Dcanalogue
Established
Hi to all film shooters!
Since some months ago I started to use some Delta films. I tested the 100, 400 & 3200 with different developers and different settings for film speed.
Given the good results I got pushing the 400 to 800 in Ilford Ilfotech DD-X, this time I wanted to test it pushed @ 1600. I used my Olympus OM10 with Zuiko 50mm & Tokina 24mm for this test.
Very nice results.... IMHO... with nice grain and good contrast.
You can check more on my Film Blog.
Since some months ago I started to use some Delta films. I tested the 100, 400 & 3200 with different developers and different settings for film speed.
Given the good results I got pushing the 400 to 800 in Ilford Ilfotech DD-X, this time I wanted to test it pushed @ 1600. I used my Olympus OM10 with Zuiko 50mm & Tokina 24mm for this test.
Very nice results.... IMHO... with nice grain and good contrast.
You can check more on my Film Blog.
aldobonnard
Well-known
Agree. Your Delta 400 images pushed looks quite good, and in absolute terms much better than most 400 ISO contenders. In addition, it may well be possible that the scanning does not do justice to the negatives which wet printed could show more of the highlights and dark tones.
Dcanalogue
Established
Yep... of course each valutation is made on scans..... but the final judgment should always be done on wet silver prints....
robert blu
quiet photographer
This is interesting, I'm not using them much now but I love the Delta 100 and 400.
Did you find any advantage in using Delta 400 compared to Delta 3200 when both used at iso 1.600 ? Grain or tones?
robert
Did you find any advantage in using Delta 400 compared to Delta 3200 when both used at iso 1.600 ? Grain or tones?
robert
Dcanalogue
Established
I've tested just one time Delta 3200@1600 in DD-X (you can check my blog)
and one time Delta 400@1600 in DD-X
I used 2 different cameras (Olympus XA4 for 3200 and OM10 for 400) so, apart the differences caused by the cameras I think the 400 performs better. Much less grain, good midtones and better contrast handling.... IMHO.
Johnmcd
Well-known
Great stuff. I have just chosen Delta 400 as my '1600' film with two cans in the fridge. So this info is very timely.
Today was the first try out but only at 800 iso which was sufficient given the light and narrow depth of field I was looking for. BTW, my son's first baby and my first grandchild!
Developed in DDX 1:4
New Dad
Great Grandmother
New Mum
Today was the first try out but only at 800 iso which was sufficient given the light and narrow depth of field I was looking for. BTW, my son's first baby and my first grandchild!
Developed in DDX 1:4
New Dad
Great Grandmother
New Mum
Dcanalogue
Established
Great stuff. I have just chosen Delta 400 as my '1600' film with two cans in the fridge. So this info is very timely.
Today was the first try out but only at 800 iso which was sufficient given the light and narrow depth of field I was looking for. BTW, my son's first baby and my first grandchild!
Developed in DDX 1:4
New Dad
Great Grandmother
New Mum
Congrats...!!!!
ashfaque
Learning
Donato and John: I liked these excellent photos from both of you. I'll probably try it with ID-68 (Microphen) later. Congratulations to John as well.
Johnmcd
Well-known
Johnmcd
Well-known
Donato and John: I liked these excellent photos from both of you. I'll probably try it with ID-68 (Microphen) later. Congratulations to John as well.
Looking forward to seeing any differences that may be between DDX and microphen. Thanks.
Dcanalogue
Established
Donato and John: I liked these excellent photos from both of you. I'll probably try it with ID-68 (Microphen) later. Congratulations to John as well.
Thanks!
Looking forward for the results.
Btw. I saw some interesting shots developed in Xtol.... Anyone can share other results?