

Pushing TMY or TXT to 1600 gives you a contrastier negative, with less shadow detail,b ut also much, much tighter grain. For me, if I'm shooting in a low contrast situation (some wedding receptions come to mind), pushing TXT makes sense to me. The increased contrast actually helps, and yes, the grain is smaller.

However, let's say I'm shooting in a hight contrast situation. Maybe a market at night, where there are really bright street lights spread out all over the place. Then it's better to shoot D3200, even with the expense of grain, because the highlights on people's faces and whatnot will be better controlled.

Right tools for the job. Sometimes it's better to push TXT, sometimes it's better to shoot D3200. Neither, IMO, is right all the time.

allan

 

[kaiyen]

Yeah, that´s true, but all the fast films are that way, the real iso is something else, that´s been taken care in the lab, and if it´s a good one, the results are usually quite good@ 3200, don´t need to tell them anything.

Yes - ISO is determined using specific methods, a specific developer (not D76, something special, I forget), and based upon achieving a certain contrast and density combination. But this isn't exactly "real world" and is why one should examine negatives, think about metering methods and patterns, and work appropriately. For instance, Pan F Plus rarely gets to 50 EI for me in rodinal 1+50. It's right about 30. If I spot meter very carefully, I can maybe get 40 out of it. But if I'm using center-weighted, like in my canonet, then I rate at 25.

allan

 

[BJ Bignell]

An important detail to understand about all of Ilford's traditional b&w films is that none of the box speeds (400, 125, 3200) are true ISO-standard speeds. They are speeds based on empirical testing and target usage.

From the Delta 3200 fact sheet:

It should be noted that the exposure index (EI) range recommended for DELTA 3200 Professional is based on a practical evaluation of film speed and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO standard.

A similar message appears in the data sheets for all of the Ilford films.

 

[like2fiddle]

Ok, Allan and 3js, let me see if I can consolidate your information here:

3js: If the film is rated at 3200, shoot at 3200 or higher
Allan: Your experience leads you to develop this Ilford film one stop above rated/exposed speed.

so...if I shoot this film at 3200, I would follow exposure table for 6400, right?

 

[kaiyen]

As a starting point, yes, use the 6400 time from Ilford for an EI rating of 3200. You can use my times as suggestions, too, but mine are based on my technique, my needs, and my desired results.

allan

 

[BJ Bignell]

3js: If the film is rated at 3200, shoot at 3200 or higher

For Ilford Delta 3200, yes this is true, because it was designed to push and give you incredible speed. But with some other films, they may work better for you at a lower ISO than is printed on the box.

Allan: Your experience leads you to develop this Ilford film one stop above rated/exposed speed.

so...if I shoot this film at 3200, I would follow exposure table for 6400, right?

My experience has also shown that Delta 3200 works well like this, especially with DD-X.

 

[like2fiddle]

For Ilford Delta 3200, yes this is true, because it was designed to push and give you incredible speed. But with some other films, they may work better for you at a lower ISO than is printed on the box.
My experience has also shown that Delta 3200 works well like this, especially with DD-X.

Ok, thank you to you all. I've got to order more developer anyway, so I think I'll try this in Microphen as I usually roll HP-5. As far as I can tell, Ilford recommends either DD-X or Microphen for their 3200.

 

[ghost]

let's not forget neopan 1600. a buck and a half less, too.

 

[like2fiddle]

let's not forget neopan 1600. a buck and a half less, too.

yes, the roll of 3200 I bought was a spur of the moment purchase on the way out the door of our local photo shop. The only fast B&W film left in stock was the 3200. If all goes well with this roll, I'll certainly explore more with fast film, including the neopan, down the road

 

[wyk_penguin]

I have shot Ilford3200 @ ISO 12800 (ISO3200 set on my Bessa R3A with EV+2 on the dial) then told the lab to push 2 stops. The results were fine. I did not notice a huge and unpleasant increase in contrast. In fact, some shots metered at ISO3200 on the same roll turned out just as usable as those metered at ISO12800.

p.s. reading the fact sheets provided by Ilford are fun. Can anyone confirm that Delta3200 does develop better without prewash?

 

[Northern_Bliss]

I've used both Ilford and Kodak's 3200 films with mixed results. If I rate them closer to 1600 asa and process them using either D-76, ID-11, Xtol 1:0, they are acceptable, but I get far tighter grain, and better tonality by pushing the 400 speed films (TMY, HP5+, Tri-x) 2 stops and then processing them in Ilford's Microphen developer. Grain is much smoother and the highlights are not as blown out.
Oddly enough I do not get acceptable results rating Ilford and Kodak's 3200 @1600 in Microphen possibly because it is a compensating developer meant for "pushing" film speed.

 

[c.poulton]

I've developed this film only once; rated and developed @ 3200, in D-76. I like it. Even though the only two rolls I ever developed were already very old, and had some fogging:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/208719495/

Gabriel

Nice shot! - Really great feel from the grain of this film - I have bought two rolls and will have to start shooting with it soon... Just blown away by this image!