Anybody use Ilford 3200?

[like2fiddle]

I bought a roll of Ilford 3200 to try out over the holidays and I'm going to load it up in the morning as we have a house full of my wife's family over tomorrow evening. I've read here and there that it's best to actually rate the film for anywhere from 1200 to 1600 in order to obtain adequate shaddow detail. Likewise, development time would have to be adjusted. Any advice from more experienced folks out there. Ordinarilly, I would experiment a little and run a few rolls through at different speeds, etc. This time I am pressed for time (and my darkroom is still torn apart) so I'm looking for answers from you folks with all the experience. Thanks in advance.

 

[back alley]

i used to use it alot when shot 120 film, in medium format it was a beautiful film.
i rated it at 1000 and developed it in ddx.

have not used it in 35mm.

 

[boilerdoc2]

Super film - and super grainy but sharp. Rate it at whatever the situation calls for. It is actaully a 1000 speed film that pushes to 3200. Use Ilford DDX developer.
Steve

 

[Harry Lime]

I shoot it at 1600 and develop it in DD-X as per the times on the back of the bottle. It seems to work best between 1200-2000 asa. Grain is reasonable and attractive.

Take note that the negs will look very 'thin' and the film-base itself is also physically thinner than normal stocks. All of that is normal.

Great film.

 

[varjag]

I didn't find delta 3200 super grainy. In fact it looks about as grainy as old 400 ISO films.

The attached shot is Delta 3200 at EI 3200 and processed in stock Microphen. If you go for developing at true speed, insufficient contrast might show up: the film was designed for pushing. This might or might not be a problem.

 

[markinlondon]

What Eugene said. I've shot a few rolls up to EI6400 with surprisingly smooth results. Some suggest to process for one stop faster than you rated, I think this is true in DD-X.

 

[like2fiddle]

Sounds like I can use Microphen or DD-X equally successfully? Any of you ever try it with D76?

 

[Jamie123]

I recently shot a roll of Delta 3200 120 film and it came out ok. I developed it in Ilfosol-S which probably isn't the best developer for the job (but it's cheap 🙂 ).

Here's a shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmavila/311874836/

 

[like2fiddle]

Jamie, having trouble with your link..

 

[markinlondon]

DD-X and Microphen are both speed increasing developers and are pretty interchangeable. They give very similar results to the point that some people call DD-X "liquid Microphen". D76/ID-11 will work but Microphen or DD-X will get you higher actual speed and thus more shadow detail.

 

[like2fiddle]

Mark, shoot at 1600, develop at 3200 with DD-x?

 

[markinlondon]

That's what I've found. If you use the quoted 1600 time it's all a bit thin, I'm using a diffusion head though, it may be OK for scanning or condensers.

 

[drewbarb]

I have shot it at 1250 and run it in Paterson FX50- looked great. I have also run it in Microphen, at speeds from 1200 to 3200 and it looks fine. But honestly, I don't think it's worth the extra cash for this film unless you are going to push it to 3200 or 6400. If you want to shoot at 1200 or 1600, I find most 400 speed films will look pretty good pushed to 1200 or 1600, run in Microphen. (My current favorite is Neopan 400.)

If you are going to spend the extra for the "3200" film, shoot it FAST and push the processing. Delta 3200 at box speed and pushed 2 stops looks a lot like a good 400 speed film pushed 2 stops, if you process them correctly; but Delta shot at 1200 and run normal doesn't look much better than 400 film pushed a bit, IMO.

 

[Jamie123]

Jamie, having trouble with your link..

If the link is not working you can go to my flickr gallery (link in my sig) and scroll down to the photo titled "shiny car".

 

[like2fiddle]

drew, good point, the reason for trying this in the first place is because I do most of my shooting indoors in less than great light. I'd like some shots with a little better DOF than that achieved at f2 or 2.8. My 35 is a Summaron, so 2.8 is as open as I can get. You're right about pushing the 400 films. I regularly push HP5 to 800. Maybe expose at 3200, develop at 3200-6400?

Jamie, ok will try that avenue. thanks

Mark, condenser in my case.

 

[like2fiddle]

Hey Jamie,

Nice shot of the shiny car. I like the grain visible in the large version. Looks like this film could have that "old journalistic" look.

 

[Jamie123]

Thanks Roger. Yes, the grain has a very 'classic' look. I must admit, thought, that I found this film a little trickier than other (slower) films because if you don't expose it correctly the grain can get ugly pretty fast when scanning. However, when exposed and developed correctly it looks very nice!

 

[kaiyen]

Let's see...

-it is a rule of thumb that you take Ilford's times for, say, 3200, and develop at that time when you're actually shooting at 1600. For some reason they're off by a whole stop when it comes to bringing the midtones up.

-it is not "best" to shoot at 1600. it's just that you get normal contrast around 1250 (the true ISO) to 1600. For instance, you can see 1600 at:

http://www.pbase.com/romosoho/image/30277525

But the inherent contrast of the film is low enough that it pushes very well. This is 3200:

http://www.pbase.com/romosoho/image/22567339

-Finally, my own dev chart for D3200 is at:

http://photos.kaiyen.com/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.AllanChen-Kaiyen

allan

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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/

 

[like2fiddle]

Allan and Gabriel, First, nice photos, very nice.

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.