Help! Delta 3200: Pull Processing

[ederek]

I need some advice on processing some Delta 3200.

I think: The Delta 3200 was exposed at 3200 but based on Digital M photos, should be pulled one stop.

😕
Questions are:
1) Which developer?
~ D76 or XTOL? (also have Diafine & Rodinal but little experience processing with them)
2) Any processing suggestions for the high contrast scene?
3) Will highlights for film be ok (bit blown w/ digital), and best to over-process a bit to pick up some shadows?
4) Any other suggestions (haven't shot/processed Delta 3200 before; will be scanning the negs)

Background info:

A friend hosted a Jazz evening last Saturday. I brought the M9, M4, 50 summilux and 50 summicron rigid. I knew it would be dimly lit and probably high contrast.

Original plan was to shoot w/ the 50 Rigid on the M9 as I wanted a unique look and like this lens, and to use the 50 Lux on the M4 with TriX to provide a one-stop speed advantage at f1.4, and also to push the TriX to 800 (which I've done a number of times with success).

I took this first image with the M9 and 50 lux (1/30sec, f1.4, ISO 800)

Reviewing the image quickly, I got worried and changed the plan. 😱
Removed the TriX from the M4 and loaded it with Delta 3200 and left the 50/2.0 cron on the M4. Bumped the ISO on the M9 up to 1600.

So now, I'd have the M9 at 1600 with f1.4, and the M4 with 3200 and f2.0. Basically, just shooting the M4 one stop faster than what I was shooting with the M9 (serving as a fancy exposure meter).

Reviewing photos on Sunday, I didn't quite expose for the highlights with the digital (though I expect the film to be more forgiving), so really I'd like to rate the Delta at 1600, after the fact, and pull one stop in dev.

Here are a few more images from the M9/50 Lux at ISO 1600 to provide a feel for contrast / etc.

 

[MartinP]

The Ilford data sheet for development times is at this link. It includes pulling Delta3200 (or in fact, this is arguably simply 'not pushing' it) in various developers.

The contrast may go flatter more quickly than you expect as the film was always intended to be 'pushed' to reach 3200 so really a test roll, or a few throwaway shots at the beginning of the roll which you can then clip-test, could be a good idea for another time 😉

On that same datasheet is a suggestion for Rodinal 1:25 and an EI of 6400 . . . wonder what that looks like ?!

 

[Tim Gray]

Well, if you exposed at 3200, then you simply don't have some of the shadows on the film. Delta 3200 is really about ISO 1000-1200. So you've underexposed it by a stop and a half or so, and no form (of reasonable) development, pushing or not, is going to recover that for you.

In general, developing longer only pushes the midtones and highlights up further on the scale, so if you are worried about highlights blowing out, then the advice would be to pull. Not that the highlights will actually blow out, most likely, they will just be too dense to scan; there will still be detail in there that you might get at with wet printing and burning. So, I would NOT recommend over developing (barring the note in the next paragraph). Either develop normally, or if it was an extremely contrasty scene (10 stops or more?), pull.

With all of this, note that quite a lot of people suggest that Ilford's times are too low for Delta 3200, and that you should develop using the next speed (if exposed at 3200, use the times for 6400). I'm not well versed in Delta 3200, so I can't verify this.

I would use XTOL. It's a speed enhancing developer and you might pick up a 1/3-2/3 of a stop of real speed. If this were T-Max 3200, I would recommend using Kodak's times for 3200 in XTOL 1:1. I would try to do the equivalent with this film ('normal' development for EI 3200 for Delta 3200 in XTOL 1:1, whatever time that might actually be).

 

[tlitody]

Well, if you exposed at 3200, then you simply don't have some of the shadows on the film. Delta 3200 is really about ISO 1000-1200. So you've underexposed it by a stop and a half or so, and no form (of reasonable) development, pushing or not, is going to recover that for you.

In general, developing longer only pushes the midtones and highlights up further on the scale, so if you are worried about highlights blowing out, then the advice would be to pull. Not that the highlights will actually blow out, most likely, they will just be too dense to scan; there will still be detail in there that you might get at with wet printing and burning. So, I would NOT recommend over developing (barring the note in the next paragraph). Either develop normally, or if it was an extremely contrasty scene (10 stops or more?), pull.

With all of this, note that quite a lot of people suggest that Ilford's times are too low for Delta 3200, and that you should develop using the next speed (if exposed at 3200, use the times for 6400). I'm not well versed in Delta 3200, so I can't verify this.

I would use XTOL. It's a speed enhancing developer and you might pick up a 1/3-2/3 of a stop of real speed. If this were T-Max 3200, I would recommend using Kodak's times for 3200 in XTOL 1:1. I would try to do the equivalent with this film ('normal' development for EI 3200 for Delta 3200 in XTOL 1:1, whatever time that might actually be).

I kind of concur with above. I've seen people rave about delta 3200 in xtol but I haven't tried it.
What I can tell you is that if you use ilford microphen stock for 9mins at 20degC you will get normal contrast with normal shadow and highlight detail. That combination is how the film was designed to be used and gives an EI 3200. But its grainy.
If you want less grain then Ilford DDX 1+4 for 18mins @ 20degC will give an EI of 1600 for normal contrast with well controlled highlights. Less grain but if you have exposed at 3200 then you will lose a stop of shadow detail but get plenty mid to highlight detail.

 

[ederek]

The Ilford data sheet for development times is at this link. It includes pulling Delta3200 (or in fact, this is arguably simply 'not pushing' it) in various developers.
<snip>

MartinP - thank you very much. Also found another table that had some times for Xtol at 1:1 and 1:2, and a few others here:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/D3200/d3200.html

Seems to be a bit of a debate about whether to use a stock solution, or 1:1 or 1:2. I don't have any Xtol mixed up at the moment, so am going to leave that powder on the shelf.

Also, many have not had good results with the D76, so scrapped using that.

Well, if you exposed at 3200, then you simply don't have some of the shadows on the film. Delta 3200 is really about ISO 1000-1200. So you've underexposed it by a stop and a half or so, and no form (of reasonable) development, pushing or not, is going to recover that for you.
<snip>

So I shot the film at EI1600 (where I was shooting it at 3200, but upon further review, realized that would be one stop over). Turns out this is a good thing - glad I didn't err in the other direction!

<snip>
If you want less grain then Ilford DDX 1+4 for 18mins @ 20degC will give an EI of 1600 for normal contrast with well controlled highlights. Less grain but if you have exposed at 3200 then you will lose a stop of shadow detail but get plenty mid to highlight detail.

Thanks for the DD-X suggestion, have been reading others suggesting this (though with a shorter time in the tank for either 1600 or 3200). Picked up 1-liter on the way home, and at this point, I'm planning to use the DD-X as that is easy to mix up in a small batch.

Most users (including Al Kaplan) rate the Delta 3200 betweein EI1250 and EI1600. Seems that's right about where I exposed it, so that bodes well...

Thanks again for the inputs!

 

[Tim Gray]

Sounds like you did err in the right direction.

 

[tlitody]

Most users (including Al Kaplan) rate the Delta 3200 betweein EI1250 and EI1600. Seems that's right about where I exposed it, so that bodes well...

Ilford use ID11 to calculate ISO speed for their films and that is where the ISO speed of 1000 comes from as quoted in their datasheet. But Delta 3200 is designed to be pushed preferably with a speed increasing developer. Microphen gives the biggest speed increase. DDX gives a moderate speed increase compared to ID11 which is normal. So with DDX and a little extra than stated dev you will get a real EI 1600. Using EI 1250 may well be good for some developers. All depends on the balance between shadow detail, speed and grain that you want.

 

[MichaelW]

If you want less grain then Ilford DDX 1+4 for 18mins @ 20degC will give an EI of 1600 for normal contrast with well controlled highlights.

I've had good results rating it at 1600 and processing in DDx 1:4 for 9.5 minutes, which is the time recommended for it rated at 3200, ie give it a bit extra dev. 18 minutes sounds like a long time. Did you mean 8 minutes?

 

[tlitody]

no I meant 18 minutes. The first test I did was for 9 mins and that gave a soft neg so I upped the time and arrived at 18 minutes. Were you developing for wet printing or scanning? For scanning your time should be fine but I thought 9 mins was too little for wet printing.
And if wet printing then it does depend on enlarger, paper, filtration and developer etc so some experimentation is required for our own setup.

 

[Freakscene]

Get some DDX or TMax developer. Xtol isn't great past EI1600.

I tried the Rodinal 1+25 @ EI 6400 recommendation as per the ilford data sheet. You get grain, a lot of grain, and very little shadow detail. If you can control the light, it looks very cool.

Marty

 

[Mister E]

Did you just say you shot the M9 @1600 w/ 50/1.4 a stop faster than the M4 @ 3200 w/ 50/2? They should have been shot at the same shutter speed unless I'm missing something.

 

[ederek]

Did you just say you shot the M9 @1600 w/ 50/1.4 a stop faster than the M4 @ 3200 w/ 50/2? They should have been shot at the same shutter speed unless I'm missing something.

Mister E - that's exactly right. I was shooting them at the same rated exposure, just with aperture one stop slower on M4 and ISO one faster.

But, in processing the M9 files, I felt they were over-exposed by a stop given some of the highlights in areas of the face were a bit blown. So figure if I just rate the film at 1600 and develop for that instead, I'd be in a good place.

I've had good results rating it at 1600 and processing in DDx 1:4 for 9.5 minutes, which is the time recommended for it rated at 3200, ie give it a bit extra dev. 18 minutes sounds like a long time. Did you mean 8 minutes?

Sounds great, that's the plan - 9 1/2 minutes in DDx 1:4.

I will be scanning the negatives, so better to err on the side of negatives that are a bit thin.

Thanks for comments on Xtol and other developers, it's consistent with what I've been able to find through other forums. Doing things a bit different always helps me learn something!

 

[tlitody]

let us know how it turns out and your opinion of neg density for your development time.

 

[Freakscene]

Remember that the ISO standards for sensor speed and B&W film speed are very different. I'd suggest a clip test if the shots are important.

Marty

 

[ederek]

Souped for 9 1/2 minutes in DDX and the negatives were a bit thin but usable.

After scanning and looking close, was disappointed with all the light grain in the black areas. Worse than expected. 😕

Then I looked at at the area between frames, and saw the same bright grain noise there as well, and thought maybe there was a problem with the film not related to my exposure or processing.

The box showed an expiration date of Dec 2009 !!! Grrr, didn't even look. :bang: :bang: :bang: This film had spent a month or two at warmer temps as well.

Going to process the scans and see if there is something usable. Will show some examples of what it looks like. 🙁

Happened to pick up a fresh roll earlier this week with a July 2012 expiration, and there's another Soiree tomorrow evening, so will give the Delta 3200 another go.

 

[tlitody]

film base + Fog is not low with this film. I was getting around 0.3 but that could be partly caused by my fixer.

You will always get grain with D3200 its not a fine grain film. Using 18mins dev as I found for normal contrast makes things worse. It's really best in 120 format if grain is an issue for you. It's worse in microphen but if you want a true EI of 3200 then microphen is the only way to go and you just have to put up with the grain. DDX seems reluctant to go much faster than 1600.

I'd suggest you take speed down to 1250 for next roll and try Xtol. ( that is if you feel you were capturing plenty shadow when using EI 1600 )
Problem you have is that scanning will exagerate the grain.

 

[Mister E]

Yeah, I found it to be awful at 1600. Nothing like Neopan 1600 or Neopan 400 @ 1600 which are both better toned and finer grained and easier to get good scans from with real contrast.

 

[tlitody]

yes you can push slower films to 1600. Delta 400 in microphen will push to 1600. But which you use really depends on subtract contrast. A low contrast and low light subject would be best in 400 speed film pushed whereas as a normal contrast subject in low light would be better with delta 3200 (or neopan 1600 I think).

delta 3200 is a naturally low contrast film which gives normal contrast when pushed whereas delta 400 is a normal contrast film which gives high contrast when pushed. The latter suits a low contrast subject whereas the former suits a normal contrast subject.

 

[ederek]

Appreciate the comments - learning a lot.

Here's the best I've got so far, could re-scan and optimize the black/white points for the scan (used whole range for this).

This is what I see for the base - small crop from the lower left corner of a strip. The white vertical line on the left is the cut edge of the film.

The black "L" is the film base between frames - shouldn't this be clear, and not showing white specks?

This is a small crop from a frame taken in a lit room:

Adjusting levels removes too much detail

Another small crop example, this time in low light with a high contrast scene. The light reflection in the glasses is the brightest element of the scene, and her hair would be on the other end. The white spots are what I'm questioning that could be from expired film.

Also, I think there is a bit of a light leak between frames, shown by the bright lamp here, bleeding into the frame to the right.

 

[tlitody]

one other thing. If you can live with the grain you will get much better shadow separation if you use microphen stock for 9mins @ 20degC exposed at 3200 than you will with a slower speed developer and more exposure. I know that is counter intuitive but it is product of the combination of microphen and delta 3200. That I think is where the designation 3200 comes from. It is worth a test for your low light photography.
And don't forget that pixel peeping on screen makes things look much worse than how they will print. But if you really want finer grain then the xtol route with slower EI is the way to go. But you will get poorer shadow separation I think.