Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,161   Posts: 1,614,240   Online: 1168
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    Willie Jan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Best/The Netherlands
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,916
    Images
    49

    ilford delta 3200 development with pyrocatHD

    I want to start theathre work again (did it long time ago..)
    The guys ask me every year when I come back photographing, because the digital work produced is not what it was with analog...

    I want to use the ilford delta 3200. In the past I developed it with microphen, but since a long time I only use my own made pyrocat hd for 6x6 and 4x5.

    My question is, has anyone experience using this film with pyrocat-hd?

    Thanks.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    273
    I have done it before and I think the results were quite excellent but I think you will be disappointed at how slow it makes that film. I think I was getting around ISO 640. For low light work I would stick to a regular non staining developer. I personally love delta 3200 in ddx.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,091
    I did D3200 in P'Cat, but only got an EI of 800 with it. The images were ok to print, but I liked it in Diafine better and got an EI of 1600 with better contrast. The negs were a bit flat in P'Cat

    Good ol' D-76, 1+0 can get you and EI of 6400 in needed, but you may have to dev it as tho' it had an EI of 12,500.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    3,080
    I use a different category of pyro - "PMK" and love the look with D3200; but I do rate it at 800. That's still plenty fast for handheld shooting.

  5. #5
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,713
    Images
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    I use a different category of pyro - "PMK" and love the look with D3200; but I do rate it at 800. That's still plenty fast for handheld shooting.
    I'd expect Pyrocat to yield a bit more speed than that, but I would imagine D3200 in medium format with PMK would be delicious.

    The notion above of flat negs with Delta 3200 - can you extend the developing time and get better contrast? That's what I would do if I didn't have enough contrast. I've used Delta 3200 with many different developers and have found I have to sort of kick it down the road quite a bit and develop it for a very long time in order to get the contrast I want out of the negatives.

    With Pyrocat I would also consider very frequent agitation, in order to overcome the shy contrast and the slightly compensating action that Pyrocat yields.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post

    The notion above of flat negs with Delta 3200 - can you extend the developing time and get better contrast? That's what I would do if I didn't have enough contrast. I've used Delta 3200 with many different developers and have found I have to sort of kick it down the road quite a bit and develop it for a very long time in order to get the contrast I want out of the negatives.

    With Pyrocat I would also consider very frequent agitation, in order to overcome the shy contrast and the slightly compensating action that Pyrocat yields.
    Not when I shot it. I only did a couple of rolls (120) with this combo and if I increase the contrast, my highlights would burn out. I was shooting in an old barn with window light. The highlights were borderline, but the shadow areas came out a bit on the muddy side.. P'Cat was an ok combo, but Diafine was better. IMO.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,350
    P3200 is an 800 ISO film, so getting 800 out of it is about right. I tried several rolls at 800 with Pyrocat-HD and also found that the negatives were a little flat when exposed in flat lighting situations. Exposing it at IS0 640 and giving it about 1.5-2 minutes more development would have perked things up a little. In contrasty lighting, I found it held highlights very well, which isn't too surprising if my results in flat light were a bit flat.

  8. #8
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,713
    Images
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by jim appleyard View Post
    Not when I shot it. I only did a couple of rolls (120) with this combo and if I increase the contrast, my highlights would burn out. I was shooting in an old barn with window light. The highlights were borderline, but the shadow areas came out a bit on the muddy side.. P'Cat was an ok combo, but Diafine was better. IMO.
    I don't quite understand. If you develop your negatives to the point of blocking up the highlights, obviously it's gone too far. But if you dial back development time to the negative density of where it doesn't block up, how can there not be enough contrast?

    I always think about the printing paper when I think about contrast. The paper can handle a certain amount of negative contrast, low or high, and when you exceed the limits of the paper, you are out of range. If you take Tri-X, Pan-F+, and Delta 3200 and shoot them side by side to have similar shadow detail, and then develop them to similar total contrast, besides color rendition and grain, how can Delta 3200 be too low contrast?

    Please help me understand. I'm not contesting what you say, I'm saying I might be missing something. I know you have a lot more experience than I, Jim, which is why I'm trying to understand.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #9
    zehner21's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Sardinia, ITALY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by pgomena View Post
    P3200 is an 800 ISO film, so getting 800 out of it is about right. I tried several rolls at 800 with Pyrocat-HD and also found that the negatives were a little flat when exposed in flat lighting situations. Exposing it at IS0 640 and giving it about 1.5-2 minutes more development would have perked things up a little. In contrasty lighting, I found it held highlights very well, which isn't too surprising if my results in flat light were a bit flat.
    ?
    I thought that in flat situations, the best thing to do was underexpose a little bit...

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I don't quite understand. If you develop your negatives to the point of blocking up the highlights, obviously it's gone too far. But if you dial back development time to the negative density of where it doesn't block up, how can there not be enough contrast?

    I always think about the printing paper when I think about contrast. The paper can handle a certain amount of negative contrast, low or high, and when you exceed the limits of the paper, you are out of range. If you take Tri-X, Pan-F+, and Delta 3200 and shoot them side by side to have similar shadow detail, and then develop them to similar total contrast, besides color rendition and grain, how can Delta 3200 be too low contrast?

    Please help me understand. I'm not contesting what you say, I'm saying I might be missing something. I know you have a lot more experience than I, Jim, which is why I'm trying to understand.

    Thomas, I'm not sure I can explain. The highlights weren't blown out with D3200 & P'Cat, but they almost were. Anymore time in the soup and they would have been. The shadow areas came out muddy. They probably needed more time, but then the highlights would blow out. P'cat was ok, but Diafine simply did a better job for me. Hard to describe.

    As for me having more experience than you, not so fast. You know your stuff here!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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