Rhodes
Time Lord
I have a Ilford B&W 3200 film yet to use and I read it that this film is more an 1000+ film that a real 3200 (can not say that the information was correct).
I want to know if I should put the light meter of my camera in the position that corresponds directly with film, 3200 or should I put in 1600 or between 800 and 1600.
I want to know if I should put the light meter of my camera in the position that corresponds directly with film, 3200 or should I put in 1600 or between 800 and 1600.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
have you tried a search on this? I'm too tired to go through it all again 
all over the place on photo.net, too.
all over the place on photo.net, too.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You decide what speed you want to use, and set your camera to that speed, then when you develop it, you develop for the time indicated for the film speed you used.
This film, and Kodak's Tmax p3200, are similar in the way they work. They have a real speed around 1000, but rather low contrast at that speed, because they were designed to be pushed. I get pretty normal contrast at 1600 and at 3200 it is a little high, like you'd expect from pushed film. Grain is bigger at higher speeds too. Develop in DDX or Tmax Developer, these developers were made to push these films.
Delta 3200 exposed at 1600 and developed in Tmax Developer. This is from the 120 size, shot in a Hasselblad.
This film, and Kodak's Tmax p3200, are similar in the way they work. They have a real speed around 1000, but rather low contrast at that speed, because they were designed to be pushed. I get pretty normal contrast at 1600 and at 3200 it is a little high, like you'd expect from pushed film. Grain is bigger at higher speeds too. Develop in DDX or Tmax Developer, these developers were made to push these films.
Delta 3200 exposed at 1600 and developed in Tmax Developer. This is from the 120 size, shot in a Hasselblad.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Like Chris says - the contrast at ISO 1000 is low. I shoot this film mostly at 1600 and develop in DDX. Another caveat, in my experience anyway - refrigerate until use, shoot your roll fast and develop it right away.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Only twice did I use a super fast film like this one: both times it was T-Max. The first time, I sent it out and got some very disappointing prints (seemed overexposed). The second time I developed it myself... and it was time of my life I'll never get back: film was excessively contrasty, showed no shadow detail (duh, contrasty) and was a pain to scan (grain, grain, grain again!).
Try it. Maybe you get a better experience. After all, I'm talking about Kodak and you're talking Ilford. Never used an Ilford emulsion I didn't like.
Try it. Maybe you get a better experience. After all, I'm talking about Kodak and you're talking Ilford. Never used an Ilford emulsion I didn't like.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Another vote for 1600- but this is finicky stuff, well worth a test if you're of the testing bend. And keep it in the fridge or freezer- it gets slower and flatter fast at room temp.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
True ISO in DD-X is about 1250 (as against 1000 for TMZ, 650-800 for Neopan 1600). As the fastest film of the three, it is also the grainiest.
It's a 'long toe' film, i.e. increased development gives more shadow detail with a smaller increase in contrast than usual with 'short toe' films. For more information on 'long toe' and 'short toe', look at the bit entitled "Interpreting Manufacturers' Curves" in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps neg density.html.
I often rate it at about 2000-2500, and develop for the recommended time for 3200.
Cheers,
R.
It's a 'long toe' film, i.e. increased development gives more shadow detail with a smaller increase in contrast than usual with 'short toe' films. For more information on 'long toe' and 'short toe', look at the bit entitled "Interpreting Manufacturers' Curves" in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps neg density.html.
I often rate it at about 2000-2500, and develop for the recommended time for 3200.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Rhodes
Time Lord
Thank you guys! I'll try and if see what I can come up! About T-Max, only now I discover it in the photographers here since black and white film in my home city are hard to find! And it's 100 iso!
Last edited:
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
I've tried testing this film half a dozen times, and never did get a "true" film speed...
Now I just shoot it at 3200, and save it for the low low light stuff. It is very grainy, but it is a very high speed film. Not much other choice for shooting handheld at night. I just wish I could still get kodak 3200, that was consistently good at 1600.
Now I just shoot it at 3200, and save it for the low low light stuff. It is very grainy, but it is a very high speed film. Not much other choice for shooting handheld at night. I just wish I could still get kodak 3200, that was consistently good at 1600.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Tmax is made in 100, 400, and 3200 versions.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
How will you develop it?
what do you want to achieve?
Let's say you'll use DDX, Xtol, Tmax or other developer then going to 3200, 6400 is quite doable with reasonable grain
Now for a coolhuge grain try the same in Rodinal
what do you want to achieve?
Let's say you'll use DDX, Xtol, Tmax or other developer then going to 3200, 6400 is quite doable with reasonable grain
Now for a coolhuge grain try the same in Rodinal
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Determining true ISO speeds really requires a sensitometer; the best that most of us can do is comparative speeds. But those with sensitometers inform me, reliably I believe, that it's 1250 or so, tops. This ties in well with my (comparative) observations that it's 1/3 stop faster than TMZ (Kodak's figures: 800-1000 true ISO).
Tonally, I much prefer the Ilford product.
Cheers,
R.