I've shot hundreds of rolls of D3200 and IMO it is the best of the three highspeed films (Tmax P3200, Delta3200, Neopan1600) and far superior to pushing Tri-X or any of the other slower films. Grain is tight and the tonality is outstanding. When shot at speeds up to 1200 - 1600 it is very forgiving, as there is a huge amount of range in this film.
True speed is around 1000-1200asa
Pushes to 1600 with no problems. 3200 is very useable, but shadows start to get dense.
I've shot it as low as 400asa for a very special look.
It's low contrast film, making it ideal for shooting in the dark and preserving shadow detail.
Grain is quite fine and attractive in appearance.
The only highspeed B/W emulsion in 120 size.
In my experience it works best in DD-X, but I've also used XTOL and Diafine.
True speed is around 1000-1200asa
A more gritty look than Delta3200, contrast is higher and the grain is larger.
A very good film and a lot cheaper than Delta3200.
Does not come in 120 size.
Apparently this film works best with the TMAX developer. Kodak claims that it will give more shadow detail than even Xtol.
True speed is about 640asa.
Very fine grain, but contrast is on the high side @ 1600 and shadows become very dense, when there is no ambient light. I like to use this film on overcast days, where it gives flat lighting a little kick.
Does not come in 120.
I've developed it in DD-X with good results, but am curious about trying Tmax developer, because of the extra push in the shadows it's supposed to give.
I've found Ilford DD-X and Delta3200 to be a perfect combination. This is one of the few things most people on this list agree on. Ilford has even said that the two were designed with each other in mind.
The biggest problem with Delta3200 is the price, which recently here in the UK went up to about 6 GBP a roll, making it twice as expensive over the counter as Tmax3200. I've spoken about this to a few of my dealers and they say that this increase has had quite a negative impact on sales. I hope this move does not kill Delta3200, but I've had to switch to Tmax3200, because of this. I shoot about 20-40 rolls a month and would go bankrupt shooting Delta3200.
That's the theory. In practice Ilford state they use practical test rather than strict ISO testing when they make recommendations for EI & developing times. Kodak & Ilford use the ASA/BS standard for testing film speed which is why Ilford state the ISO speed for Delta 3200 as ISO 1000.
Originally Posted by wogster
The DIN standard testing was used by Agfa and is a more accurate method of testing B&W film speed, and is based on a more practical testing criteria. This is the reason most serious B&W workers used Agfa B&W films at their box speed, while would used a significantly lower EI for T-max films and slightly lower forIlford to achieve similar tonality. As the DIN system is also a recognised ISO standard the Agfa speeds are equally as valid. If Tmax films were tested using the DIN methods they probably wouldn't be the same Box speed.
Ilford acknowledge the failings of the official ISO - ASA/BS testing methods by stating "It should be noted that the exposure index (EI) range recommended for DELTA 400 Professional is based on a practical evaluation of film speed and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO standard."
Delta 3200 is designed & optimised to give good tonality (contrast), sharpness, and grain when used at 3200. In this respect it's very similar to the specialist push process E6 films once made by Kodak & Fuji which while technically 400 ISO emulsions were designed to give good tonality and contrast when used around 1600 ISO
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
Well if you purchase from Silverprint they will give you 30% discount when you buy 10 or more films resulting in a price of £4.07 per film
I'm a big fan of Delta 3200, especially in Medium format. I rate the film at 1250 and develop it in Microphen and I find that I don't lose shadow detail. Neopan 1600 on the other hand I found to be very contrasty and totally lacking in shadow detail when rated at the same speed.
I saw that offer the last time I was down there getting some chemicals.
Originally Posted by Brian Jeffery
The problem is that a local Calumet store is selling TMAX P3200 for about £2.50 per roll. I got a whole brick (10) for around £26.
I could try 7dayshop online, but they don't always have D3200 in stock and there are shipping costs. Sometimes I simply need the film asap and then going to a store can't be beat.
Regardless I think Ilford has a problem on their hands. IMO Delta3200 is one of the best b/w films ever made, but they are running the risk of pricing it out of the market, except for those who only shoot an occasional roll of it. In bulk it's pretty expensive, unless you can offset the cost some how.
I agree about the cost. Here in Minneapolis I pay $8.69 per 35mm roll at National Camera Exchange, and $5.50 per 120 roll.
I shoot so little of it that it hardly matters. At Freestyle they sell the 35mm for about $6.50 and the 120 roll for about $4.50. Still spendy, but if I'm ordering other things too, it's worth getting a few rolls here and there.
I love the stuff, and if I start getting heavier into portraiture and figure studies, I'll start shooting more of it, and it will hurt my budget pretty severely.
"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
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The amazing thing is, this is exactly my experience as well!
Originally Posted by pentaxuser
Just checked. £3.35 per roll for 35mm D3200 at 7Dayshop for packs of 10+. No delivery charge.
IMO it really is an excellent film, but to get the best from it you really need to develop it yourself - it really isn't - Ilford do a very handy guide to home-processing on their website. You can get a second-hand tank off ebay for a lot less than the price of lab processing a single film. The only issue you might have is that a film of this speed needs to be loaded in absollute, total darkness. I usually rate it at 1600 in 35mm and develop in Microphen, which gives a good compromise (for me)between graininess and contrast. Delta 3200 also scans well (although perhaps I shouldn't mention that here!)
I bought my roll from SecondHandDarkroom.co.uk at a cost of £4.49 (http://www.secondhanddarkroom.co.uk/...?p=9&cat=16919) and it arrived the next day I think.
I shot the roll the other day - it was a clear sunny day, but most of the shots were taken out of direct sun. I rated the film at ISO1000 because I'm a chicken and haven't yet got my head round all this pushing and pulling. Looking at the shots, I think I would have been better rating it at 1600 or 3200 as the images don't quite have enough contrast for my liking. I like the grain in the shots though.
I'm told this film is best for dealing with heavily backlit subjects? I intend to use my rolls of Neopan 1600 which I'm told is better, although clearly opinions vary on that subject.
Here are few of the better shots from the day (the film was processed by The Darkroom UK and sent straight to CD using their 'standard 4Mb' service - none of the images have been touched with any software) :
Fuji Neopan 1600 is a good Ilford Delta 3200 or Tmax 3200 alternative, and it works well at 1600EI, and it is cheaper.