Downrated Delta 3200 should be ideal but I wouldn't try uprating Delta 400. I don't think Ilford recommend pushing the 400, (unlike HP5 and TriX), and think what the increased contrast will do if it is a white wedding dress?
Thanks both (too right about the low light focussing - not a whole heap of margin there).
General concensus is down-rate 3200 rather than uprate say HP5?
Delta is a 1000-speed film, so you do not need to down rate it. If you set you meter at 1600, it will, in fact underexpose it by 2/3 stop. I would forget the meter entirely and use recommended exposures from a chart, unless of course you know what a reflected meter is telling you and how to adjust off of it to get the best exposure. In low, flat, indoor lighting, and going with whatever the reflected meter tells you, it will hurt you more than help you because everything will be placed at a lovely muddy grey tone or thereabouts in a low-contrast situation.
As to uprating HP5 or downrating Delta, it depends on what EI you will need to use and how much contrast you want on your neg. HP5 is easily usable up to EI 1600 or so, and more contrasty. At 1600, Delta will still be somewhat low in contrast. If you think you can get good exposures at EI 1600, I would decide based on the amount of contrast you want. If you want more, go with HP5, and if you want less, go with Delta.
__________________
2F/2F
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Thanks 2F/2F - so where would I find the chart?
Sorry, I've always been a ISO50/64/100, ambient, outdoors sort of person (why I don't use flash, I suppose)
Delta 3200 rated at 1600 & processed in DDX gives good results.
Likewise Neopan 1600 shot at 1600 & processed in Diafine.
I would do either of them before pushing a 400 film 2 stops, unless you are going for that high contrast look.
I can't give a direct comparison of the Delta & Neopan as I shoot Neopan in 35mm & Delta in 120.
I find that if you develop D3200 in DDX at the given time it turns out flat--underdeveloped. I have had beautiful negatives when I shoot at 1600 and develop for 3200. But shooting D3200 at 1600 is nothing, but good clean photography
I wouldn't hesitate to push HP5+ to EI 1600. That said, I also like Neopan 1600... I really don't care for Delta 3200, but have only shot a couple of rolls. REALLY BIG grain.
Exposure charts can be found in textbooks and are also published (or WERE published at some time in the past) by film manufacturers. The lighting situation are often listed as being so many stops more than BDE (except in a few cases, like bright snow or sand), which is Basic Daylight Exposure. BDE is AKA the exposure you use when applying the "crystal clear and sunny f/16 rule", which around these parts is usually the "somewhat less than crystal clear but close enough to fool most people who are used to it f/11 rule".
Kind of confusing. I would check a library for a textbook, or maybe look around on the Internet.
But if you know how to take what your reflected meter is telling you and adjust off of it to get the best exposure, instead of just going with what it tells you, I might just do that. Just remember that an in-camera reflected meter tells you the most accuracy-rendering exposure ONLY for a scene in which all the tones metered average out to middle grey. So, you might get a fine exposure in flat light, but it would, of course, look flat on the print as well.
From experience, in your situation, if I had to use the in-camera meter instead of an incident meter, I would be tempted to rate the film at 800 or 1000 just to get an accurate meter reading at first. Then I would probably get whatever exposures I could at a fixed fast enough shutter speed, whether the meter sez it's OK or not. Take note of how far off from your meter you are actually exposing, and develop it for extra time to increase the contrast the necessary amount to compensate.
As for particular developers that others like, forget it. All developers work fine, and there is not a huge make-it-or-break-it difference in results between them in my experience. Just use what you normally use, and go with what the box sez using distilled water, which is likely more similar to what Ilford uses to arrive at their recommendations than your tap water is.
Someone had the good shortcut of rating at 1600 and developing with the recommended time for 3200. That's a great shortcut for flat light. What this does is darkens your shadows about 2/3 of a stop, without moving the tones TOO far down the characteristic curve for the film, thus maintaining a nice placement of tones that will give you you lots of control with development. Then the development brings up the contrast and brightens most of the tones in the composition except the very lowest ones. Then you will probably end up with everything falling into a nice range on the neg. that will let you do whatever you want when you print the pix.
Pull Delta 3200, push Delta 400... or use Neopan 1600? 
Linear Mode
