Ilford Delta 3200 - what's your experience?

[Tim Gray]

That looks believable to me. When I was saying 'true', again I was trying to distinguish from people who expose tri-x at 6400 and overdevelop the hell out if it, ignoring the shadows. And cases like that. If you've got a couple stops of shadow detail, I'm convinced.

Of course I haven't done out the math yet.

 

[tlitody]

There is one ISO speed per film/developer combination.



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

I'm not interested enough to pay 50CHF to be told that even though I rated it at 3200 and its produced a normal curve (as far as I'm concerned) with no blown highlights and plenty shadow detail, I've underexposed it by over a stop. You must have the standard so tell us does it have D3200 developed in microphen in the standard? And does it give the ISO speed for it developed in Microphen? I think not but I could be wrong. Therefore the standard is suggesting something that real world trials don't produce. But I'm not trying to chase ISO standards and it only goes to (dis)prove the usefulness of standards depending on how you use them.

 

[tlitody]

I would add that my rant was provoked by what is a very frequently asserted claim that D3200 is not capable of achieving a speed of 3200 with a "normal" curve when in reality it can. It is usually combined with the claim that the real or true speed is only around 1000 and leads a lot of people to beleive that the manufacturers are falsifying speed claims. But what people don't seem to appreciate is that these fast films are designed to be pushed and not to conform to ISO standards. And they also don't realise that if the right developers are used then they can obtain normal contrast negatives at high speed.
To me the D3200 name is because when used in Ilfords push developer, Microphen, it does indeed give a very useable EI of 3200 which is precisely what Ilford claim.

Also people don't realise that using many other developers they lose a lot of shadow detail even when exposed at lower EI.

The web propgates myths, especially when perpetuated by some who should know better and reference to ISO standards when talking about push films is not helpful.

Whether you can live with the grain when using microphen is another matter.

 

[Roger Hicks]

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).

It has been explained to you several times by several people what a true ISO speed means. Note the use of the qualifier ISO. 'True speed' is as you say meaningless. 'True ISO speed' isn't.

But you have already made it abundantly and insultingly clear that you have no interest in ISO speeds, only in your own EIs. That's fine. But spewing venom at those who use conventional terms in conventional ways is not really in the spirit of RFF.

Those who understand ISO standards cheerfully concede that a wide range of EIs can be used. They also understand why they are not true ISO speeds, and what influence curve shape has on usable EIs. Long-toe films push better, and films specifically designed for pushing (such as Delta 3200) may actually look better when pushed than at their true ISO speeds; a point I made early in this thread: "For maximum quality I'd recommend 1600-2000, and for low light we rarely push it beyond 2,500 and more. A long-toe film like this may actually give slightly inferior results at its true ISO (inferior totality) as compared with a slight push." (post 16). That still does't affect the true ISO, and understanding terms such as 'true ISO' and 'long toe' helps you understand why. Of course you've aready said you don't want to understand, which makes me wonder why you are trying to insult people who explain the subject.

Look at this this way.

HP5 Plus in Perceptol: true ISO maybe 320 at most. Rate at EI 650 = 1 stop push = more contrast.

HP5 Plus in Microphen: true ISO around 650. Rate at EI 650 = no push = no extra contrast.

You can either deny that this is true, or claim that it's irrelevant (as far as I can see, you do both). But your claims and denials do not alter the D/log E curve. No-one is 'chasing' ISO standards. We all push film (well, most of us, anyway). But 'push' is against a standard -- a standard you do not understand and do not want to understand, by your own admission.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Freakscene]

as far as I'm concerned

Here you and the standard diverge. There is a true ISO speed for each film developer combination.

You must have the standard so tell us does it have D3200 developed in microphen in the standard? And does it give the ISO speed for it developed in Microphen? I think not but I could be wrong.

Sad to say, I have more ISO standards than I care to count. 170-200, maybe, including this one.

The standard is _just_ the standard. It tells you how to derive the ISO speed of a film.

Therefore the standard is suggesting something that real world trials don't produce. But I'm not trying to chase ISO standards and it only goes to (dis)prove the usefulness of standards depending on how you use them.

I would add that my rant was provoked by what is a very frequently asserted claim that D3200 is not capable of achieving a speed of 3200 with a "normal" curve when in reality it can. It is usually combined with the claim that the real or true speed is only around 1000 and leads a lot of people to beleive that the manufacturers are falsifying speed claims. But what people don't seem to appreciate is that these fast films are designed to be pushed and not to conform to ISO standards. And they also don't realise that if the right developers are used then they can obtain normal contrast negatives at high speed.

No-one in this thread claimed anything of the sort. We merely stated what the ISO speed was. You can scan and print your way around a lot of variation beyond the standard. Ilford and Kodak are very helpful with both these films; they show the time-contrast curves you've reproduced one of above. If you develop like that, you need to expect that CI. you can also derive the ISO speed in any developer from those curves, although some supplementary data is usually not provided.

To me the D3200 name is because when used in Ilfords push developer, Microphen, it does indeed give a very useable EI of 3200 which is precisely what Ilford claim.

That's fine _to you_. The standard is for everyone, manufacturers included.

Also people don't realise that using many other developers they lose a lot of shadow detail even when exposed at lower EI.

That's because the speed differs...

The web propgates myths, especially when perpetuated by some who should know better and reference to ISO standards when talking about push films is not helpful.

The purpose of the ISO standard is exactly to avoid the propagation of myths. That's why it's a standard. But no-one is asking anyone to conform to it. Photography is an aesthetic pursuit, and in aesthetics anything goes.

Let's go back to using and showing shots from these films:

TMZ EI6400, T-Max RS.

TMZ EI 3200 T-Max RS.

Delta3200 EI 1250 home made T-Max substitute:

Marty

 

[tlitody]

does the standard use the word true? I would hate to think you are attributing the word true to the standards when it doesn't exist in the standard rgardless of what anyone on the standards committee thinks. Ah committees, don't get me started on those. They are the sort of people who make up the standards...

 

[Turtle]

tlitody,

Irrespective of your failure to grasp the reality of tested ISO speeds vs EIs, the vast majority of people find it comes nowhere near an EI of 3200 with the shadow detail they would expect of other films at their shooting EIs. Like me, many use DDX which is almost indistinguishable in speed from microphen and in my experience dilute Xtol easily matches DDX for speed. For me, D3200 comes nowhere near an EI of 3200 if I am looking at shadow detail and don't go telling me that would all change in an instant if I used microphen because it wouldn't.

If I shoot a scene with a low brightness range I can of course rate D3200 at higher speeds and get a full tonally scale for print... but that's because the original scene might only have spanned 3 stops or so.

I find the ISO published by Ilford roughly matches those published for their other films if I compare my EIs and take into account developers.

 

[lilmsmaggie]

Here you and the standard diverge. There is a true ISO speed for each film developer combination.



Sad to say, I have more ISO standards than I care to count. 170-200, maybe, including this one.

The standard is _just_ the standard. It tells you how to derive the ISO speed of a film.





No-one in this thread claimed anything of the sort. We merely stated what the ISO speed was. You can scan and print your way around a lot of variation beyond the standard. Ilford and Kodak are very helpful with both these films; they show the time-contrast curves you've reproduced one of above. If you develop like that, you need to expect that CI. you can also derive the ISO speed in any developer from those curves, although some supplementary data is usually not provided.



That's fine _to you_. The standard is for everyone, manufacturers included.



That's because the speed differs...



The purpose of the ISO standard is exactly to avoid the propagation of myths. That's why it's a standard. But no-one is asking anyone to conform to it. Photography is an aesthetic pursuit, and in aesthetics anything goes.

Let's go back to using and showing shots from these films:

TMZ EI6400, T-Max RS.

TMZ EI 3200 T-Max RS.

Delta3200 EI 1250 home made T-Max substitute:

Marty

Very nice shots Marty. I particularly like the last two. BTW -- I apologize if I've started a flame war. That was not my intent. Having said that, I agree with Marty: Let's get back to showing some examples of these films.

You too Roger! - I've seen some excellent shots on your web site 😀

 

[tonal1]

The Future

The Future

If I may offer a small distraction.. The situation mentioned above wherein Kodak is forced to produce infrequent batches of TMZ, because of reduced sales, raised a few questions for me. Just how "high tech" are these super fast emulsions? If TMZ and Delta disappeared from the market - I don't think we can take any film for granted these days - are there major road blocks for smaller companies to pick up the torch? Might we see a Kentmere 1280, or a Rollei 4000 one day?


Beyond that, I sure would love to see a film "cottage industry" develop one day. I imagine the photo engineers of the world must make small batches in the lab... Why not a medium sized batch? Maybe 500 or 5,000 rolls at a time. I can dream right?

 

[varjag]

Rollei is a rebranding of old AGFA emulsions.

Making a good film is pretty damn hard.

 

[tonal1]

Rollei is a rebranding of old AGFA emulsions.

Making a good film is pretty damn hard.

I don't doubt that. But I do wonder if the actual manufacture is nearly as difficult as the R&D. So, under the grand fantasy of, say, Kodak giving (laugh out loud) the "formula" and recipe for an emulsion, could a smaller outfit tool it up for small batch runs? I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities. You know, like fusion power: Could happen 🙂

 

[Freakscene]

Thanks for your comments - don't worry about anything.

Delta 3200 and TMZ require more technological input and have more complicated manufacturing processes than any other commercially available films for photography. If we lose them, there is very little chance that another manufacturer could take them up, even if they were provided with sufficient data.

Marty

 

[Roger Hicks]

If I may offer a small distraction.. The situation mentioned above wherein Kodak is forced to produce infrequent batches of TMZ, because of reduced sales, raised a few questions for me. Just how "high tech" are these super fast emulsions? If TMZ and Delta disappeared from the market - I don't think we can take any film for granted these days - are there major road blocks for smaller companies to pick up the torch? Might we see a Kentmere 1280, or a Rollei 4000 one day?


Beyond that, I sure would love to see a film "cottage industry" develop one day. I imagine the photo engineers of the world must make small batches in the lab... Why not a medium sized batch? Maybe 500 or 5,000 rolls at a time. I can dream right?

Well, neither of those, as Kentmere is owned by Ilford and Rollei isn't a manufacturer -- and remember the problems Foma had with 800.

Yes, you can dream, but high-quality film coating, especially of high-tech films, is NOT suitable for a 'cottage industry' and economies of scale are massively important.

Cheers,

R.

 

[tonal1]

Well, neither of those, as Kentmere is owned by Ilford and Rollei isn't a manufacturer -- and remember the problems Foma had with 800.

Yes, you can dream, but high-quality film coating, especially of high-tech films, is NOT suitable for a 'cottage industry' and economies of scale are massively important.

Cheers,

R.

I know, I know.

So, the problem is that a large number of complex ingredients/processes are needed and that the process is only economically viable on a large scale?

It was a nice daydream.


Any idea just how much TMZ Kodak makes in a single production run?

 

[Roger Hicks]

I know, I know.

So, the problem is that a large number of complex ingredients/processes are needed and that the process is only economically viable on a large scale?

It was a nice daydream.

Pretty much. There are surprisingly few active film coating lines anywhere in the world (and surprisingly many mothballed/inactive) and they are huge machines coating at several metres per second. Coating alone rules out 'cottage industries' and then when you get into double-jetting during emulsion manufacture (monosize crystals), temperature control, gelatine isoelectric points, etc., it gets staggeringly complicated. Ultra-high-speed films are the most demanding of all, if they're not to be muddy, grainy, incredibly developer-sensitive, etc.

As you say, it's a nice daydream, but, alas, doomed to remain so.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sevo]

So, the problem is that a large number of complex ingredients/processes are needed and that the process is only economically viable on a large scale?

It is more a matter of needing some frequency of production runs so that the the material wasted over tests and failures becomes a constant calculable quantity. If you do one batch a year, a failure becomes a 100% loss, and makes the product a economic failure. A run of ten batches makes two failures a 20% loss, and if you do that often enough this becomes a known statistical size you can safely factor into the price.

 

[Tim Gray]

To me the D3200 name is because when used in Ilfords push developer, Microphen, it does indeed give a very useable EI of 3200 which is precisely what Ilford claim.

Again, thanks for the curve. Look neat. I will try it out the next time I have a free weekend to see how stacks up against TMZ in XTOL.

Quoting Ilford though:
"DELTA 3200 Professional has an ISO speed rating of ISO 1000/31o (1000ASA, 31DIN) to daylight. The ISO speed rating was measured using ILFORD ID-11 developer at 20°C/68oF with intermittent agitation in a spiral tank."

That's what people are referring to when they say the speed is not 3200. That's it. I don't call that propagating myth. It's not hearsay. Many people never look at the PDFs provided by Kodak and Ilford, so when they start talking about D3200 or TMZ, someone usually chimes in to say that the manufacturer actually states that these are ISO 1000 films, not 3200. And has been discussed to death in this thread, and ISO rating doesn't mean you can't get something very useable at other ratings. The only picture I've sold professional was shot on TMZ rated at 3200...

Of course DD-X or Microphen might give you a speed boost over ID-11, so you might get a higher speed. From looking at the Ilford PDF, the DD-X and Microphen curves seem to be pretty similar, with the Microphen maybe being a bit faster.

 

[tlitody]

Again, thanks for the curve. Look neat. I will try it out the next time I have a free weekend to see how stacks up against TMZ in XTOL.

Quoting Ilford though:
"DELTA 3200 Professional has an ISO speed rating of ISO 1000/31o (1000ASA, 31DIN) to daylight. The ISO speed rating was measured using ILFORD ID-11 developer at 20°C/68oF with intermittent agitation in a spiral tank."

That's what people are referring to when they say the speed is not 3200. That's it. I don't call that propagating myth. It's not hearsay. Many people never look at the PDFs provided by Kodak and Ilford, so when they start talking about D3200 or TMZ, someone usually chimes in to say that the manufacturer actually states that these are ISO 1000 films, not 3200. And has been discussed to death in this thread, and ISO rating doesn't mean you can't get something very useable at other ratings. The only picture I've sold professional was shot on TMZ rated at 3200...

Of course DD-X or Microphen might give you a speed boost over ID-11, so you might get a higher speed. From looking at the Ilford PDF, the DD-X and Microphen curves seem to be pretty similar, with the Microphen maybe being a bit faster.

Don't ever trust Ilford curves posted in their datasheets. They are for illustration only IMO. I found one that was completely wrong some years ago and told them about it. So they changed to another one which was also obviously wrong. I don't even bother looking at them now. The kodak ones are superior.

DDX does not give such a speed increase as Microphen. And it will not push D3200 to 3200 with relatively normal CI without very extended development. i.e. you will get a flat curve and only 2 to 3 stops of shadow detail in DDX.

I'm fully aware of the Ilford ISO rating for D3200. But as I have pointed out, that is for the ISO standard and uses ID11. That is not what the film was designed for. It was designed to be pushed to 3200 with normal contrast result. It is a naturally low contrast film which was not designed to conform to ISO standards. The fact it does at some arbitrary speed is completely irrelevant except to standards chasers.
But even though it can be used at 3200 with normal contrast there are an awful lot of people who won't beleive it. Partly because of myth, partly because of the ISO rating with ID11, partly because of the developer they are using and partly because of blindly following what they have been told by someone who can't be contradicted. Oh and partly because of grain, i.e. resulting print quality.
The latter of those is why a fair few people say they prefer it in 120 format where the enlargement factor is often less than from 35mm.

 

[Chris101]

... Let's get back to showing some examples of these films.
...

Sorry Maggie,

Those of us who have offered examples of Delta 3200 have been completely ignored so that a few members could argue about the Standard number of angels on a pin head. So you are not likely to get many more people showing their true examples of Delta 3200 in action.

Why show pictures when arguments are so much more convincing.

 

[Freakscene]

Delta 3200 EI 3200. Home made T Max substitute: