Developer for Delta 3200

vincentbenoit

vincentbenoit

télémétrique argentique
Local time
10:55 PM
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
762
The mission:
Take pictures of stage performances in a dark theater.
Slow pace of action on stage.
High-contrast lighting: actors lit by spotlights over a dark background.
Flash not allowed.

The tools:
Mamiya 6 and Rolleiflex TLR. Fastest lens f/3.5.
Film: Delta 3200, rated at 3200-6400.

The dilemma:
How to develop the film?
Preferred option: Xtol. But what about dilution - stock , 1+1 or 1+2?
Alternative option: Ilfotech DD-X. But again, what dilution - stock, 1+4 or 1+9?

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Vincent
 
XTOL 1+1 would be my choice. I haven't shot any 120 Delta 3200 (although I've got a bunch of the stuff in the fridge), but for 35mm this combo delivered the best results I've had from Delta 3200 (rated at 1600asa). With 120 film the grain should be less of an issue, even at 3200 or higher. Example 35mm shot (apologies for the huge size):





 
Last edited:
I'm going to develop MF Delta 3200 at 3200 in DD-X 1+4 tomorrow and I'm curious about opinions, too. I don't like Xtol's results with other fast film - Neopan 1600 (1+1 and 1+3), while DD-X really shines with it (in my opinion).
 
DDX I have no idea where you may have read that it is useable out of the bottle ?! Dilution is 1+4 and, for me, it works ok at the Ilford standard times for the slower Delta films. I have only ever tried a couple of rolls of 3200 though, so other people may have more up-to-date tips there. I suspect a test roll would be a good idea, and also reducing the agitation a bit if you usually do a lot (but what is "a lot" ?).

The obvious (sorry for that) tip is to try to get there for a rehearsal, or lighting test, and measure the incident light from on the stage. I tried this in a village-hall production and it was ok because the lighting didn't change much from two basic setups - I imagine a more complex production could be more tricky . . .
 
Thanks Ian. Looks good indeed.

I've used Xtol 1+1 for Delta 3200 but never beyond 1600. Even at that EI fog was quite important, so I was tempted to go for a higher dilution. Would this be a sensible thing to do?

Cheers

Vincent
 
palec said:
I'm going to develop MF Delta 3200 at 3200 in DD-X 1+4 tomorrow and I'm curious about opinions, too. I don't like Xtol's results with other fast film - Neopan 1600 (1+1 and 1+3), while DD-X really shines with it (in my opinion).
Click to expand...
Thanks Palec. Would you mind posting your results tomorrow?

Cheers

Vincent
 
I use DDX 1+4 with delta 400 and 3200. I think 3200 gives the best results exposed and developed at 1600.
 
Thanks Martin.

I'm not concerned about metering, only developing.

The massive dev chart lists neat DD-X for Delta 3200 so somebody must have tried it...

My standard agitation regime is continuous agitation for the first 30 sec, then 2 inversions every 30 sec.

Cheers

Vincent
 
DD-X 1+4 works great. Never tried 1+9 for D3200
Times are available in Ilford's website, and are quite accurate,
however, if you want to give it a bit more punch expose as 3200 develop as 6400
 
Vincent - grain and contrast have been problematic for me with Delta 3200 in Xtol stock and 1+1 - so bad that if I can't get better results I won't shoot the film again.

Ilford claims DD-X was produced specifically for Delta 3200, but I too have not tried the combination yet. I plan to develop a roll of 135 in DD-X tonight or tomorrow and will post results.

My first results with Neopan 1600 in DD-X were less than satisfactory. Grain was OK but highlights were blown even more than usual for this film. It was only one roll and I am not certain my temperatures were correct. Tonight I will gove the Neopan another go.

- John
 
vincentbenoit said:
Thanks Palec. Would you mind posting your results tomorrow?

Cheers

Vincent
Click to expand...

Due to my illness I had to postpone this. The problem could be that it was expired film (12 months), but I'm not happy with the results. The film looks underdeveloped even after adding one minute to recommended time, total 10:30. Previously I've tried Microphen with recommended time and result was very thin negative.

I also don't like the darker and curly film base. I think, it's the problem with expiration, faster films tend to loose their speed faster, I have one expired Delta 3200 left, I'll expose it as 1600 and develop as 3200.
 
What palec said... Delta 3200 is best fresh, and don't leave it in the camera for months, and REALLY don't let it go through airport x-ray.

Last night, developed a fresh roll of Delta 3200 in 1+4 DD-X for 9.5 minutes at 68 deg. Continuous slow agitation for 1 min and then two inversions every minute thereafter. Looks really good with the loupe. Hope to scan tonight.

- John
 
I'd had great luck using DDX with 120 Delta 3200. Great combo. I develop for around 9 1/2 minutes.

I shoot it at 3200 metering carefully with a small bias toward shadow areas. Or if the light permits 1600 with more casual metering. 3200 works well but 1600 gives a bit of insurance for shadow detail if important.

This is an emulsion to use in 120 but not 35mm for my eye. OK, it works in 35mm but the trade offs become apparent in prints.
 
Here's recent result. Expired Delta 3200 in 120 format (expired month ago). Exposed as 1600, developed as 3200 in DD-X 1:4 (1 minute of continuous inversions, then 4 inversions every minute). I think aperture was f4 and shutter speed 1/50s.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Next2007.jpg
    Next2007.jpg
    77.6 KB · Views: 0
Okay, so the shoot didn't go too bad. The stage was not as dim as I thought it would be so I ended up rating the Delta 3200 at EI 1600, handholding the Mamiya 6 at 1/15"-1/60" with the 75mm lens set at f/4. Also used Delta 3200 at the same EI in a Leica M6 with 50mm Summicron wide-open. Developed all rolls in DD-X 1+4 following Ilford's recommendations for time and agitation, i.e. 8 min at 20C with 4 inversions every min. Negs look really good under the loupe, with adequate shadow detail and nice highlight gradation. Grain and sharpness look acceptable, too. Will scan a few frames and post results here.

Cheers

Vincent
 
I'd opt for 35mm gear and a faster lens. Neopan 1600 is superb, but it's true speed is closer to ISO 800. I've also found that Fuji's recommended development time for Neopan 1600 is way too much -- you'll get overly dense highlights.
 
Thanks Robert. I'm scanning the Delta 3200 negs as I type and all I can say is that they look extremely good indeed. Way better than anything I've ever got from Neopan 1600 rated at box speed.

Vincent
 
Hi Palec

Thanks for posting this. Looks quite good for expired film. The highlights are a bit hot, do you think that's a result of the (deliberate) overdelopment?

Vincent



palec said:
Here's recent result. Expired Delta 3200 in 120 format (expired month ago). Exposed as 1600, developed as 3200 in DD-X 1:4 (1 minute of continuous inversions, then 4 inversions every minute). I think aperture was f4 and shutter speed 1/50s.

attachment.php
Click to expand...
 
vincentbenoit said:
Hi Palec

Thanks for posting this. Looks quite good for expired film. The highlights are a bit hot, do you think that's a result of the (deliberate) overdelopment?

Vincent
Click to expand...

The conditions were very contrast there, the spot lights were used to light the scene and the face was in shadow. But they are not overblowned by development, just the scene is too contrasty. I have another example from the same session, just different light conditions.

attachment.php


Here the white stripe of the sweater has too dense area with no detail and this could be the problem with overdevelopment. I'm curious about your results with fresh film and standard development time.
 

Attachments

  • Struna.jpg
    Struna.jpg
    102 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom