what is delta 3200 pushed one stop

Hjortsberg

Well-known
Local time
4:08 PM
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
256
meaning, what do I set my external light meter to. Is this a good idea to push 3200 Delta one stop? The performance space is really dark and I might be F@$&! All I have is 4 rolls of Tri-X and 4 rolls of Delta 3200. I need help. Everyone is looking at me like I know my S#@* and I don't.

Thanks.
 
Ugh Oh. I'm reading that it's already kinda pushed 1.5 stops at asa 3200 and I'm gonna lose shadow detail at that asa. Now I gotta rate it at 1000asa, huh? Man I gotta research my stuff before the last minute:angel:
 
Depends how much you want shadow detail. This was my first roll exposed at box speed with a 50 1.8 Serenar/M4 handheld, so 1/30 or 1/15.

med_U45148I1383519658.SEQ.3.jpg



med_U45148I1383519659.SEQ.4.jpg


I'd probably rate it 1250 these days, but what the hell. Try some bracketing on at least one roll. Or shoot a roll of each at 1200 and compare results. Enjoy the mad science lab.
 
meaning, what do I set my external light meter to. Is this a good idea to push 3200 Delta one stop? . . .
The true ISO of Delta 3200 is about 1250 max, but it looks flat and dull when developed to ISO contrast, i.e. it's designed to be overdeveloped (pushed).

At that point, "pushed one stop" doesn't mean very much. You can get excellent tonality at 1600, 2000 or even 2500, with ever less shadow detail. The box speed of 3200 is already a push of 1-1/3 stops, but I've pushed it to 12,500 on occasion.

Like the previous poster, I normally develop for one EI stop faster than I expose, e.g. expose for 3200, develop for 6400 (Ilford development times).

Cheers,

R.
 
Look for scenes that can do with lots of black in the background - you are not going to get much shadow detail with fast black and white film. Nor are the shadow details of a stage setting meant to be seen. Usually, they save on stage decoration and hide cables, gear and roadies by letting the rear of the stage drop to darkness - you will not want to expose to make that void visible, unless you are into a work portrait of the monitor mixing engineer...
 
I ended up shooting Tri-X and I'm gonna push it two stops. I was wide open at f2. Shutter speed was 1/100. Leica M3.

I dunno. I don't ever expect much and I'm rarely disappointed. We'll see. It was a fun show!
 
I shot a show recently in very dim conditions.

Shot Tri-X@800 with M5 and Nokton 50 F1.1. Was getting shutter speeds around 1/30th-1/60th at F1.4. In my experience this is common for me.

Really it all depends on what you're shooting. If its some punk or thrash metal or something then maybe a higher shutter speed or even a flash is in order just so you don't end up with something that looks like the blair witch project.
 
It looks a little bit like this.


Ilford Delta Pro 3200 @ EI6400

Sorry 😀

Couldn't resist. Had that handy from a previous posting.

I set the meter on the F6 for 6400 (that is as high as it goes) and then developed for 6400.

These Halloween photos were already pretty graphic and contrasty. Developing at 12800 wasn't necessary.
 
Hjortsberg: STOP. Stop thinking about one particular iso and one particular meter reading. All that will accomplish is a convoluted way of duplicating the camera's built in auto exposure function. That usually works but only because of the wide exposure latitude of b&w film. Instead, you want to intelligently utilize that wide exposure latitude.

Now it does require a bit of brain power but not too much. We are talking simple single digit addition and subtraction, not rocket scientist stuff.

First you must make a meter reading of only the key parts of the photo that you want to have detail, things like faces. You must eliminate those bright stage lights or dark background shadow areas that will wildly bias an average meter reading that includes them. Then determine the exposure for those key parts. Take in account aperture, shutter speed, and iso. If you don't understand how those interrelate, put away your camera for a few minutes and figure it out. If your aperture is computed to already be wide open and your shutter is as slow as you think you can deal with, then iso will become your variable.

Then consider the exposure latitude of your film. Realize that if you have to mentally bump that iso a stop or stop in a half to get the perfect reading in the previous paragraph, then you can just shoot at your film's normally rated iso and take advantage of the exposure latitude since one or one and half stops underexposure is within the acceptable range. This frequently will give you a technically better neg to work with, even if a bit thin, than if you extended the development time with larger grain and overall higher contrast. Realize that a slightly thin neg, even in critical areas, will not cause your final result to be totally blank, cause your camera to catch on fire, and you male heirs to be sterile the way some will lead you to believe.

Lastly, make a meter reading of the highlight and dark areas in the frame. Quickly visualize how much of your image will be totally burned out or totally black. Make sure that is OK with you desired intent. Remember that it is usually good to have a direct light source be totally burned out white and a large part of an interior or night image to be totally black. HDR is not your friend here.

All of the above takes only a few seconds and will save you large amounts of time and effort searching for some film that is not readily available and/or unnecessary keeping track of certain rolls of film to alter development time.

This was the way almost everyone did it back 25-35 years ago before camera automation "simplified" our lives.
 
Hjortsberg: STOP. Stop thinking about one particular iso and one particular meter reading. All that will accomplish is a convoluted way of duplicating the camera's built in auto exposure function. That usually works but only because of the wide exposure latitude of b&w film. Instead, you want to intelligently utilize that wide exposure latitude.

Now it does require a bit of brain power but not too much. We are talking simple single digit addition and subtraction, not rocket scientist stuff.

First you must make a meter reading of only the key parts of the photo that you want to have detail, things like faces. You must eliminate those bright stage lights or dark background shadow areas that will wildly bias an average meter reading that includes them. Then determine the exposure for those key parts. Take in account aperture, shutter speed, and iso. If you don't understand how those interrelate, put away your camera for a few minutes and figure it out. If your aperture is computed to already be wide open and your shutter is as slow as you think you can deal with, then iso will become your variable.

Then consider the exposure latitude of your film. Realize that if you have to mentally bump that iso a stop or stop in a half to get the perfect reading in the previous paragraph, then you can just shoot at your film's normally rated iso and take advantage of the exposure latitude since one or one and half stops underexposure is within the acceptable range. This frequently will give you a technically better neg to work with, even if a bit thin, than if you extended the development time with larger grain and overall higher contrast. Realize that a slightly thin neg, even in critical areas, will not cause your final result to be totally blank, cause your camera to catch on fire, and you male heirs to be sterile the way some will lead you to believe.

Lastly, make a meter reading of the highlight and dark areas in the frame. Quickly visualize how much of your image will be totally burned out or totally black. Make sure that is OK with you desired intent. Remember that it is usually good to have a direct light source be totally burned out white and a large part of an interior or night image to be totally black. HDR is not your friend here.

All of the above takes only a few seconds and will save you large amounts of time and effort searching for some film that is not readily available and/or unnecessary keeping track of certain rolls of film to alter development time.

This was the way almost everyone did it back 25-35 years ago before camera automation "simplified" our lives.

I didn't know the M3 had an built in auto exposure function.
 
I shot a lot of Delta 3200. As others have said, its base speed is 1250, but it has flat tonality at that speed. If you develop it in Kodak Tmax Developer (my favorite) or Ilford DDX, it gives excellent shadow detail, at EI-1600. Doesn't even look pushed at 1600. I also use it a lot at 3200 and it still does very, very well.

It does not work well in most developers, like D-76. Use Tmax Developer or DDX. Xtol is said to be good, too, but I have not tried it.
 
I shot these insect tanks with delta 3200 (120). Developed in APH09 (original rodinal) pushed 2 stops - well x1.33, x1.33. I didn't expect much of a push but was interested in the result from a combo that isn't recommended. I like the results - they are what I wanted. I would say trying a combination a seeing what results you get is what you need to do.

Mark
 

Attachments

  • cockroaches I_.jpg
    cockroaches I_.jpg
    15.2 KB · Views: 0
  • cockroaches II_.jpg
    cockroaches II_.jpg
    18.7 KB · Views: 0
Neopan400 (or maybe HP5) with normal processing. Exposure and development determined in 2-3 seconds per the preceding post. I knew I would be shooting wide open or f2. I knew my exposure would be 1/15th since I can hand hold that, he usually held his head still, and any motion blur would be in his hands and fingers which was acceptable. One meter reading, straight on the front of his face, showed iso 800. But I knew one stop underexposure would do nothing detrimental to his face and would even help drop out more of the background to total black which would help give some contrast to his skin tone.

Michaels%20MS%20Delta%20Ground-Zero-Clarksdale.jpg
 
I didn't know the M3 had an built in auto exposure function.

So noted. Nevertheless, knowledge of exposure, how/where to meter, and how your film performs will save you:

1) searching for a new film that you possibly will not find
2) possibly overdeveloping your film when it was not needed
3) having to say "I dunno. I don't ever expect much and I'm rarely disappointed. We'll see."
 
So noted. Nevertheless, knowledge of exposure, how/where to meter, and how your film performs will save you:

1) searching for a new film that you possibly will not find
2) possibly overdeveloping your film when it was not needed
3) having to say "I dunno. I don't ever expect much and I'm rarely disappointed. We'll see."

Especially #2. I did this a lot with D3200 (and Neopan 1600) when I could have been exposing at a lower iso and getting better results had I thought things through. I was trying to be safe but really I was just unnecessarily pushing.
 
Back
Top Bottom