View Full Version : First roll of film

09-26-2011, 04:04 PM
Well, I picked up a RZ67 a few months back. First one bit the dust on the third shot of the first roll. Sent it in for repair, Not repairable. Got money back and bought a RZ67 II. Shot my first roll of Ilford 3200 yesterday to try it out and cooked it in DD-X for 7 min. Here are the results. I can never win with the DOG!!! Always too dark! I see I need to work on my focusing skills and it doesn't help that I can't keep my daughter sitting still for more than 1.25 nano seconds!! Not really happy with the noise at 3200 but I guess I will need to work on that. Overall, Im happy for the first time shooting.











09-26-2011, 04:09 PM
Coming from the digital world... I'd take THAT noise at 3200 any day!!!

09-26-2011, 04:12 PM
I am coming from the digital world :) Canon 7D is my work horse.. the RZ is my fun and project camera.....

09-26-2011, 04:41 PM
I believe it is called grain. :) BTW, that's rated at 3200 right? I have the same film loaded on my Yashica D but I think I will go with rating it at 1600. Pretty nice results. :)

09-26-2011, 04:47 PM
hahaha, yeah, your right, GRAIN! :) Its not bad but wont work for the reason I got bought the 3200. I will try it at 1600 instead also.

09-26-2011, 06:17 PM
Using auto-exposure? The white wall behind the dog probably fooled it. You really need to meter on the dark dog to get it right.

I love Delta 3200 and it is great at 6x7. I too often prefer it at 1600 but hand held indoors without flash it can be used at 3200 or 6400. DD-X for 7:00 sounds short to me though; I usually develop it for the next time up (e.g. shoot at 1600 and develop for 3200) but I like denser negs than some.

09-26-2011, 06:19 PM
Yeah, I was shooting handheld at anywhere between 1/30th and 1/60th and between f/2.8 and f/5.6.

Charts pointed me to 7 min at 75 degrees so that is what I ran with.. Like I said, first time shooting, first time developing.. With film..

09-26-2011, 07:03 PM
Great for first time! Sorry, don't mean to discourage you, just passing on my experience with Delta 3200.

09-26-2011, 07:21 PM
Nope not at all.... I was actually metering by hand and using a waist level viewer. Dont know HOW i metered it like I did. Oh well, thats the greatness with digital, INSTANT feedback.

Roger Cole
09-26-2011, 07:37 PM
The dog is supposed to be dark, correct? Meter the dog then subtract one stop. That puts him, in zone terms, on Zone IV. That may be lighter than you want but you can print it down. Putting him on zone III, especially with pushed film (which this is - Delta 3200 is about an ISO 1000 film, optimized for pushing) risks putting detail down in the toe or losing it altogether.

I like 3200 a lot. I always develop for the Ilford recommendations for one stop faster. That is, when I shoot it at 3200, which is most of the time, I develop per their recommendations for 6400. I do the same thing with Kodak's recommendation for TMZ. (Wish Kodak made TMZ in 120.)

If 1600 will do though, I use Tri-X in Diafine. Much finer grain and overall better tonality in my experience than TMZ or Delta 3200. Well, I actually rate it at 1250 now but I won't quibble over 1/3 of a stop.

Roger Cole
09-26-2011, 07:41 PM
Yeah, I was shooting handheld at anywhere between 1/30th and 1/60th and between f/2.8 and f/5.6.

Charts pointed me to 7 min at 75 degrees so that is what I ran with.. Like I said, first time shooting, first time developing.. With film..

Honestly, while I like Delta 3200 a lot and using it isn't rocket science, I'd try a more general use film for first experiences. Try Tri-X or HP5 at 400 in a standard developer. DD-X should be fine since you have it (I've never used it so can't really say much about it, but I do like T-Max and T-Max RS a lot and I believe they are similar.) The "noise" will be much improved, as will the tonality.

I'm a 99% dyed in the wool film devotee most of the time, but the one area where I admit film just can't really compare to digital is in handheld low light shooting. The sensitivity just isn't there. You can get usable results in pretty dim light, and a "film look" of grain and higher contrast, rich midtones and highlights with deep dark detail less shadows pretty easily and that can be appealing, but if it's "normal quality" you're really after in low light hand held, film isn't up to digital. It shines in other areas.

09-26-2011, 11:49 PM
Very tough with the low contrast on fur. But your results look awesome.

09-26-2011, 11:51 PM
You did excellent! Keep it up!

Jeff Kubach
09-26-2011, 11:54 PM
Looks great none the less!


09-27-2011, 07:19 AM
Well, im making a trip up to Cleveland tomorrow for the weekend and if I have room in the car after the kid, guns, fishing poles, and my digital bag, I might pack the RZ too for some night time city scape shots.