Ilford Delta 3200 - what's your experience?

[Roger Hicks]

Photography is funny. It's amazing how, for such an intrinsically subjective study, we all try to define it so precisely. 🙂

Anyways, I would agree that Delta can appear more grainy; it does have a lumpy grain pattern at least, whereas TMZ has a more fine grain pattern, even if those grains may be spaced out pretty well 😉

Having worked in camera repair, and having little faith in accuracy of metering and the consistency of shutters and emulsion, I'm not super precise with speed numbers. I just say Delta and TMZ are about, around, close to EI ~800-1000 ish. I do know that for really big pushes Delta starts to fall apart. One of my favorite images I've ever made was with TMZ at 12,500 in TMAX developer (to be fair it required a little mercuric too...). I don't personally like Delta above 1600.

Perceptions of sharpness is notorious too, right? I'm of the "sharpness" is more perceived crispness of medium sized details in an image. I would not be surprised if with some developers Delta may have more actual detail though...

Not to inflict another developer on you, but if you like Delta 3200 I can highly recommend replenished XTOL with it.

Cheers

Oh, sure. The speeds I'd disagree about, because although I can't do true ISO testing, I know people who can, and I can also do comparative speed tests (same camera & lens, plot D/log E curve) reasonably well, and Kodak, Ilford, the late Geoffrey Crawley and I all agreed that Delta 3200 is 1/3 stop faster.

Thanks for the suggestion of replenished Xtol, but I prefer single-shot for a higher true speed (no hydrobromic acid build-up) and besides, as you suggest, adding another developer can be more trouble than it is worth.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

They were from the lab over various times and places. Always too grey.

Yeah... most labs work on the old Army quartermaster principle, "one size fits none." It's not a film I'd use unless I were developing it myself.

Cheers,

R.

 

[excellent]

Any suggestions for a home developer?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Any suggestions for a home developer?

DD-X. Lasts forever and gives (close to) maximum true ISO. Develop for slightly longer than Ilford times -- most people prefer that, but as tonal1 points out, a lot of it's subjective.

Cheers,

R.

 

[varjag]

DD-X, T-Max or Microphen would all be good choices for high-speed films.

 

[Turtle]

you have to develop this film far longer than the packet suggests for good prints IMO.

Rate at one speed and develop at a time somewhere between one and two stops faster. You wont get flat negs.

I find the sweet spot to be about 1000-1200. I used dilute Xtol (1+2) or DDX. Similar

 

[sevo]

In 120, it is a nice 1000 ISO film. Haven't ever tried it in 135, as I always found fresh T-Max 3200 better in grain and texture. But the difference is fairly modest, and old or mistreated T-Max rapidly gets worse than Delta - I always found the exposed and unexposed storage handling of Delta to be much better than that of T-Max 3200. The latter positively needs permanent cold storage and immediate development, while I can treat Delta almost like any 400 film.

Sevo

 

[Tim Gray]

old or mistreated T-Max rapidly gets worse than Delta - I always found the exposed and unexposed storage handling of Delta to be much better than that of T-Max 3200. The latter positively needs permanent cold storage and immediate development, while I can treat Delta almost like any 400 film.

I've heard the exact opposite 🙂

I personally like TMZ, but I'm willing to admit the following. In fact, I try to point it out when I can. Whenever someone has an opinion about TMZ or Delta 3200 being better than the other, you can almost always find someone who has the opposite opinion. Witness this thread. The best advice in my mind is to try them both and see which one you like. If you still can't make up your mind, buy the cheaper/more readily available one.

 

[Turtle]

Old fast films are always bad news. I avoid them like the plague. High fog and low speed = poorly exposed and nasty negs.

D3200 wont ever be fine grained but can add a lovely texture. The grains are ever so crisp and I find it truly beautiful in 120 at about 20x16 or 20x24. Yum.

 

[Turtle]

Oh, one other thing, is that I find the film (naturally low contrast) hold highlights well, but it wont have that highlight sparkle you can get from some films; however, this characteristic is almost certainly necessary to allow it to be pushed hard without the highlights going off the chart.

 

[sevo]

I've heard the exact opposite 🙂

YMMV. A lot of that may be dependent on the developer.

 

[Tim Gray]

YMMV. A lot of that may be dependent on the developer.

Exactly my point.

 

[tonal1]

Hahah, it's funny. At the end of the day... iwhen I was first learning, if I had spent as much time in the darkroom as I spent reading about other peoples darkroom techniques, I'm sure I would be a much better photographer today! 🙂

 

[tlitody]

And another thing. Whats with all this "true ISO" BS? The ISO of any film is dependant on the developer used for the ISO test and since none of you seem to use ID-11 which is what Ilford use when doing ISO tests, you are talking complete b*ll*cks when stating its true ISO because you aren't doing ISO tests or using ID-11 and never likely to submit it to the international standards organisation since only the manufacturer can do that.
Me thinks you are all confused about what ISO speed is and Exposure Index (EI) which is what you you get with your own testing.

 

[Tim Gray]

tlitody - I think a lot of people don't realize that the film speed is nowhere near the box speed of 3200. That's what *I* mean when I say the true speed of the film is around 1000-1250. 1/3 of a stop in either direction isn't all that important to me. What's important to get across is that it doesn't make 3200 speed at all.

Same goes for TMZ.

 

[Freakscene]

And another thing. Whats with all this "true ISO" BS? The ISO of any film is dependant on the developer used for the ISO test and since none of you seem to use ID-11 which is what Ilford use when doing ISO tests, you are talking complete b*ll*cks when stating its true ISO because you aren't doing ISO tests or using ID-11 and never likely to submit it to the international standards organisation since only the manufacturer can do that..

The ISO do not do testing, they set standards. Anyone can submit film to an ISO accredited laboratory (there are quite a few of these too) and get the speed tested to the standard. ISO6:1993 allows any developer to be used, so the ISO speed varies depending on the developer. An ISO test for a film using a different developer to that used by the manufacturer is very useful, not irrelevant because it can be directly compared to the Ilford data, including to see how the film curve varies (this changes tonality).

The standard goes far beyond variation in developer. There is a standard for everything from the thermometers and light meters, to the luminance range of the scene (in practice a backlit step wedge, but there are ISO standards for both of those too), how the sensitometry is conducted and everything else.

I can do ISO tests to standard although I am not accredited to do so anymore. The point of the standard is "The ISO Speeds will provide correct exposures for average Scenes with exposure meters conforming to ISO 2720 or ISO 2721 when the film is processed as specified in this International Standard."

Me thinks you are all confused about what ISO speed is and Exposure Index (EI) which is what you you get with your own testing.

Maybe, but maybe not. I don't see anyone claiming to have done lab tests, but when discussing tested ISO speed Roger is right about current Delta3200 and TMZ - I have comparable ISO standard data for both of them in a few developers. I also have historical data that shows that they have both changed since they were introduced. The confusing thing with the superspeed B&W films is that neither Kodak nor Ilford supply all the data from Section 7 of the standard "Product data and labelling" for these films, although F-4016 is very useful for practical purposes, as are most Kodak publications about their products.

Marty

 

[tlitody]

tlitody - I think a lot of people don't realize that the film speed is nowhere near the box speed of 3200. That's what *I* mean when I say the true speed of the film is around 1000-1250. 1/3 of a stop in either direction isn't all that important to me. What's important to get across is that it doesn't make 3200 speed at all.

Same goes for TMZ.

it does if you use microphen but no one seems to like the grain.

 

[tlitody]

the really great thing about standards is that there are so many choose from.🙄

 

[Tim Gray]

it does if you use microphen but no one seems to like the grain.

It makes ISO 3200 speed in Microphen? Really? I was not aware of that.

I'm also totally ignoring your rant earlier.

I'm just going off what Ilford and Kodak say in their spec sheets for these films. ISO 800-1000.

 

[ironhorse]

Take a look at Dirk Steffens' photos with Tri-x pushed to 3200. Outstanding quality. I don't think that I would use anything else.(Dirk....hope you don't mind me reposting)

While walking the Hong Kong nights last weeks:

"Z" Leica M7 | 35 Lux ASPH | TriX @ 3200