Ilford Delta 3200 - what's your experience?

[Chris101]

...

Do you shoot at ISO 800, 1000, 1600, 3200 or higher?

Does there seem to be a sweet spot?

I shoot Delta 3200 often, and would shoot more if it were the price of trix. Since the demise of HIE, it is my favorite film. I shoot it at either 1600 or 3200. I always develop it in HC110, dilution b - 9 minutes at 20C for 1600, 14.5 minutes for 3200.

One thing I really like about the speed, is that I can shoot it in daylight with a dense red filter, like a Wratten 25 or 29, or even a dark blue like a 47, and be able to keep the shutter speed high enough to hand hold the camera.

Here are some examples (odd: 3200, even: 1600):

 

[Roger Hicks]

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

Dear Tim,

No, it doesn't. On Ilford's own tests, it gave the absolute maximum true ISO with the original film, a fraction over 1250, but the speed difference between DD-X and Microphen is trivial.

People who know absolutely nothing about ISO tend to forget that a film might be (say) ISO 140, at which point, the manufacturer is likely to claim either 125 or 160, simply because these are commonly accepted speeds.

Most manufacturers use a middle-of-the-road dev such as, yes, ID-11 or Xtol, but (for example) I have an old Foma 200 instruction sheet which clearly shows that the film doesn't quite reach 200 even in speed-increasing developers, but it's close enough that they can get away with it.

Also, there is very slight batch-to-batch variation, typically over a range of about 1/6 stop. It used to be 1/3 stop, but all the manufacturers have got better at consistency. On top of this, as far as I recall, clamed ISO speeds are expected to be on the basis of tests with freshly-coated film and with aged film.

Ilford's stated policy at one time was to have a tolerance exclusively on the high side, in order to provide an extra buffer against over-exposure. Thus FP4 will not fall below ISO 125 in their standard test developer, but it might go to 130, 135 or even 140.

On my own tests, which are, as I said earlier, comparative and not to ISO standard, the difference between the ISO speeds of FP4 and Foma 200 is negligible. Again to repeat, I use the same camera, lens, target and lighting, and plot a D/log E curve from densitometer readings.

And despite tlidody's last observation, 'the really great thing about standards is that there are so many choose from', the simple truth is that there aren't, at least, not when it comes to film speed. As Marty says, you can use any dev you like, which gives a range of true ISO speeds, with everything else, other than the dev, firmly specified.

This is why those who know what they are talking about specify 'true ISO speed', while cheerfully conceding that quite wide variations in metering, development, etc., may mean that for a given photographer, the same ISO speed may be exposed at a wide range of EIs.

This is how FP4 can be 160+ in Microphen (close enough to be labelled 200) but well under 100 in a few fine-grain developers. And Acros 100 is under 100 in most developers. Surprise! It's also the finest-grained 'ISO 100' film. Likewise, Delta 3200 is grainier than TMZ, and also faster. You seldom get something for nothing!

Until the 1993 ISO standard revision there used to be an ISO standard developer but it was dropped when it was realized that it flattered some films and was less than fair to others. A friend (formerly with Ilford) was on the ISO standards committee at the time, and he is quite happy with the term 'true ISO'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tonal1]

Acufine

Acufine

With a lot of talk here about Microphen and DDX, I'm just curious if many people are using Acufine with their Delta or TMZ?

I've used Acufine a bit for TMZ for pushing to 3200+, but I don't usually use it enough to justify mixing a gallon, and certainly not enough to keep it seasoned and replenished. Kind of a hassle. TMAX developer seems to work pretty well for pushing too, and I may discontinue my use of Acufine... but who knows, I'm fickle. Anyways, I've never tried microphen and have wondered how it "compared" with Acufine for the faster films?

 

[tlitody]

No, it doesn't. On Ilford's own tests, it gave the absolute maximum true ISO with the original film, a fraction over 1250, but the speed difference between DD-X and Microphen is trivial.

You just don't get it do you. There is no such thing as TRUE speed. There is only an ISO standard and that means nothing except a commonality between manufacturers. A reference point. And don't quote Mees et al because I'm not interested.
But that reference point is not written in stone or something that is required to be obtained in the real world. And yes Microphen is a whole stop faster than DDX and YES you will achieve a very useable 3200 speed with D3200 when using microphen with what most of us would call normal contrast in the resulting negatives. DDX is not all its cracked up to be IMO. I find it to be a coarse developer(with 35mm film) but not as coarse as microphen and D3200 combination. But we are talking speed here and not fine grain.
There are no rules about the contrast index you want to obtain in your negatives. It is personal choice which is why we have personal Exposure Index which is a far more meaningful term automatically telling people that its what you you rate a film at and not claimed ISO speed. Interesting to note that that virtually no one on photo web forums ever quotes the Contrast Index they obtain. That would be a vast improvement but of course most people don't have the means to measure it which means what they say about the speed they achieve is meaningless to anyone but themselves.

You chase ISO standards if you want to but it won't make your images special just because you obtain what you call TRUE speed. I call it b*ll*cks.

 

[Tim Gray]

Roger - thanks for the explanation. I was thinking more or less that, in less defined terms, but wanted to hear what tlitody had to say.

Tlitody: Whatever makes you happy. I never said you couldn't rate these fast films at 1600 or 3200 and get results you like. You can, and I often do. I'm not advocating against underexposing, overexposing, pulling, pushing, etc. to get what you want.

In my tests, these films make about 800-1250. If you want to word that differently, I've found that they make about 1-1.5 stops of REAL speed above several ISO 400 films that I tested concurrently. You can achieve pretty normal looking images with some of these high speed films pushed a stop, and in the right lighting, pushed 2. The contrast index (CI) will go up if you do that, but CI isn't the be all and end all if you get printable images that you like. It also doesn't mean it's an ISO 3200 film.

As far as users quoting CI when they talk about what speed they use film at, sure, I agree. I'll even go a step further and say that many don't even realize that contrast increases with longer development, and when they quote usable results, they don't talk about the post processing they do in Photoshop to get those results. A neg developed to CI = .55-.65 ('normal') *should* scan pretty flat in a good scanner with out adjustments. If you are getting your contrasty shots with no scanner/PS adjustments on a good scanner, I would think your CI is pretty high, and would be hard to work with in a traditional darkroom. But try to tell that to most people.

There are standards, and they do mean certain things. They do NOT mean you will be happy with the results if you expose your film at that speed. However, it's usually a good reference point to work from. In this case, it's good to know that the 3200 speed films are not ISO 3200, but more like ISO 1000. This is NOT the case with most 400 speed films - they are (roughly) ISO 400. Once you know that, it's pretty easy to work with your metering style, your development process, and your printing methods to arrive at a personal EI that works for you.

However, if you shot T-Max 3200 at 3200 and T-Max 400 at 400, and expected similar looking results minus the increase in grain, you'd be surprised. It would be more appropriate to rate the 3200 at 800 in this case.

And as far as I'm concerned, that's what people mean when they say these fast films don't make ISO 3200, more like 1000. It's that Ilford and Kodak have decide to put '3200' on the box instead of '1000'. This is not a personal EI thing. Note this is NOT THE SAME as when people tell you to rate Tri-X at 200 instead of 400. That's a personal EI thing.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You just don't get it do you. There is no such thing as TRUE speed. I call it b*ll*cks.

All right. You're right and everyone else is wrong, including the ISO standards committee. But why do you have to be so aggressive about it?

Cheers,

R.

 

[tlitody]

In this case, it's good to know that the 3200 speed films are not ISO 3200, but more like ISO 1000.

Have you tried Microphen and D3200 ?

rate at 3200 and dev stock 9mins @ 20dec C

If not, then try it. Yes it will be grainy but it will have normal contrast. It will not have high CI unlike most other pushed films.

 

[tlitody]

All right. You're right and everyone else is wrong, including the ISO standards committee. But why do you have to be so aggressive about it?

Cheers,

R.

You are in denial. It is you who is wrong and not the ISO standards committee.

There is no such thing as true speed. Anyone with a mind to do it can achieve an any speed (within limits) which conforms to ISO standard. But the developer would most likely not be commercially viable for all sorts of reasons.
However Microphen comes damn close. DDX doesn't. (we are talking D3200 here).

 

[Tim Gray]

Have you tried Microphen and D3200 ?

I will have to try it some day.

Does it have similar exposure in the shadows that a good ISO 400 film (Tri-X, T-Max, HP5+, etc.) does when rated at 400? If not, then...

Again, I shoot TMZ quite a bit at 1600 and 3200. And Tri-X at 1250, etc. All very printable at grade 2-3 on my enlarger. Depending on the original lighting, the contrast even looks 'normal'. 😀

 

[tlitody]

I will have to try it some day.

Does it have similar exposure in the shadows that a good ISO 400 film (Tri-X, T-Max, HP5+, etc.) does when rated at 400? If not, then...

Yes it does. That is the point. Microphen gives the shadows a big kick. The resulting curve is slightly S shaped compared a modern slower film but you'll get plenty shadow detail. Down to 4 stops below metered value. More than using other developers such as DDX where you'll only get 3 stops if exposed at 3200.

 

[Tim Gray]

Yes it does. That is the point.

I ask only because people are SO imprecise when talking about development and film speeds.

I will have to test this. I am somewhat skeptical, but it sounds like an interesting rainy day project.

 

[tlitody]

I ask only because people are SO imprecise when talking about development and film speeds.

I will have to test this. I am somewhat skeptical, but it sounds like an interesting rainy day project.

Thats 4 stops to black. 3 stops to 0.1. DDX only 2 to 2.5 stops to 0.1 below metered. (I'm talking spot meter here).

 

[Tim Gray]

Cool. I'll order some Microphen the next time I order.

You know though, some comparison shots of this would be really illuminating 😀 You happen to have any? It sounds like you've done them...

 

[tlitody]

Cool. I'll order some Microphen the next time I order.

You know though, some comparison shots of this would be really illuminating 😀 You happen to have any? It sounds like you've done them...

No scanner.

 

[Tim Gray]

Fair enough.

 

[tlitody]

Fair enough.

I sold the coolscan which was scsi and had to take take the scsi card out of PC to go with it. It also ran the flatbed but the flatbed had a couple of bad pixels putting lines through every print scan so I threw it thinking I'd get a usb replacement. Fact is I used it so infrequently I just haven't bothered.

 

[lilmsmaggie]

Thanks - I like that one too.

It sounds like a replenishment system, but do check with them. If they've got that kind of gear they are likely to know what will work. A good lab is an excellent resource - there aren't many around anymore.

Marty

I checked: auto replenishment system. Also, they suggested starting at 1600 and they'd be glad to treat as a test roll.

BTW - 4 rolls of Delta 3200 arrived yesterday. Outside temperatures has dropped waaaay down to almost single digits here in the Sacramento, CA area. I'll wait till it warms up a bit before venturing out.

At the moment, "It's colder than a witches teet" 😀

 

[Mablo]

This is the D3200 with D-76 stock @ 1600, 9:30 min.

 

[tlitody]

and for skeptical Tim I dug out my test chart for D3200. And I just it compared it to the ISO speed chart on wikipedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

Almost identical giving a CI of 0.61 with a small margin of error.

My meter was set to 3200. The chart has Fb+fog taken off so zero represents start of useable density.

M on the bottom scale is the metered value at 3200.

I have no idea what ISO standard CI is but if that chart at wikipedia is correct then D3200 at 3200 deved in Microphen gives a TRUE(sic) speed of 3200 and there must be more than one TRUE speed, meaning TRUE speed is a dumb way of trying to describe film speed 😛

View attachment 82877

p.s. I know its not a true (pun intended) ISO test but its the best I can do.

 

[Freakscene]

Almost identical giving a CI of 0.61 with a small margin of error.

I have no idea what ISO standard CI is but if that chart at wikipedia is correct then D3200 at 3200 deved in Microphen gives a TRUE(sic) speed of 3200 and there must be more than one TRUE speed, meaning TRUE speed is a dumb way of trying to describe film speed 😛.

There is one ISO speed per film/developer combination.

p.s. I know its not a true (pun intended) ISO test but its the best I can do.

It's an EI, but that's fine. The diagram shows an ISO of around 1300. Get the standard: http://tinyurl.com/ISOstandardfilmspeed do the calculations and check if you're interested.

I'm not saying it won't work or produce good results, but ISO speed is a defined concept, that's why the standard exists. There is a lot more scope for working with different grades of paper than the fixed 0.8 density gradient above FB+F suggests. But that's why it's a standard.

Marty