Comments regarding 3200 ISO films

[40oz]

Yes, I know lots of people suggest shooting them at 1600, or whatever their "real" ISO is, but I'm not going to do that. I don't need a 1600 ISO film, I need something that works at 3200 or faster.

I know better than to ask what's better, and I'm specifically not asking people what they prefer. I'm asking for *commentary* regarding what people like and what the differences may be. As in "Film A seems more tolerant than film B to a wide range of lighting in a scene" or "I had good luck with Film C but like the grain in Film D."

Anyone have input? I have been using Tri-X for everything, and just thought it might not be the best film for *everything* 🙂

 

[Jaime M]

I love to shoot Ilford Delta 3200, at 1600 and 3200 ISO. It's a grainy film, you already know it, more on 3200 but is what you get if you want a very high speed film

 

[hkrz]

T-Max 3200 white on black only

T-Max 3200 white on black only

I've been shooting T-Max 3200 @ 3200 as it was on sale at freestyle (exp. 4/2010). I think it's still avaiable there by the way.

I've shot around 6 rolls since the begining of the winter overhere and I've come to the conclusion that:

white on black - great

black on white - not so great

What I want to say is that, with scenes generaly dark with the subject light, the heavy grain and low DR of the film make for an interesting shot. Other way round, it just looks too harsh as light spaces are dotted with black grain.

This film is nice for shooting in bars, clubs with spot lighting. Something like this (Bessa R3A 40/1.4 MC):

 

[TWoK]

Provia 400X @ 3200.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Delta 3200 seems to me tonally much nicer up to about 3200 but after that the differences grow smaller (but still in Ilford's favour). Frances agrees -- and she's the printer!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I've mostly used these films at 1600 because both Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 have better shadow detail at 1600, but if you NEED 3200 they're the only game in town and are still better than a 400 speed film pushed that high.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Still I think the 3200 films are not that good at 3200. If you realy need 3200 use itat 3200.
I like ilford 3200 at 1600 or HP5+ at 1600. Both in Xtol 1+1.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[drewbarb]

I've mostly used these films at 1600 because both Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 have better shadow detail at 1600, but if you NEED 3200 they're the only game in town and are still better than a 400 speed film pushed that high.

I'm with Chris here- although I'm also of the opinion that Tri-X pushed in the right developer (Microphen, for me) looks better at 1600 than either of the "3200" films at the same speed. For really shooting at 3200, I'd pick up some of each and start testing.

 

[Chris101]

I shoot Delta 3200 at 3200 often, and occasionally at 1600. I have shot (I think) 2 or 3 rolls of Tmax 3200. To my eye (and way of developing) Delta has better tones, while Tmax has less (or at least smoother) grain.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I shoot Delta 3200 at 3200 often, and occasionally at 1600. I have shot (I think) 2 or 3 rolls of Tmax 3200. To my eye (and way of developing) Delta has better tones, while Tmax has less (or at least smoother) grain.

Dear Chris,

Definitely finer grained, but also slightly less sharp. Also, of course, 1/3 stop slower.

Cheers,

R.

 

[topoxforddoc]

I use HP5 and uprate in XTOL 1:1. Works fine. Uo to 1600, there's very little grain; at 3200, HP5 grain becomes much more noticeable. I'm not a great fan of Delta 3200.

 

[Peter_Jones]

IME, Delta 3200 @ 3200 gives more greys , Kodak 3200 @ 3200 looks more "black and white", contrasty.

I prefer the grain on Kodak, but I have only used Ilfosol on either, different devs will probably control contrast (or lack of) and grain (either for less or more) a lot better. Both are surprisingly smooth in good light, but the best looking results are softly lit subjects in dark areas 🙂

Embrace the grain !

 

[titrisol]

I like Ilford3200 either at 1600-3200 or 6400 and have learned that it does not produce fine art... but usable images!

Neopan 1600 as 3200 was also great

 

[thegman]

I've been reading a little about Rollei R3 film, produced by Maco, I can't find a stockist, and very little information about it in general, but apparently you can rate it at ISO 6400, just what I've read, no personal experience.

 

[thegman]

Found some stockists:

http://www.silverprint.co.uk/ProductByGroup.asp?PrGrp=2265
http://firstcall-photographic.co.uk...lei/rollei-r3-135-36-iso-400-push-up-to-6400/

 

[Freakscene]

I've been reading a little about Rollei R3 film, produced by Maco, I can't find a stockist, and very little information about it in general, but apparently you can rate it at ISO 6400, just what I've read, no personal experience.

The Rollei R3 is is another cynical marketing ploy to move traffic film into the
photographic market. This film was available as Maco Cube 400 for a long time before the Rollei version appeared. Traffic films have multiple layers of different sensitivities so they can function at different effective speeds but they lack resolution compared to the best 400 speed films and sharpness in comparison to the best superspeed films. They have extended red sensitivity because some juristictions use infra-red flashes in red light and speed cameras. They definitely don't work as well at very high speeds as the dedicated 3200 speed films do.

When I first tested the 3200 speed films (in 1999 or whenever Delta 3200 first came out) TMZ was slightly faster than Delta 3200. In a more recent test it was the other way around.

If you do shoot either of these films at 3200 or higher a speed-enhancing developer like Microphen, T-max or T-Max RS or DDX is a must.

Marty

 

[Harry Lime]

Anyone have input? I have been using Tri-X for everything, and just thought it might not be the best film for *everything* 🙂

I've shot the three ultra-HS films extensively.

Neopan 1600 really clocks in around 640asa. Contrast rises pretty quickly and by 3200 or higher you're looking at something pretty extreme. Not my favorite, unless you are shooting it at 800asa.

Kodak TMY 3200 delivers about 800asa. It's quite grainy and the exposure range is noticeably compressed compared to the competition. You can shoot it at 3200, but don't expect miracles. That said it has a unique look that many people are fond of. Use Tmax developer for a boost in the shadows.

Ilford Delta 3200. The best ultra high speed b/w film on the market. True speed is about 1000asa, so it's the fastest of the bunch. In my experience D3200 has the lowest contrast and best grain of the three. Both of these factors work in your favor. 3200 is useable. 1600 is better. Negs look really thin, but don't panic, the image is there. The film base is also a lot thinner than something like Tri-X, so it will feel flimsy. Develop in Ilford DD-X, maybe XTOL. You could test a few rolls Diafine, but it may be too thin to absorb enough developer in bath A...



Tri-X looks pretty darn good at 1250asa in Diafine.
TMY-2 400 looks pretty darn good @ 1600 in XTOL.

 

[david.elliott]

I just use tri-x in diafine at 3200 when I need to. Works fine for me. 🙂

 

[Andy Kibber]

If you need to shoot at 3200 get a D700. 🙂

 

[Andy Kibber]

I have a D3, but that isn't a solution as my M mount lenses won't fit.

It wasn't a serious suggestion. I just couldn't resist after reading the OP's lengthy posts in the megapixel thread.