Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,818   Posts: 1,581,645   Online: 810
      
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42
  1. #1
    Colin Corneau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brandon, MB
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,760
    Images
    337

    Delta3200 (120) -- *bleah*

    Just finished 2 rolls of this film recently, and to say I was underwhelmed is an understatement.

    I shot available light at a carnival midway at night -- metered for the light I was shooting in for EI 1600. Developed in TMax developer 1:4 (8.5 minutes, I know the recommended time is 7.5 but I like my negatives a bit contrastier and thought this would also cover any slight underexposure).

    The film was purchased within the past 6 months and kept refridgerated until shortly before use, developed promptly.

    They look, frankly, fogged. Even the clear unexposed areas on the neg are grey and fogged-looking. The negs look crappy.

    I've heard such good things about this film - has anyone else had this experience? The processing regime was exactly the same (as was the camera, etc) as other rolls that turned out fine. I'm a bit stumped here, wondering if it's just a bum roll, bad choice of developer or a dummy user!

    many thanks
    Colin

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,914
    Images
    66
    Have you attempted to print the negatives yet?

    Tom.

  3. #3
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,064
    Images
    38
    In my experience the film does have a strange look to it but it prints well.
    Dennis

  4. #4
    lyonheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Glenlyon, Scotland
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    98
    Images
    39
    I've used it a bit. Most recently in 120 at EI3200. Developed in Ilford DDX seems fine. Couple of recent shots of a ceilidh in my gallery are 3200 at EI3200. I do it pretty much by the book (Ilford guide and on a Jobo CPE2) and find it OK.
    Beginner

  5. #5
    VaryaV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,256
    Images
    26
    D3200 is my favorite film. I've shot it at both EI 1600 and 3200. Developed in DDX with beautiful results.

    I agree with Tom, print the negs.

    And, wishing you good luck with your endeavors.

  6. #6
    aparat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Paul, MN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    428
    Images
    39
    I love Delta 3200, especially in 120 size. I usually expose at EI 1600 and develop in DD-X, as recommended by Ilford. I have never had any problems printing it, and I really like the soft, subtle look of the film.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,067
    I don't mean to insult and I also say this from experience, but many things work well in the hands of a skilled user. I tried some D3200 in 120 over the winter in an old barn that was cluttered with old junk. I'll have to check my notes but I believe I used D-76, 1+0, EI 1600 and times on the MDC; I got thin negs.

    Later I used diafine at an EI off 1600 and things were much better.

    It really is a good film!

  8. #8
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,380
    I tried it a while back and had the same experience. The film base was 0.46 log density.

  9. #9
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,549
    Images
    300
    Delta 3200 might look flatter than many other films. I'm not sure why that is, but you would be well served to experiment with your development times to generate the contrast you want to print well on your paper.
    "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

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Corneau View Post
    They look, frankly, fogged. Even the clear unexposed areas on the neg are grey and fogged-looking. The negs look crappy.

    I just developed my first roll (120) a week or so ago and thought the exact same thing. I was amazed how the unexposed portion looked like frosted glass.

    I was about to not even bother scanning and was just going to file it away with a note...don't bother with again.

    But I decided to stick a few negs into my Epson V700 and was pleasently surprised at the results. Really never would have thought I could get that much detail from a negative that, as you said, looked crappy. Ended up scanning the full roll.

    Jason

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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