Chris101
summicronia
White "specks" and leaking bright light is normal for this film.
Help! Delta 3200: Pull Processing
- Thread starter ederek
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 38
- Views 5K
ederek
Well-known
I was hoping the blacks would at least be black. Even white specks in the film in an area between frames are normal?
Here's another I like due to content, but technically, am not happy.
Here's a comparison between one with the M9 and the other with the Delta 3200.
No need to guess which was which. The M9 files weren't processed well, monitor was a bit off but oh well, they're already published, on to the next..
Thanks for reviewing and offering comments here, I appreciate the help!! 🙂
Tim Gray
Well-known
I've found with TMZ (very similar to Delta 3200 in my book) that I am tempted to look for more shadow detail in scanning than I do in the dark room. When I'm in the dark room, I set the exposure until I get a nice good black and go from there. While scanning, I look for the last little bit of details in the shadows. I've found that I can eke a bit more out of the shadows when scanning AT THE EXPENSE of solid blacks. I need to remind myself to not look for that last barely exposed tone, and set the black level a bit higher until I get a good black. When I do this, I find that I end up at almost the same range of tones as I get in dark room printing the same negative.
Long story short - raise your black levels a bit and the white specks will go away. The are in between frames is unexposed. It should be black. If you have a weak black there, you should raise the black level (adjust with curves or levels) until it's a good solid black.
Long story short - raise your black levels a bit and the white specks will go away. The are in between frames is unexposed. It should be black. If you have a weak black there, you should raise the black level (adjust with curves or levels) until it's a good solid black.
Mister E
Well-known
Again, for me those results are beyond what I'm willing to put up with. Here are a few D3200 shots that made me decide not to shoot it again in favor of Neopan 1600 (most were pulled to 1600 I think):
Female Novice by NateVenture, on Flickr
Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr
Tsukiji Fish Market by NateVenture, on Flickr
Neopan 1600:
Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr
I Ate this One by NateVenture, on Flickr
Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr
Neopan 400 @1600:
Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr
Female Novice by NateVenture, on Flickr
Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr
Tsukiji Fish Market by NateVenture, on Flickr
Neopan 1600:
Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr
I Ate this One by NateVenture, on Flickr
Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr
Neopan 400 @1600:
Untitled by NateVenture, on Flickr
sepiareverb
genius and moron
What developer Mr. E?? That is the kind of grain (in 2, 3, 6) I could learn to love.
Mister E
Well-known
I send all my film off to NCPS for cheap developing and scanning, but when I asked what dev they use this is what they said, "Clayton Chemistry F76 which we believe is a derivative of D76."
ederek
Well-known
Mister E - those are fantastic! Love the look of the Neopan 1600 in comparison.
The first with the candle is similar to much of what I was seeing.
Plan to zip through a fresh roll of Delta 3200 tonight, as well as some TriX 400 that I'll push to 1600 in Xtol to compare results.
The first with the candle is similar to much of what I was seeing.
Plan to zip through a fresh roll of Delta 3200 tonight, as well as some TriX 400 that I'll push to 1600 in Xtol to compare results.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I think the grain is from the NCPS scans. It's real sharpened and lumpy when I get scans of high ISO stuff from them. I love the scans for what they are, but I can only imagine what would it would do to traditional B&W film, especially high ISO. And that's ignoring how good/bad they might be at B&W developing.
Not trying to bad mouth them - it's where I send my color film and it's a great deal with great minilab-style scans. I just prefer to keep my B&W in house.
This is the kind of grain I get from a 4000dpi scan of TMZ:
Not trying to bad mouth them - it's where I send my color film and it's a great deal with great minilab-style scans. I just prefer to keep my B&W in house.
This is the kind of grain I get from a 4000dpi scan of TMZ:
Taynt3d
Member
My lab uses XTOL and say when I shoot it at 1600, they generally recommend still processing it as if it were at 3200. Only had one roll done by them, but it came out nice.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Thanks. When my Neopan is gone this could work out for me.
clayne
shoot film or die
- Local time
- 12:33 AM
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 763
Nate, the grain in that 2nd shot is heavenly! That's perfect reason *to* shoot D3200P.
Your lab is correct. Ilford's times are *wrong*. Well known for a while now: if it's Delta 3200, develop for the next EI upwards. So if you shoot it at 1600, develop it for 3200 times, 3200, develop it for 6400 times.
It is what it is.
Your lab is correct. Ilford's times are *wrong*. Well known for a while now: if it's Delta 3200, develop for the next EI upwards. So if you shoot it at 1600, develop it for 3200 times, 3200, develop it for 6400 times.
It is what it is.
Mister E
Well-known
Tim, living in Japan I just don't have the time and space to deal with developing and then scanning black and white in house. I'm happy 99% of the time with what NCPS gives me. Perhaps I'm just not picky. I love developing, but not scanning. Scanning frustrates me 99% of the time.
ederek
Well-known
Didn't end up shooting the 2 rolls (incl 1 expired) last weekend. Hopefully soon.
Thanks. Starting to appreciating what "fog" means now.
I think the next time I will drop the EI to 1250 and develop in Xtol.
Tim - will raise the blacks a bit until I get a true black in the unexposed areas.
Working more with film again is helping the digital photography as well.
Nate - the images you posted in the 'all in the eyes' thread are all superb!
Thanks. Starting to appreciating what "fog" means now.
I think the next time I will drop the EI to 1250 and develop in Xtol.
Tim - will raise the blacks a bit until I get a true black in the unexposed areas.
Working more with film again is helping the digital photography as well.
Nate - the images you posted in the 'all in the eyes' thread are all superb!
Mister E
Well-known
Thanks, so much!
Tim Gray
Well-known
Hey I got you. I love NCPS. After seeing your results from them, I've been using them as my color lab. And thanks for telling me that the budget scans were the way to go over the enhanced scans. Great service for a great price.
It's just nice to note that better scanning results *are* possible if one does it in house. But it should be - there's no way I could turn out 36 scans for $5 of my time. It takes a lot more work and time at home. The two areas where NCPS (and most minilab-style scans) can be improved upon are in the highlights (things that look blown out really aren't) and grain. They do some noise reduction/sharpening combo that can give lumpy looking grain sometimes.
I've not sent any B&W to them, but I would think the grain issue, as well as not having full control over developing, could cause some problems. B&W grain is a touchy enough issue when it comes to scanning.
tlitody
Well-known
I still think you should give microphen a try at EI3200 just to see what this film is really about. You might be pleasantly surprised even with the grain. The benefit is the shadow separation you get in very low light (providing its in the subject).
clayne
shoot film or die
- Local time
- 12:33 AM
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 763
Last time I checked microphen was a speed losing developer. Can't see how it could possibly pull more shadow detail than XTOL or DDX.
tlitody
Well-known
I think you better check again.
clayne
shoot film or die
- Local time
- 12:33 AM
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 763
Yep, my error. I was thinking of microdol.
Similar threads
