Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,953   Posts: 1,522,777   Online: 1009
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Delta Pro 3200

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    near Amsterdam, Holland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    747
    Images
    9
    Has anybody tried this film?
    I am going back to Scotland in 10 day's time and I want to try this film (my standard film being FP4plus). My main subject for this film will be old graveyards, ruined buildings, stone walls, etc.

    The developer Ilford recommends is Ilford DD-X (which happens to be one of the developers I use for the FP4 rollfilms, the other one being D76).

    Has anybody developed any Delta Pro 3200 rollfilms, and if so what developer did you use?
    What development times? Dilution?

    Thanks for any help you can give me.
    Anne Marieke

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    israel
    Posts
    133
    hi..
    this is a very good film indeed. and yes the ddx is the best one for it, especially when u come to enlarge it. as fp4 (with d76, i use instead id11 - the same) user u will need the addaptation to it in terms of its aesthetic appearance and in the ways u may print it.
    follow the recomendations of ilford for developing with ddx, or slightly increase the time if u use split printing method. over all it depends on your taste.

    but let me give u another option - the hp5. well i dont recomened it to push to 3200 any way, but 1600 will work great with the id11 or ddx. 800 is even better, and u also can use rodinal for that. u will even have on the rodinal the ability to extend some development time. aesthetically, it is much better film in this combination since rated on 800 (wether id11 ddx or rodinal) u will be able to print it in deferent ways. the options in printing will be great.
    with grain on the extended development u dont have to worry too much, since when u give less light it effects the granuality less, so less light and more development is a meter of compesation in this way. by the way the delta 3200 works in the same way. the emulssion of delta 3200 actually is 800.
    victor

  3. #3
    Leon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kent, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,075
    be careful as delta 3200 is can only be rated at that speed with certain developers (ie microphen or other "push" developers and possibly DDX although i dont know too much about that one ). Its true speed is somehwere around ei 800 in most developers although I have had some acceptable results at ei 1600 in dilute perceptol.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    near Amsterdam, Holland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    747
    Images
    9
    Thanks for your comments Leon. What is your experience as far as grain is concerned? You probably realise that I am looking for a slight grain for the subjects I have in mind (and I don't like Tmax 3200).

    Anne Marieke

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    148
    Part of the issue with Delta 3200 revolves around how much speed you really need, and how much shadow detail you're willing to give up to get it.

    I like it at 6400 or even 12,500, XTOL 1:1, 75-80F (24-27C), 30 minutes, five inversions once every 5-7 minutes. BUT I'm shooting at night, where a few pools of inky blackness look O.K. Under non-night conditions I'd rate it at 3200 at the very most. XTOL gives as fine a grain as seems possible with this film. DD-X I've also heard highly recommended, but haven't had a chance to try it.

    Another choice for high speed + small grain is TMY in XTOL, as above, about a stop slower than the Delta 3200.

    If you WANT big grain (couldn't tell from your post), of course, I'd suggest Rodinal, although if you don't need the speed HP5 or Tri-X would give better defined, less "mushy" grain.

  6. #6
    Leon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kent, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,075
    rate it at 6400 or higher and develop in rodinal and you'll get BIG grain. the ei1600 + 1:3 perceptol mix wasnt too grainy at all and had a nice sharp look to it - but the development time was l-o-n-g. I must admit, I prefer HP5, but then again, I'm not really a fan of extra-prominent grain.

    I'll dig out an old print and scan it tomorrow to show you the perceptol and 1600 combination if you like

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    israel
    Posts
    133
    for a pronounced grain with unmatched beauty the apx400 can work very good as well. the official rating there is from 400 to 1600. plus, rodinal with etended development will not add too much contrast if u want to avoid too much contrast.
    also, for example - 400 with rod /25 for twice the recomended time (or something like 13-18min, depends on u) will give u pictorial prints while made on condensor. the contrast still very controlable with split method, from romantic grey grainy and dreamy, to cold graphical. (of course the combination of exp/dev should be matched, but that should be a good starting point). it can give a very unusual prints that u may like.
    victor

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    558
    Images
    14
    I am not a real fan of ultra-high speed films, but have gotten good results shooting Delta 3200 in 120 roll format. I rated the film at an EI of 1600 and developed in Xtol 1:1 for 15 minutes at 68f/20C.

    - Mike

  9. #9
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    I've checked my records - I haven't really done much with P3200 -- In 2002, I developed a few rolls of 120 in Rodinal 1:50 for 17 minutes 00 seconds; In 2003 - Ilford DDX, 1:4 for 9 minutes 00 seconds; and in 2004, Rodinal 1:25 for 11 minutes 00 seconds - all at 20 degrees Celsius - and all exposed at ISO 3200.

    This all was used in terrible "available light" situations - and all was generally "satisfactory" - good enough to print.

    Hope this will be of some - minimal - help.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    near Amsterdam, Holland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    747
    Images
    9
    Thanks everybody, for your reactions.
    Leon, yes I would be interested to see your print of the Perceptol/1600 combination.

    I am not looking for a terribly big grain, but I have found that FP4 is too smooth and too 'beautiful' for graveyards and ruined buildings.

    Normally I prefer maximum sharpness and no grain for my landscapes and nature images.

    This is just a new project I want to start when I am in Scotland at the end of February/beginning March :-)

    I really like the 'feel' of the Fuji Neopan 1600 film, but I haven't found it in rollfilm. Guess that does not exist?

    Maybe Tri-X is an option too, as Roger says, but my experience with that film is that it is rather fine-grained for a fast film. I developed it in D76. Maybe I could try another combination.

    Thanks to you all!
    Anne Marieke

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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