T-Max 3200 vs Delta 3200

[GeneW]

Which of these two do you prefer? What's your favourite rating and developer?

I need more speed and don't mind grain, so I need to stock up ... looking forward to learning from your experiences.

Gene

 

[dcsang]

I personally prefer T-max 3200 @1600 to gain a bit more contrast.
I've used it in my R3A and my SLR. I always DEV in eithr T-Max or D-76. I tired Delta 3200 but never really "enjoyed it" as much for some reason. Also, because the T-grain structure is, apparently, different between the two films you would need to use a different dev (in Delta's case, probably something like Microphen or Perceptol ) with Delta.

That's just my experience mind you; YMMV as always

Cheers
Dave

 

[back alley]

most of my high speed experience was with the mamiya 6 - so 120 film.
but i found delta to be easier to work with and less contrasty in general.

i rated it at 1000 and developed in everythiing from ilfosol s to ddx. the ddx was the nicest.
i did not find the grain to be a problem but it was 120 remember.

joe

 

[BJ Bignell]

I've never used T-Max 3200 before, so I can't help you with any comparison. However, I've had good luck with Delta 3200 up to ~12500 in DD-X. Examples: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6841

I've also pushed D3200 up to 6400 in Ilfosol-S (not a good developer for high-speed work), but that's only the type of thing you'd do if you were looking to destroy all fine detail in your shots; big, soft, popcorn grain that's not entirely unpleasing.

 

[Marc Jutras]

I use Delta 3200 a lot. I haven't tried T-Max 3200 since I want to support Ilford and really like the results I get from the Delta. I use it anywhere between 1600 and 12500 but mostly at 6400 for the low light club stuff I shoot. I have it processed at my local lab in X-Tol according to Ilford's documentation. There are some examples in my gallery but most of my work in low light is on my site since it might not be proper to show here.

 

[Roger Hicks]

TMZ is slower, true ISO about 1/3 stop below (Kodak & Ilford figures). Delta 3200 is grainier (because it's faster...) and as far as I am concerned VASTLY superior tonally. Microphen or DDX gives a true ISO 1250 with Delta. I'm happiest with Delta at up to 3200 but have successfully pushed it to 12,500 and beyond -- insofar as an EI has any meaning at that speed (how are you metering). I've not used TMZ since Delta came out.

Delta is NOT a T-grain film; it's a different (epitaxial) technology, at least as clever, which also brings a more conventional spectral response, i.e. normal (instead of reduced) blue sensitivity and normal (instead of increased) orange sensitivity.

Perceptol will give nice tonality but poor speed (ISO 800 or below) and Rodinal will give huge grain and poor speed.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- take a look at some of the free modules on Photo School there)

 

[Stephan]

Delta, cant stand the grain structure of TMZ, makes me feel drunk looking at a print :/ (in a bad way I mean ).

 

[Honu-Hugger]

I like them both -- P3200 I usually shoot at EI 800, develop in T-Max 1:9 @75 degrees F for 13-1/2 minutes. Delta I shoot at EI 1600 (misplaced my developing formula). The tracks were shot with T-Max and the Mangrove was shot with Delta (Stephan, don't look -- the grain could be hang-over inducing, without any of the fun that usually precedes a legitimate morning-after ).

 

[Roman]

I prefer TMax P3200, never got any good results with Delta 3200, even though I have tried different developers with it (but I have seen great results from others, so it's just me who does not get along with it...) - I found TMax to be much sharper (but also a bit grainier - though I do like the grain) than Delta, my Delta prints were always looking soft & washed-out (and the negs were really hard to print in a wet darkroom).

I like TMax at around EI 1600 to 2000 best, in Calbe A49 1+1 (20°C, about 18 min. - this dev. is available eg. from www.fotoimpex.de in Europe, and JandC in the US), but I can also get quite good results with TMZ at EI 3200, A49 1+1 for about 22 min.
You can see a few results in my gallery (though I doubt quality/differences can really be judged from small neg.scans on a monitor...)

Roman

 

[aizan]

i'm using delta because it's faster. there's just more on the negative.

 

[GeneW]

I just read through the thread and want to thank you all for responding! There's a lot of information here.

It looks as if each film has different characteristics that appeal to some photographers and not to others. Or, put another way, that some of you prefer the characteristics of one over the other.

I've bought a roll of each. I'll try to shoot them under similar conditions and develop them both with the same developer (HC-110 most likely) and see if one or the other triggers a more favourable reaction.

Gene

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Gene,

Using the same developer doesn't necessarily mean a fair test: it may favour one film over the other. As I don't use HC110 I can't say whether this will be the case, or in which direction, but it's worth being aware of. The tabular grains of TMZ respond differently from the epitaxial crystals of the Delta 3200, both to exposure and development: if the TMZ has bigger grain than the Delta, it is probably over-exposed.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[GeneW]

Using the same developer doesn't necessarily mean a fair test: it may favour one film over the other. As I don't use HC110 I can't say whether this will be the case, or in which direction, but it's worth being aware of. The tabular grains of TMZ respond differently from the epitaxial crystals of the Delta 3200, both to exposure and development: if the TMZ has bigger grain than the Delta, it is probably over-exposed.

Fair enough, but I only use HC-110 and Rodinal, so rather than looking for an objective test of which film looks better under optimal development conditions, I'm really after which one of them adapts best to my processing environment. Local adaptation -- a kind of Darwinism of film technologies

Gene

 

[snaggs]

I use Delta 3200 a lot. I haven't tried T-Max 3200 since I want to support Ilford and really like the results I get from the Delta. I use it anywhere between 1600 and 12500 but mostly at 6400 for the low light club stuff I shoot. I have it processed at my local lab in X-Tol according to Ilford's documentation. There are some examples in my gallery but most of my work in low light is on my site since it might not be proper to show here.

Youre photography are geiger fantastic! But yes, maybe a bit to broad for alot of americans.

Daniel.

 

[Marc Jutras]

Youre photography are geiger fantastic! But yes, maybe a bit to broad for alot of americans.

Daniel.

Thanks. The whole quote is a compliment!

 

[jlw]

Asking "Which film works best in the developer I prefer to use?" is a bit of a Procrustean exercise (although I admit it may be a necessary one) especially with these ultra-speed films, since they're more developer-sensitive than most.

Both these films seem optimized for a particular developer (I recall Kodak stating this specifically for T-max 3200.) I've tried both of them in recommended developers (T-Max Liquid for Kodak, DDX for Ilford) and, in the manufacturer's preferred brew, in all honesty I couldn't see much difference in shadow detail (speed), grain, or tonality.

Having said that, my favorite is T-Max 3200, shot with a meter setting of 1250 but developed in T-Max Liquid for the time given for 1600. (Of course that 1250 number also takes into account my specific metering equipment and techniques, so "your mileage may vary"; you can't conclude from that number that T-Max is "slower" than Delta 3200.) This gives grain I find acceptable, along with full shadow detail and a reasonable resistance to highlight blocking.

I use a developing time just a bit longer than "ideal" for my EI rating because it generates a bit more highlight density, which in turn lets me standardize on a paper grade about 1/2 lower; this helps give a bit more separation in light tones (on my favorite now-discontinued Kodak papers!) which is important because my subjects are usually people, and I like well-separated skin tones. (If you look at the filter curves for Kodak papers -- admittedly an academic exercise since they won't be around much longer -- you'll see that #2 and #1-1/2 have the same contrast index, but different curve shapes; #2 has more midtone separation and #1-1/2 has more highlight separation.)

If you photograph landscapes or architecture, for example, you might want the midtone separation instead, in which case you'd cut back on your developing time a bit and use a slightly harder filter.

This is probably a lot more info than you wanted, but I included it as an illustration of how film choice interplays with developer choice, EI selection, developing-time selection and paper grade to help give you the results you want. Mind you, you don't have to tinker up different combinations for every type of subject and shooting condition you encounter! I just started with the manufacturer's recommendations and fine-tuned them until I came up with a set of practices that made it easier for me to get prints I liked of the kinds of subjects I like to shoot.

 

[kaiyen]

I haven't tried TMZ myself, so no comment on how they differ. I do use Delta 3200 all over teh place (1600-12,800) and have kind of managed to get good results at all speeds once I get times down (6400 & 12,800 require more tweaking in PS). I dev in Microphen.

For what it's worth, there is an example of D3200 in rodinal at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BfqQ

allan

 

[bigdog]

I never shot the Ilford but I have used TMAX 3200. I always get great results with TMAX 3200 and I rate it at 1250 or 1600. I think I read it is actually a 1250 speed film. I just shot a circus under a tent at 2500 and I am curious to see how it works at that speed.

I have always had outside labs develop the film and they seem to be able to get good results. I have never been able to get decent results from labs developing TMAX 100 for some reason.

Many photos on my web site were shot using TMAX 3200 rated at 1250 or 1600.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bigdog,

True max ISO of TMZ 800-1000; of Delta 3200, 1000-1250. But how are you metering? Unless you are spot metering the shadows, all EIs are so personal as to be of limited value to anyone else anyway.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Honu-Hugger]

Dear Bigdog,

True max ISO of TMZ 800-1000; of Delta 3200, 1000-1250. But how are you metering? Unless you are spot metering the shadows, all EIs are so personal as to be of limited value to anyone else anyway.

Cheers,

Roger

Yes, I believe the most recent packaging here in the US refers to this as "P3200" film with the "P" denoting "push." A little marketing trickery on Kodak's part .