Delta 3200@6400, any idea?

[ulrich.von.lich]

Hello,

I recently exposed one roll of Delta 3200 at 6400. The technician in the lab that I use told me that he would have to under develop it or else some chemical effect would start to show on images.

I'm thinking of developing it at home.

Has anyone developed Delta 3200 at 6400 with good results? Any tips would be appreciated!

Thank you.

Best Regards,
Tony

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The tech lied. He just doesn't wanna extend the developing time, like you have to when pushing this film. Try Tmax Developer at the time Ilford recommends. I have not tried it at 6400 but at 1600 and 3200 Delta 3200 works beautifully in Tmax Developer. That's my preferred developer for Kodak Tmax 3200 film too. It was made for pushing the high speed films.

 

[Revolucion Artistico]

Microphen is Ilford's push developer, which I have used with good results but have not tried pushing Delta 3200 with it. The massive dev chart lists the time for 3200 pushed to 6400 as 12 mins in stock solution.

 

[Revolucion Artistico]

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1960518-Ilford-Microphen-1-Liter?cat_id=301

 

[degruyl]

I recently exposed one roll of Delta 3200 at 6400. The technician in the lab that I use told me that he would have to under develop it or else some chemical effect would start to show on images.

Just in case the tech actually knew what he was talking about: Delta 3200 is not an ISO 3200 film, so he might have been trying to explain this. It is somewhere between 800 and 1600 (I am not sure, and it does not really matter).

What that means, for you, is that you are already pushing it at 3200, and pushing it hard (about +2) at 6400. You will see some loss of image quality. That could be what was meant by "chemical effects".

I have no disagreement with the other respondents' practical advice: TMax or Microphen, follow the times on the massive dev chart.

Is this your first time developing?

 

[nome_alice]

Delta 3200 @ 6400 (120 film)
TMax Dev 1+4 dilution
11 minutes @ 20ºC

The rest of the roll came out great too, just more boring.

 

[Freakscene]

T-Max or T-Max RS (not the same), DDX or Microphen. Shoot another one first and use it as a practice roll, or do a clip test. Delta 3200 and TMZ worked fine for me at 6400, within the normal restrictions (lost shadow detail, increased contrast).

Marty

 

[ulrich.von.lich]

Once the technician spent 25mins developing a roll of Delta 3200 that I had exposed at 3200, and he said it's a bit too long for him. But this time he simply told me it's about the limit of the Microdol X. Will there always be a limit? What would happen if I shoot a roll of TRI X at ISO25600 and leave it forever in the developer?

It's true that I just started to learn to develop films myself. I have developed one roll with the help of a friend. It was in a film tank.

I also went to the darkroom with the technician once. He showed me a different way of developing film. He was actually able to inspect the film during the process. There's an extremely weak Ilford lamp that one starts to notice after the eyes getting used to the darkness. The dilution of the developer cannot be modified. And the ISO rating is not respected.

I guess I will have to develop it at home this time. It's an important roll so I will do a few test rolls.

The image developed in TMAX developer looks really nice. But I wonder if Microphen will lead to similar results. Forgive me for my lack of knowledge in film developing. I have noticed that Microphen is always associated with pushing, while TMAX (as well as TMAX-RS) is used with films of different speeds. I often shoot ISO1600 and above, and I wonder if it'd be any better to start and stick with Microphen.

Thanks everyone for the help!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Once the technician spent 25mins developing a roll of Delta 3200 that I had exposed at 3200, and he said it's a bit too long for him. But this time he simply told me it's about the limit of the Microdol X. Will there always be a limit? What would happen if I shoot a roll of TRI X at ISO25600 and leave it forever in the developer?

It's true that I just started to learn to develop films myself. I have developed one roll with the help of a friend. It was in a film tank.

I also went to the darkroom with the technician once. He showed me a different way of developing film. He was actually able to inspect the film during the process. There's an extremely weak Ilford lamp that one starts to notice after the eyes getting used to the darkness. The dilution of the developer cannot be modified. And the ISO rating is not respected.

I guess I will have to develop it at home this time. It's an important roll so I will do a few test rolls.

The image developed in TMAX developer looks really nice. But I wonder if Microphen will lead to similar results. Forgive me for my lack of knowledge in film developing. I have noticed that Microphen is always associated with pushing, while TMAX (as well as TMAX-RS) is used with films of different speeds. I often shoot ISO1600 and above, and I wonder if it'd be any better to start and stick with Microphen.

Thanks everyone for the help!

Well if your lab used Microdol-X you don't want them doing Delta 3200 anyway, that developer isn't made for high speed films that require pushing. Tmax Developer was made for pushing Tmax 400 and Tmax 3200 but it is an excellent general purpose developer as well. I use it all the time with Tmax 400 at normal speed and have used it with Tri-X with great results as well. Microphen is an older pushing developer that is popular with HP5 and Tri-X. I have not tried it, but given that Tmax developer was designed for the T-grain type films and for pushing them I'd try it first. I have had great results with Tmax Developer and Delta 3200.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If you really shot it at 6400, it will be a bad negative for wet printing. You could do something with scanning and photoshop...

When someone has a good negative shot at 6400, it's simply because it was not shot at that speed really, even if the camera was set at that ISO... If a scene is darker than a medium gray, a camera meter may be shooting at 3200 or 1600...

If a film is shot at 6400 with an incident metering, for me it's useless, no matter the developer or developing time if I plan to print it.

So, a roll from a camera set at 6400, can have lots of different things inside. Your best option is developing it for that speed, and scan to make better images, hoping some of them were exposed at more correct ISOs...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[nome_alice]

just some extra info for the benefit of others coming across this thread, after the fact.

the above shot i posted was incident metered on the area of her face in part shadow @6400 ISO with a gossen luna pro hand held meter. Shot with a Hasselblad 500C/M

 

[Rob-F]

How to figure out the true speed of Delta 3200 (without owning expensive equipment). Expose a roll outdoors on a sunny day, use the sunny 16 rule (or your meter). Bracket the exposures, keeping a record by frame number. Then see which frame appears normal in density and prints normally.

 

[40oz]

Some of you are missing the point here with your discussion of "true" speed. Sometimes people use fast film because slow film just won't get an image without excessive blur. Whether it's an ideal exposure meeting the technical criteria of a consortium of Swiss dentists is irrelevant.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Some of you are missing the point here with your discussion of "true" speed. Sometimes people use fast film because slow film just won't get an image without excessive blur. Whether it's an ideal exposure meeting the technical criteria of a consortium of Swiss dentists is irrelevant.

Agreed

The true speed is 1000 for Tmax 3200 and 1250 for Delta 3200, but contrast is a little low. I personally find pushing them to 1600 gives good fairly normal contrast with very good shadow detail. These films do gain more true speed with pushing than normal films because of the way they're formulated, but of course you still get the higher contrast. Most of the time in low light situations the lighting is often harsh and nasty anyway so the higher contrast from pushing isn't getting you any worse results and it lets you get an image.

 

[ulrich.von.lich]

So is Delta 3200 a T-grain film?

Juan, why did you say it'd be a bad negative for wet printing if it's shot at 6400 with incident metering? (If the photo of nome_alice is how it looks after being scanned without any post-processing, why would it be different for wet printing? I only heard you couldn't adjust the exposure as easily in printing as in photoshop.)

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

just some extra info for the benefit of others coming across this thread, after the fact.

the above shot i posted was incident metered on the area of her face in part shadow @6400 ISO with a gossen luna pro hand held meter. Shot with a Hasselblad 500C/M

The part of her face that is in the shadows, seems to be maybe at 2 stops of difference in light, compared to the other part with better light on it...

If you meter placing your meter in the zone in light (what an incident metering is normally) you should use an ISO closer to the real film speed to get a correct exposition...

You didn't meter the light reaching the scene, but the shadows 2 stops below, so it was like metering at 1600, not at 6400, and that's precisely what I meant... If you meter incident at 6400 on the light, you get a gross underexposure. So you got a good exposure because you didn't meter (light) at 6400.

If I am not clear enough with my english, for sure other members can explain...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Some of you are missing the point here with your discussion of "true" speed. Sometimes people use fast film because slow film just won't get an image without excessive blur. Whether it's an ideal exposure meeting the technical criteria of a consortium of Swiss dentists is irrelevant.

The only irrelevance here is your post. We are giving help to the OP member who is deciding in which way to develop a roll of 1200 shot at 6400. We are talking about how different ways of metering are the only factor deciding how much light reaches the film, because he must know that before developing. You are the only one wasting space here without going to the point at all...

Your post was irrelevant to him and his need, not to mention to some other members too.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

So is Delta 3200 a T-grain film?

Juan, why did you say it'd be a bad negative for wet printing if it's shot at 6400 with incident metering? (If the photo of nome_alice is how it looks after being scanned without any post-processing, why would it be different for wet printing? I only heard you couldn't adjust the exposure as easily in printing as in photoshop.)

Hi Ulrich,

Yes, scanners don't show the negative, but make a new image, a representation with part of the tonal range available on the film, always trying to get a good contrast no matter the real contrast on film. Paper (wet printing) needs more exposition on film to get clean grays and to reach the whites... For example, you can see with your eyes soft but clearly visible images on a negative, but if you try to print them, they won't get to the whites because a lot more silver (darker zones) is needed for that... This is why some people say they push film to 6400 0r 12800: because they scan them, and don't print them. And the other case is what I just explained in a previous post: an incident metering is supposed to be read on the light reaching the scene, so if you meter incident in the shadows, you are really metering at lower ISOs... This can also happen with reflected metering from camera: if the scene is dark, the camera tries to make that image a medium gray, so its meter allows a lot more light than if it was a medium gray scene, and then again it's as if we meter at lower ISOs... That's why I was trying to find out how the roll was metered, or if there were several different scenes on it metered in more than one only way, or scenes being dark or clear...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

By the way, Ulrich, D3200 is a T-grain film... I recently (February) tested TMax 400 in TMax developer, with extended times trying to get speed from it, and when I did real printing, I found the same thing we all have been finding decades ago: after 1200-1600, you start to burn the highlights (build contrast) and nothing else. But that's a great speed and we can happily live with it: you can shoot almost anywhere with a 1.4 lens without tripod...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[ulrich.von.lich]

The pictures were metered with the in-camera meter of an M6, central weighted I believe. However, the subjects were not dark landscapes but Caucasian faces. So we're talking about ISO6400 or even higher right? As zone 6 to 7 would lead to underexposure.

I guess this roll is wasted. I may just send it to a lab and accept what I will get. (They can inspect the negative during the development so I guess I will get extremely contrasty images.) Or should I still try to develop it in a tank?

Thanks again everyone (specially Juan) for the education. I start to realize the importance of knowing the real ISO speed of a film. I'm reading a book of Philippe Bachelier which shows the difference between overexposure + underdevelopment and underexposure + overdevelopment. The difference in contrast is drastic.

Once more question: many tend to think it's always better to have the lowest contrast as it can be added later in software while lost details due to high contrast are not recoverable. But when it's to wet printing, it's not the case, because extremely "soft" (low contrast) negatives would require extremely high contrast papers to be printed correctly, am I right?