Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,909   Posts: 1,584,667   Online: 853
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 50
  1. #31

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,156
    Harry, if I have read Stone's post correctly he is comparing P3200 in 135 with D3200 in 120. If I have understood this correctly then I'd expect the P3200 to be grainier. The general consensus seems to be that P3200 is slight less grainy than 135 D3200 but others' experience such as yours is that there is little in it or even that D3200 has the edge in lack of grain terms

    I'd be surprised if there is much in it just based on the film technology and comparable expertise from both makers.

    pentaxuser

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,051
    It's clearly too late for any worthwhile testing, especially as the OP can't be sure of the light conditions regarding brightness and contrast (who knows if the sky will be sunny or cloudy, and the windows south or north facing etc. etc). If not already doing so I'd suggest a tripod and several large reflectors, with possibly an assistant or stands to keep them in the right place!

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,820
    I've never tried it with D76. I dev in my usual PMK pyro exposed at ASA 800 and get a superb scale.
    But I tend to use it in a Nikon with a fast 85/1.4 lens, often in the rain.

  4. #34
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226

    Ilford Delta 3200: Expose at Box Speed or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    Harry, if I have read Stone's post correctly he is comparing P3200 in 135 with D3200 in 120. If I have understood this correctly then I'd expect the P3200 to be grainier. The general consensus seems to be that P3200 is slight less grainy than 135 D3200 but others' experience such as yours is that there is little in it or even that D3200 has the edge in lack of grain terms

    I'd be surprised if there is much in it just based on the film technology and comparable expertise from both makers.

    pentaxuser
    You did but I was tired and wrote it wrong, or unclear, I shot P3200 and D3200 at box on 135 and additionally D3200 at box on 120 I just was tired and didn't say that.

    I still found D3200 less grainy but as I said I used Ilfsol 3 with both, and didn't use tmax developer at all, I suspect if unused tmax with the P3200 it would have had less grain.

    I'll scan and post in about a week if you care. I also pushed tri-x400 3 stops to 3200... But on 120 if I recall, I have to look at my notes, I shot a lot, it was all hurricane sandy stuff so I was just go go go mode.

    I hadn't really used 3200 before that, I prefer super low speeds usually 50-100 and no more (25 if I can find a good frozen roll of "antique" film) haha but then I don't often shoot hurricanes...


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #35

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7,156
    My experience with D3200 at 1600 and 1250 in Xtol which I understand is a dev that is said to produce less grain than D76 is that even at 5x7 my prints show grain. It might be that Ilfosol being an Ilford developer does a better job in that respect. However when I move up to MF then grain ceases to be any problem in prints of 5x7 and 8x10 is still pretty good.

    In 135 I suspect that fast films and grainless prints are essentially incompatible but I'd be interested in examples of D3200 in Ilfosol v P3200 in TMax, assuming of course that a scan of a print can convey the difference.

    Thanks

    pentaxuser

  6. #36
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226

    Ilford Delta 3200: Expose at Box Speed or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    My experience with D3200 at 1600 and 1250 in Xtol which I understand is a dev that is said to produce less grain than D76 is that even at 5x7 my prints show grain. It might be that Ilfosol being an Ilford developer does a better job in that respect. However when I move up to MF then grain ceases to be any problem in prints of 5x7 and 8x10 is still pretty good.

    In 135 I suspect that fast films and grainless prints are essentially incompatible but I'd be interested in examples of D3200 in Ilfosol v P3200 in TMax, assuming of course that a scan of a print can convey the difference.

    Thanks

    pentaxuser
    I just realized something very critical that I made a huge mistake about, the tmax film had a red 25 filter on it... Duh! Ugh, so much for side by side comparisons... I assume because you are filtering certain wavelengths that grains don't get exposed and so you have a higher grain look?


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #37
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226

    Ilford Delta 3200: Expose at Box Speed or not?

    I vow now to do a fair test!


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #38
    Harry Lime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    What kind of effective speed did you get with Diafine? Diafine seems to work best, in terms of speed anyway, with traditional films. Tri-X is effectively faster in it than TMZ is, so I never tried it with D3200
    I'm not sure, but I did not sense a loss of speed. What I did notice was good grain and the compensating action of the 2 bath developer allowing me to really expose for the shadows, while holding on to the highlights.

  9. #39
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,211
    Well...what speed did you shoot it at then? I mean, "no loss of speed" could mean it was good at 1000 as it's really about a 1000 speed film, or that it worked well at the "name" speed of 3200. Pretty big difference there.

    I wouldn't want to use it in Diafine if it's only a 1000 or so effective speed. Not only can I get that out of Tri-X in Diafine with finer grain, but I'd be wary of very flat results - but I haven't tried it and you have so I'm curious.

  10. #40
    Harry Lime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Well...what speed did you shoot it at then? I mean, "no loss of speed" could mean it was good at 1000 as it's really about a 1000 speed film, or that it worked well at the "name" speed of 3200. Pretty big difference there.

    I wouldn't want to use it in Diafine if it's only a 1000 or so effective speed. Not only can I get that out of Tri-X in Diafine with finer grain, but I'd be wary of very flat results - but I haven't tried it and you have so I'm curious.
    I shot it at 1250-1600 for both Diafine and DD-X. I stopped shooting D3200 @ 3200 years ago.

    It did not look radically different than developed in DD-X, except that the 2-bath nature of Diafine faded the highlights out more gracefully. I was able to shoot backlit characters without the light source ending up as a giant white orb. Grain was well controlled and maybe a little better than what I get out of DD-X.

    Overall I think D3200 @ 1250-1600 in Diafine or DD-X showed better shadow detail than Tri-X @ 1250 in Diafine.

    Interestingly what did turn out to be a good combo was TMY-2 400 in Diafine, perhaps because the toe is very linear. Grain was very tight.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin