Mablo
Well-known
This is an attempt to soup D3200@1600 in D-76.
Ilford Delta 3200 - what's your experience?
- Thread starter lilmsmaggie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 92
- Views 47K
robert blu
quiet photographer
This thread is a little too technical up to my knowledge and I'm feeling confused. Because I would like to use this film to shoot musician at a concert on a stage, you can imagine strong direct light and maybe musicians wearing in black (as they usually do to make things more difficult!), with the aim to get a photo where you can see details of the face how do you suggest to rate this film (1200 - 3200 or in between?) and what are the development time suggestions for which developer (I have DDX available) ? Any suggestion is appreciated, thanks
robert
robert
Freakscene
Obscure member
Test first. Shoot it so that you can get your shutterspeed high enough that you don't shake. Develop it long enough to get printable/scannable density. For Delta 3200, Ilford's data sheets are usually under in terms of time for real-world users, so if you shoot at (for example) 3200, the time for 6400 or even 12800 may be closer to the mark. The times for TMZ in Kodak's data sheets are closer to the right starting point for me. If you have DDX use it. it works very well with Delta3200 and TMZ. Accept that if you shoot at an EI greater than 1000-1250 you will lose some shadow detail and (most importantly to me) some dark tone contrast. But the alternative may be not getting any shot at all, which is worse.
Delta 3200 EI 12800 T-Max RS
Marty
Delta 3200 EI 12800 T-Max RS
Marty
tonal1
Established
I think the situation you describe is exactly where Delta 3200 shines (more so than Kodak 3200). For light skin tones, if you're ok with letting dark cloths go solid, you'll be ok at 3200 if need be. If you have the light, and if you want a more open look, you'll do well at EI 800.
>I would try 1600 and develop in something like XTOL.<
That's a good place to start. I find Delta to be very forgiving. If the results are too contrasty and lack shadow, then lower your speed and reduce development. If your results are flat and lifeless, try increasing development and maybe use a higher EI. Just my 2 cents.
Also, it sounds like you'd like to try this soon and maybe won't have a chance to do a test run. If so, when you first start shooting, you could shoot a test roll quickly with the first six or so frames at a speed of 400, then six more at EI 800, then 1600, 3200, 6400, etc. Now you have a roll with a vast range of exposures on it that you can have developed and can inspect so you have a better idea of how to develop your "keeper" rolls. All said and done, after that you should have a pretty good idea of how to handle this film.
Last edited:
JPSuisse
Well-known
This thread has me thinking... about Neopan 1600
This thread has me thinking... about Neopan 1600
Dear all This thread has me thinking... What are the odds of me being able to replace Neopan 1600 that I'm currently shooting at EI 800 - 1000 and developing in DD-X? It looks to me like the results from Ilford 3200 are much grainier.... Thanks for the feedback.... I'm going to have to transition some time... @tonal1, the idea of shooting a film afferent EIs and just developing might be the best approach for me answer my question too! Thanks! Kind regards, JP
This thread has me thinking... about Neopan 1600
Dear all This thread has me thinking... What are the odds of me being able to replace Neopan 1600 that I'm currently shooting at EI 800 - 1000 and developing in DD-X? It looks to me like the results from Ilford 3200 are much grainier.... Thanks for the feedback.... I'm going to have to transition some time... @tonal1, the idea of shooting a film afferent EIs and just developing might be the best approach for me answer my question too! Thanks! Kind regards, JP
Last edited:
bwcolor
Veteran
This thread has me thinking about going digital for low light. I've never warmed up to big grain, or poor perceived sharpness. Funny how these things go, but low light is quickly becoming the reason for me to get back to digital. If I've got the light I love film.... Now, if the X100 would only pan out..
tonal1
Established
My heart died just a little when I read that. I also happen to agree with you. I personally think that digital is currently far superior for capturing low light scenes, but I am attached to the the "big grain", as well as the working process of film. So, for me the philosophical reasons for film trump the technical ones for digital. At the end of the day, I'm probably missing out. ~
X100 indeed; that may well end up my color camera.
tonal1
Established
If you really like Neopan 1600, I would actually recommend you transition to Tri-x. You may like it in Diafine when exposed at around EI 800, or possibly Rodinal. Slightly pushed Tri-x will have a similar feel to Neopan 1600 (but no film will replace it). If you want a faster film, I would actually recommend Kodak 3200 (TMZ) as being a little closer in style to Neopan 1600 than Delta 3200, though neither film is very similar. Neopan 1600 will be missed.
Good luck!
Freakscene
Obscure member
HP5+ in DDX is the closest thing to Neopan 1600. The ISO speed of HP5+ in DDX is about 500, so you're not far from where Neopan 1600 was (640). The tonal response is most similar.
Marty
Marty
tonal1
Established
But is the look similar? Neopan 1600 is sooo distinctive.
Debusti Paolo
Well-known
I used the delta 3200 in 120 format (do not liked in 135...) with my bronica rf645 and developped by a friend of mine ( a pro photographer...😉).xposed @3200 and some prints were in sepia tone....I Had great results!!!I liked it very much
robert blu
quiet photographer
Thanks Freakscene and tonal1 for suggestion. I'll try some esperience and see what happens. Of course I know I'll have no or a little shadows details.
robert
robert
Freakscene
Obscure member
It's as similar as you can get, and the grain is finer, but it is nice. I still prefer the tonality of Neopan 1600, but the HP5+ is very, very nice.
Marty
