Ilford 3200 Question

[Harry Lime]

I've shot many, many bricks of delta3200 and the best result were at 1000-1600asa in Ilford ddx or Xtol. I would go to 3200 in a pinch, but you get the best shadow detail between 1000-1600. 1250 is a great sweet spot. Be gentle with your agitation or you'll drive up the contrast.

The true speed of delta3200 is about 1000asa

Delta 3200 has much finer grain than Kodak tmy3200p. At 1600 in ddx it's about as grainy as the previous generation of tri-x. Delta3200 negs look very thin, but don't worry. They hold a surprisingly large amount of information.

 

[Taynt3d]

I've been getting good results with my local lab by shooting it at 1600 but letting the lab develop/process using the published times for the film (XTOL at 3200). No actual pulling of the film even tho shooting at 1600. Results have been consistently nice.

 

[wafflecakee]

looks like I'm the only grainiac!

 

[divewizard]

Although I don't develop my own and send it all to North Coast Photographic Services to develop and scan I have found that in 35mm I get much better results with TMAX3200, both less grain and better tonality in dimly lit scenes. The Delta 3200 is the only choice in 120, but the larger grain is ok with the much larger negative.

 

[Tim Gray]

I see this is devolving into the usual Delta/T-Max 3200 comparison thread. I'll point out (again) that take all of what we say with a grain of salt. One guy thinks T-Max has the better tonality, or is faster, or has bigger grain, then the next guy will say, 'No! That's Delta!'

So much depends on metering, exposure, developer, developing technique, and final output process (wet printing, scanning, which scanner, etc.). I'm not saying anyone is wrong, but to get their results, you might have to what they do.