thin delta 3200 negativesgreenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread
i recently shot some delta 3200 for the first time and was disappointed that my negatives were thin. i exposed at EI3200, used DDX and followed ilford's recommended times, etc. obviously, i need either to rate it at 1600 and develop as if it were 3200 or rate it at 3200 and develop as if it were 6400. does anyone have any experience with doing this? i'd prefer to stick with 3200 if possible, for the extra light. but i'm willing to drop down to 1600 if quality will be greatly improved.
best, brad daly
-- brad daly (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 01, 2001
I've not used this film, but I've read this is basically a 1000-1200 speed film. 3200 is a pushed speed. Suggest you run standard exposure speed tests to find a personal speed.
-- Charlie Strack (email@example.com), March 01, 2001.
I used Delta 3200 and TMZ 3200 in DD-X before, rated up to 6400 for stage (dancing), generally 15% increase in developing time. Which is like shooting at 3200 and developing at 6400.
In that small theatre 6400 EI gives 1/100 and f2-2.8.
-- Wolfram Kollig (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 02, 2001.
I like to rate it 1000-1600 & develop acccording to the contrast I want. I like overdeveloping, esp. in an acutance developer like rodinal. With super high speed films you don't have to listen to what they say about the film speed & development times, they are just a starting point. So, shoot at 1600 & develop at 3200.
-- Xosni (email@example.com), March 02, 2001.
I have been shooting this for inside sports this winter. I found that I needed to extend Ilfords recomendation by 1.5 min to get the results I want(@3200 DDX 1-4). I am however still experimenting, and that is the key.
The strange thing about shooting this film is that, many times posted pictures get burned for having to much grain, but the same pics shot the same way with say HP5+400 and a flash get burned for looking "artificial".
Be ready for the grain critisism, but if you like it, and the recipients of you efforts like it, don't worry!
I have some basketball shots on my site http://www.bwphoto.itgo.com under the local sports section, football was shot outside with 3200(games started late afternoon and went under lights by the end), I had a very slow tele at the time and that was the option I chose to get the action, the first set of basketball shots are 3200 exsisting light, the second set (as noted) are same gym with HP5+ and Flash. When shooting inside, I use a sigma EX HSM 70-200 2.8, or a Canon 135 2.8, allowing me to open up and shoot faster.
IMHO 3200 has a place in your bag, it, like everything else, takes some trial and error, to get it right, I'm still working to refine my processing, and don't plan to give up...!
-- Jeff Riehl (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 02, 2001.
have tried to make prints? My experience is that D3200 negatives only LOOK flat, but prints are very good.
-- Andrey Vorobyov (AndreyVorobyov@mail.ru), March 02, 2001.
Delta 3200 shot at EI 3200 is going to have thin shadow density developed in _anything_; you're pushing the flim about one and a half stops.
Also, some of Ilford's development recommendations have been found by quite a few people to be _way_ off from anywhere near the ballpark.
Delta 3200 imho works best around EI 1600. Try these:
Delta 3200 in DD-X 1:4 11'/75F EI 1600-2000
Delta 3200 in Microphen (straight) 7'/75F EI 1600-2000
Delta 3200 in Microphen (straight) 9'30"/75F EI 3200
-- John Hicks (email@example.com), March 02, 2001.
I've collected some developing times for Delta 3200:
-- Ed Buffaloe (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 03, 2001.