T-Max 3200 vs Delta 3200

[bigdog]

Dear Roger,

Gene had asked how we rated the film so I responded providing the info he requested. If IE's are of no value then why do we even discuss pushing or pulling films in relation to the manufacturer's film speed? Sure, how you rate your film is only one variable but allowing for an additional stop at film loading does allow me to err on the side of getting exposures that provide shadow detail I may have missed if I under expose the film. I also, as a general rule, meter the shadows.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bigdog,

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. All I meant was that personal metering variations are so great that EIs need to be treated with great caution. Someone who meters the way you do (which is the best way for negatives) can rate the film faster than someone wo uses an incident-light or in-camera averaging meter.

I'd also totally agree that modest overexposure -- 1/3 stop to 1 stop -- is ALWAYS wise.

As for 'push' and 'pull' I'd say that many of the people who use these terms don't actually understand what they mean -- again, I don't mean you, but what follows is for lurkers.

ISO film speeds are based on sensitometric (not in-camera) testing with the film developed to a constant contrast, roughly a gamma of 0.62. They are (or should be) based on a stated developer.

Develop to a higher gamma and you are pushing; overdevelopment lifts the speed point. Develop to a lower gamma and you are pulling: underdeverlopment depresses the speed point.

Use a different developer that gives a different film speed at the same gamma and you are neither pushing nor pulling: you are changing speed through developer choice. Something like Microphen can give a true 2/3 stop speed increase, maybe a little more, lifting an ISO 400 film to ISO 650 or better. A fine-grain developer can wipe off almost any amount of speed, but 2/3 stop to 1 stop would be common, dropping an ISO 400 film to ISO 250 or below.

Then there are metering variations (as already discussed); with anything except spot metering of the shadows, there are the 'fudges' needed to be sure of adequate shadow detail on a sunny day. And equipment variations: the shutter on my Pentax SV runs a stop slow so I can rate HP5 in DDX at 1250 and still get the same exposure at the same dev time as at 650 in my MP.

And of course some people just prefer the results they get at different speeds. They may or may not be pushing or pulling -- but a lot of people who rate (say) Tri-X and 200 and develop normally, to the standard gamma, still refer to it as 'pulling' the film.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com, where in the Photo School this is a whole free module on ISO speeds)

 

[sunsworth]

The answer for me is neither. I used to use Delta 3200 but have abandoned that in favour of Fuji Neopan 1600. I like the look of the film more, better grain and more contrast than Delta 1600.

Steve

 

[bigdog]

Dear Roger,

No offense taken. I am sure you have more experience in the darkroom! I use a scanner, photoshop and inkjet printer to make my prints after sending my film to a lab for development. At least our exchange has provided more information for all who find it helpful. Cheers!

 

[mattmills]

neither really...

neither really...

I spent about five years switching between the two and not really liking either, then I invented a two bath formula for TMax 400 rated at 3200.

You develop 14 minutes at 72 degrees f in edwal FG-7 diluted in a 10% sodium sulphite solution instead of streight tap water. Then you put it in a borax bath (10% by weight; two tablespoons per quart) for three minutes, same temp. Agitation must be gentle in the second bath, because of the short time.

It doesn't block up in the highlights (as in never, as in stuff that's 5 stops over is still printable, and I once accidentally put a roll that was exposed at 400 through this and had completely usable negs), and the shadow detail is nothing short of amazing. Well worth the effort. I've thought about trying this with tmax 3200 and delta 3200(higher native speeds), but tmax 400 is so much cheaper I havent bothered. (I bulk load my film, too). Anyway, good luck.
Matt
www.sunrisetimes.net

 

[Stephan]

Now that's impressive homebrew development 😀 And to think I'm to lazy to develop in simple rodinal until I've got a huge pile of films weighing on my conscience 😀

 

[RObert Budding]

Anyone ever try Delta 3200 with D76?

I just shot a roll EI 1600 and am planning on using the times on the box, unless someone has another recommendation.

Thanks!
Robert

 

[GeneW]

Thanks again to all for your contributions to this thread. I've had a dry summer, photographically, so haven't experimented yet. I still have a roll of Tmax3200 and Delta3200 and I've added a roll of Neopan1600 to the mix. I'll likely be dunking them all in Rodinal.

Gene

 

[aizan]

i've done delta 3200 in d76 1:1. it works fine with the times on digitaltruth, though i haven't downrated it.

 

[RObert Budding]

Time & Dilution

Time & Dilution

i've done delta 3200 in d76 1:1. it works fine with the times on digitaltruth, though i haven't downrated it.

I checked digitaltruth and all of the times were for stock D76. Did you dilute !:! and use the digitaltruth times for stock? If so, that's in line with what a friend of mine guessed would be a good starting point.

Robert

 

[aizan]

i thought they had it for 1:1, but my notes show i increased the time for stock by 40%.

 

[dcsang]

Thanks again to all for your contributions to this thread. I've had a dry summer, photographically, so haven't experimented yet. I still have a roll of Tmax3200 and Delta3200 and I've added a roll of Neopan1600 to the mix. I'll likely be dunking them all in Rodinal.

Gene

mmm... I love Neopan 1600 @ 1600 for bands on a stage.
You can get some really awesome stuff using that.

This one was shot about 2 years ago using Neopan 1600 @ 1600 in D76 1:1.. sadly.. not with an RF 🙁

Dave

 

[RObert Budding]

There is a problem with Neopan 1600 - it's not available in 120!

Nice shot, though. How long did you develop?

Robert

 

[Daniel Unkefer]

I recently processed eight rolls of Delta 3200 together in a (new to me) long-tom Nikkor tank using DDX. I set my R and L meters to 800EI, processed for 1600, and the negatives look like they have copious shadow detail and will print easily. I am very pleased with the results.

Now, need to find the time to do some printing.

 

[dcsang]

There is a problem with Neopan 1600 - it's not available in 120!

Nice shot, though. How long did you develop?

Robert

Hi Robert,

Hmmm... if I can remember.. I usually went "warmer" rather than cooler so it was likely around 74 - 76 F which would have been only around 7 minutes tops.

Dave

 

[back alley]

There is a problem with Neopan 1600 - it's not available in 120!

Nice shot, though. How long did you develop?

Robert

have you tried delta 3200 in 120?

rate it at 1000 or 1600 and develope in ddx.

i doubt you will look back.

joe

 

[jlw]

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 🙂.

The "P" always has been part of the name. My lab guy told me its true speed is about 1000 in a "standard" developer such as HC-110. But it's a legitimate 1600 in T-Max developer, for which it is specifically tailored.

 

[RObert Budding]

Perhaps I should just try some DD-X. I'll pick up a liter tonight and give it a go!

Robert