Ilford 3200 First Use Help

[leonardosfo]

I am sure there are some juvenile questions in here but need some help.

I recently returned to film after years of digital. I am not new to film but am new to ISO 3200 and Night or low light photography.

I have shot and developed one roll of Ilford Delta 3200 and developed myself, also first time. It sucked. Huge amounts of grain mostly over exposed by a stop or two. Developed in Ifosol at recommended time for ISO 3200. Shot 1/2 Hour after sunrise, overcast, Sekonic meter at 3200 said f/5.6 @ 60. I have my doubts about that reading by the meter.

1. I do not know that I understand "rating a film" vs metering this film vs. developing at a particular ISO. I see a lot of 1000@3200 references etc.

2. After searching the net I see I probably used the wrong developer, the wrong time (even though suggested by Ilford) and the normal agitation time may contribute to increased.

Any feedback would be appreciated on shooting and developing this film.



Leica iiig Elmar 50mm F/2.8

LenH

 

[gb hill]

I was told by someone who shoots alot of 3200 is to be very gentle with the agitation. In other words agitate in slow motion. I have a roll I haven't shot yet & will probably develop it in Microphen! I think many shoot it as a 1600 speed film. I've seen good results at this speed.

 

[back alley]

rate it at 1000 and use ddx.

very nice.

 

[Al Kaplan]

The last time I shot at 3200 it was Kodak 2475 (I think) Recording developed in Acufine. It was grainy but a nice grain pattern. Before that I shot a bunch of Kodak Royal-X Pan Recording in the early sixties, also souped in Acufine. That was extremely grainy.

Silver halide based film, which is all we have, seems to run into a ceiling. You can get a printable negative with a bit of shadow detail at 3200. It's not 3200 by strict ISO definition, but it is useable at that speed. The Royal-X Pan Recording's grain of the 1960's has steadily improved over the years through 2475 then 2484 (I think) to today's version. Less grain, nicer grain, but not one iota more sensitivity to light in nearly half a century.

 

[leonardosfo]

rate it at 1000 and use ddx.

very nice.

Thanks,


Therein lies my ignorance...

When you say rate it at 1000 - are you saying take an exposure reading as if the film was 1000 ASA and part two - develop in ddx as 3200?

LenH

 

[back alley]

Thanks,


Therein lies my ignorance...

When you say rate it at 1000 - are you saying take an exposure reading as if the film was 1000 ASA and part two - develop in ddx as 3200?

LenH

rate it at 1000 and expose it at 1000, so yes expose as if the film were a 1000 film (which it really is).
as for developing, look up the 'massive developing chart' and find the stated time & temp for the film at 1000.

my experience is from shooting 120 in a mamiya 6 and the negs and prints were beautiful.

joe

 

[back alley]

massive dev chart

 

[leonardosfo]

Back Alley,

Got it...I will give that a go this weekend,

LenH

 

[Al Kaplan]

Getting a "useable" or "printable" negative at 3200 is possible with increased developing time but it will be much more grainy and have higher contrast. The highlights tend to block up too.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I've actually used this film quite a bit. Tmax Developer from Kodak works very nicely with it. I shoot it at 1600 and develop for 7.5 minutes at 68 degrees in Tmax diluted 1+4 (the normal dilution for Tmax Developer). This is the time Ilford recommends in their technical PDF on the film, which can be downloaded from ilfordphoto.com

If you follow Ilford's directions, You should get good results, unless your meter is off, your technique is off, your camera's shutter is inaccurate, or you didn't have the dilution or temperature accurate when you developed. Damn, there's a lot of variables!

120 size Delta 3200 at 1600. My grandpa reading the news a few months before he died.

35mm Delta 3200 at 1600

 

[mcgrattan]

Ilford recommend their own DD-X developer for Delta 3200 and I have found that's the best with this film. It's also a fairly standard recommendation on the internet to over-develop/under-expose by one stop. That is, if you shoot it at 1600, use Ilford's times for 3200 for developing.

I'm going to try developing with Ilford's own times, today, though [I have a roll that's been sitting around for a few weeks] as I find slightly thinner negs scan better for me. I'll post results later.

 

[notturtle]

rate it at 1000 and use ddx.

very nice.

I rate at 1000/1200 normally and use Xtol 1+something.

I never rate it at 3200, personally.

Are yo sure your results are overexposed and not over developed. This film needs more dev than Ilford says. I dev for roughly the 3200 time when I expose at 1200.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Ilford recommend their own DD-X developer for Delta 3200 and I have found that's the best with this film. It's also a fairly standard recommendation on the internet to over-develop/under-expose by one stop. That is, if you shoot it at 1600, use Ilford's times for 3200 for developing.

I'm going to try developing with Ilford's own times, today, though [I have a roll that's been sitting around for a few weeks] as I find slightly thinner negs scan better for me. I'll post results later.

I've never heard that recommendation, and I've been using this stuff for at least 10 yrs! It works best at Ilford's recommended times for the speed you shot. I haven't tried DDX because no one sells it where I live. Tmax is available here, and I tried it with Delta 3200 yrs ago because I knew it worked well for Kodak's 3200 BW film. It works well for the Ilford stuff too.

 

[mcgrattan]

The one-stop over-development recommendation is everywhere on APUG and, I'm sure, on here in the past. It's worked for me in the past, but in that case I was shooting in veyr contrasty spot-lit type light and the one-stop push brought in some background detail that'd otherwise have been missed. More careful metering might have avoided the need for that, I don't know.

Your own shots above look great, btw.

 

[ChrisN]

... tried it with Delta 3200 yrs ago ...

You're older than you look! 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

I've never heard that recommendation, and I've been using this stuff for at least 10 yrs! It works best at Ilford's recommended times for the speed you shot. I haven't tried DDX because no one sells it where I live. Tmax is available here, and I tried it with Delta 3200 yrs ago because I knew it worked well for Kodak's 3200 BW film. It works well for the Ilford stuff too.

Dear Chris,

I've been using it since it came out (in fact, before it came out -- I have friends at Ilford), and developing for one step longer is what I've done for most of that time. But then, as all film/dev manufacturers say, their recommended times are just starting points.

I like the tonality @ 1600 in DD-X or Microphen (true ISO 1250 or so), but I have been known to push it a lot further.

Cheers,

R.

 

[notturtle]

I too get very thin negs indeed if I develop it for the Ilford time at their stated speeds. I use a diffuser enlarger so if you have a condenser, you might not need to deveolop as much.

It is grainy, but for its speed very good - beautiful in 120 - and grain is tight and crisp, rather than lumpy. Very even. I agitate with 4 slow inversions per minute.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

You're older than you look! 😀

I got my first manual SLR at age 11, began doing black and white and processing myself at 15. I'm 33 now. I do look young for my age though. lol

 

[back alley]

I got my first manual SLR at age 11, began doing black and white and processing myself at 15. I'm 33 now. I do look young for my age though. lol

actually, you look kinda orange...😉

 

[leonardo]

I rate at 1000/1200 normally and use Xtol 1+something.

I never rate it at 3200, personally.

Are yo sure your results are overexposed and not over developed. This film needs more dev than Ilford says. I dev for roughly the 3200 time when I expose at 1200.

I may well have as I did use Ilford's chart. Maybe my Sekonic wasn't lying.

LH