EI 3200: please suggest

[bwidjaja]

Since medium format cameras tend to have slower lense (in my case f4 is the norm), for indoor shots I find myself needing to shoot @3200 quite a few times. So far I have been ok pushing HP5 to 1600. But have not tried pushing it to 3200.

So for those with more experience, what do you suggest:
1. HP5 pushed to 3200
2. Use Delta 3200
3. Forget it, use digital
4. Other suggestions

Cheers...

 

[tapesonthefloor]

Let us know what sort of atmosphere you're after, too. I've pushed some Neopan 1600 to 32, but I wouldn't exactly call it versatile:

high-contrast Joel by tapesonthefloor, on Flickr

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

with the right developer, you can easily push hp5 to 3200, especially with medium format film. I prefer it to delta 3200.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

this is neopan 1600 pushed to 6400. developed in Xtol in 1+1 dilution.
contax g2 with 90mm lens.

 

[Tim Gray]

I'd take the Delta 3200, especially in medium format.

 

[goo0h]

this is neopan 1600 pushed to 6400. developed in Xtol in 1+1 dilution.
contax g2 with 90mm lens.

Has an interesting effect. Shame they killed NP1600.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Neopan 1600 isn't/wasn't an option for medium-format cameras anyway (ignoring 135 backs). Tri-X is usable up to 6400 - if you're patient - although I don't know if it would be your best choice:


RZ67_110_TX_EI6400_Scan-101203-0002 by ruby.monkey, on Flickr

(Tri-X 400, EI 6400, 1:50 Rodinal semi-stand for 60mins)

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If what you mean is incident metering at 3200 and wet printing, I doubt there's a better option than Delta3200 and DDX...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Delta 3200

120 size shot at 1600, but it looks good at 3200, far better than a 400 film pushed that much.

 

[bwidjaja]

Thanks all for the comments.
@Ruby.monkey, that is beautiful shot and just the example I need to see. I think i will try pushing HP5 to 3200 and see what happens. If I don't like it, maybe i will try Tri-X...

 

[bwidjaja]

I think the three of us posted the message at the same time.
@Christopher, I actually like that shot. Does the negative look thin @1600?

 

[ruby.monkey]

bwidjaja: thank you - but it's very hard to argue with Chriscrawfordphoto when he puts up such a superb example of what Delta 3200 can do.

 

[Beemermark]

35mm film with a 1.4 lens will buy you 4 stops, thus you can use normal 400 ISO film at rated speed and end up with a much better negative. You lose the advantage of the larger negative when you push film 4 stops.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

There's just no way to make HP5 or Tri-X reach the place Delta does... The difference is huge!

Some people (I'm not talking about anyone, please...) meter with camera, say at 3200, but the scene makes the camera decide settings for 1600, and then the frame -even a bit underexposed at 1600- is scanned and levels adjusted... I mean that's not shooting and wet printing 3200... That's shooting at 1200 and correcting digitally...

Delta3200 is where you should go deep on testing and you'll get all you need for the not very fast medium format lenses handheld indoors... It needs a lot of development to avoid its natural flatness, but its tone can be very beautiful, and it's by far the fastest option...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[divewizard]

6X9 Delta 3200 examples

6X9 Delta 3200 examples

I have pushed HP5+ to 1600 and get good results, but have not tried 3200 yet.

The 6X9 photos below were shot with with Delta 3200 @ ISO 3200. They look good, but not when blown up. Click on either of the 6x9 photos below to see what the grain looks like in the full-sized original scan.









©2011 Chris Grossman

 

[bwidjaja]

@Juan, yes I mean incident meter 3200; currently no printing yet (not equipped for that). Maybe I should give Delta 3200 a try.

Anybody like using Delta 3200 with Rodinal? I am new and my dev skills is limited to using Rodinal right now. So would like to stick with it if possible before venturing to other developers and methods.

 

[jbielikowski]

Delta 3200 in Rodinal is ok (in MF)

GA645

 

[Tim Gray]

The 6X9 photos below were shot with with Delta 3200 @ ISO 3200. They look good, but not when blown up. Click on either of the 6x9 photos below to see what the grain looks like in the full-sized original scan.

Man, I would have expected better than that grain-wise from 6x9. What did you develop in and scan on?

I know TMZ isn't available in 120 and that this shot was at 1600, but I'm pretty happy with what I get out of it in 35mm (TMZ in XTOL 1:1 at 1600):


. by ezwal, on Flickr

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Rodinal works at its best with classic design grain, and Delta's grain structure is different, so with Rodinal you won't be able to get all Delta can give you... I wasted my time, my Rodinal and my Delta3200... Buy a bottle of DDX (Ilford) and keep it for Delta3200 only, and use a single 120 roll for testing a couple of development times:

Meter a home scene -including subjects that will render black, grays and white- at 3200 incident, and shoot N, N+1/2 and N+1 (meter reading first, then opening half f-stop, and then opening another half f-stop), then skip to frame 7 and do the same three shots again.

Cut the roll by its middle and develop one half on DDX at suggested time, and then develop the other half for a 50% longer time...

Then you'll know -from your own gear and techniques- the ISO you prefer for exposing Delta3200 AND the negative contrast you prefer for your scanning/printing.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[bwidjaja]

@Juan, thank you for the concise and clear methods. One question. Do I need to be really precise on the temperature if I follow Ilford's dev technique (from DD-X fact sheet). Sorry for the basic question as I normally do not worry much about temp when using Rodinal.