Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,233   Posts: 1,532,921   Online: 1010
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,919
    Delta 3200 does have high base fog even when it's relatively fresh.... but oddly enough, prints much better than it should. OP, are you comparing your aged film with a brand new film when you say "crazy fog"?? Have you tried printing from it or are you just looking at it on a light table? You may be (as I was) pleasantly surprised....

    As far as dev time goes, I usually shoot it at ISO x and develop it using time for ISO 2x (meaning use the time for rating it twice as much) Otherwise, on top of high base fog, I'd end up with thin negative.

    and welcome to APUG!
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  2. #12
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,194
    Images
    12
    Like tkamiya says, it looks foggy anyway so it's probably not as bad as it looks. Which isn't to say that yours isn't grossly fogged. The usual recommendation with Delta-3200 (for any speed above 1000) is to develop it for the next stop higher EI, e.g. if you expose at 1600 then develop for 3200, etc.

    Exposing at lower EI will get the image above the fog. You do lose a little dynamic range though because there's less density range available in the film to work with. 400 is pretty slow for that film and will result in really low-contrast negatives; I would have suggested 800. But then, you might need to shoot at 400 or even 200 because of the fog; we can't say without seeing how your first roll came out.

    The presence of restrainers in a developer will reduce fog, as will the use of high-activity developers for short times that tend to work more on the highlights than shadows. HC-110 and Rodinal tend to give less base fog, but they also give poor film speed. They're a good choice if you have old film that you plan to over-expose.

    You might find the FAQ link in my signature useful since you're newish to developing film.

  3. #13
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    I believe it's base speed is 1000iso. I don't think it's necessary to shoot this film any lower than 800 unless it's 20 years old.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  4. #14
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,668
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    I once souped some D3200 that was refrigerated and only a month past expiry in WD2D+ and wow did the fog show. It printed reasonably though.

    I will disagree a bit Polyglot about shooting D3200 @ 400 making the negative low contrast.

    First, shooting at 400 or 3200 is just a placement choice, contrast is controlled by the development time and temp.

    Second, the ISO speed of D3200 is actually 1000, so shooting at 400 is really only 1-1/3 stops extra exposure.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,919
    Yes, it is a choice of placement in the response curb and it doesn't necessary affect contrast. But one will typically process differently to put it in more useful density range. So if one exposes D3200 at 400, then the processing is usually done much shorter, ie pulled processing - reducing contrast. In a practical sense, I think Polyglot is right although in purely technical sense, you are....

    Either that... or strange things happen in down-under....
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  6. #16
    jensenhallstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I once souped some D3200 that was refrigerated and only a month past expiry in WD2D+ and wow did the fog show. It printed reasonably though.

    I will disagree a bit Polyglot about shooting D3200 @ 400 making the negative low contrast.

    First, shooting at 400 or 3200 is just a placement choice, contrast is controlled by the development time and temp.

    Second, the ISO speed of D3200 is actually 1000, so shooting at 400 is really only 1-1/3 stops extra exposure.

    How exactly do you control contrast during processing?

  7. #17
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Well, it's 1.3 stops over the raw ISO. Normal EI for that film is 1600-3200 which is already almost 1-2 stops over. Simply dial back from that and you're back around 1000 again. This is why I believe 400 is a bit unnecessary.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  8. #18
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,668
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Yes many people do reduce development when they add exposure, it is even part of the normal instructions given by Ilford and Kodak and Fuji.

    That doesn't mean we really should.

    What I want from a print/scene doesn't change with the rating I use to shoot the film. If my expectations of the scene and for the print haven't changed there's no reason for me to adjust development, in essence there isn't a more useful curve/contrast rate.

    This does assume that I know what contrast rate I want, and I normally do, that doesn't mean the OP does. All of us are just taking wild ass guesses as to what will workfor him.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  9. #19
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,668
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Well, it's 1.3 stops over the raw ISO. Normal EI for that film is 1600-3200 which is already almost 1-2 stops over. Simply dial back from that and you're back around 1000 again. This is why I believe 400 is a bit unnecessary.
    And you may be right, OP needs to go shoot and see.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  10. #20
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,668
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by jensenhallstrom View Post
    How exactly do you control contrast during processing?
    More time, higher temperature, and extra agitation all will increase the contrast.

    Less time, lower temperature, and reduced agitation all reduce contrast.

    You can adjust each variable individually or adjust them all, one at a time is easier to learn things from.

    Here's an artical for a start on adjusting a curve. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/...-negative.html
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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