Delta 3200 - did I do something wrong?

[tkamiya]

I have been playing with Ilford Delta 3200. I'd like to know what I am observing is what to be expected or I did something wrong. This is a 120 sized film.

I processed this film both with D-76, ID-11 (same thing), and XTOL. First, I shot at EI 1600 and processed as EI 2400. It was thin. Then, I shot at EI 3200 and processed at EI 6400. (meaning my exposure was measured as if EI was 3200 and processing time was as if it was shot at 6400). Basically, I developed it longer than the Ilford spec sheet says. It was ok, but still kind of thin.

Popular notion on "the net" is that Ilford's timing is actually wrong that one needs to use one stop higher dev time. I find it hard to believe that Ilford did this wrong, and if so, it hasn't been corrected.

What I find surprising is, a pretty healthy amount of base fog. The base is fairly dark blue/gray and if I compare it against Tmax or Plus-X on a light table, the difference is incredible. Also the contrast seems to be on low side. Granted I shot it in low contrast environment, since I'm pushing processing, I thought it will be more on contrasty side. It isn't.

Is this what to be expected??

[herb]

I use xtol stock replenished for the 3200, which I shoot at 1600. Time for 73degrees is 9 minutes, so a t 68 would be around 12 or 13 min. Agitation 5 sec every 30 sec. You will get high base fog with this film, at least I do.
I also was not thrilled with the contrast, and tried a roll with Rodinal 25:1 today. 9 min at 68F with the same agitation as above. Contrast markedly better, although I have heard Rodinal will give more grain. Have not printed these.
I think you can work with exposure and dev times and agitation with xtol and get decent results, but I am not the wizard on that. I don't use the film unless I really have to have the speed, and that is usually in 35mm.

I also think the film is sensitive to handling in the light when rolled up and not in the camera, so the fog may come from a loose wind?

[sly]

The heavy base fog is typical. I've used this film a fair amount. After trying a few permutations I've settled on shooting at 1600, developing as per recommendations for 3200 in DDX.

I use it alot for my natural light pregnancy/family portraits. Here's an example. http://www.apug.org/gallery1/browsei...r=17089&page=3

[tkamiya]

I've been in darkroom printing from this negative. While the neg itself looks thin, amazingly enough the prints are fine.... very weird. I have to give it enough exposure to "cut through" the base fog, and give it 1/2 grade more then my usual for contrast.

It IS possible some of the fog may have come from storage, both at retail store and in my ownership. I just don't have any ways to know if this is the case. As to handling, it's not impossible but I'd think if that were the case, the effects won't be even. It's completely even. I did notice, very edge of film did have a sign of light exposure. (only at the VERY edge of one side only)

Judging from the result, I kind of like this film with some reservation. It's amazing enough that it can record image at the light level I was using. I really wanted grain for this particular shot and I got it. For that, I'm pretty happy about it.

P.S. Sly, beautiful portraits... I love portraits!

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Both Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak Tmax 3200 have high base fog. That's normal for them. Kodak Tmax Developer is far and away the best developer for these films. If all you've tried is D-76 (the worst!) or Xtol (Ok with Tmax 3200 but Tmax Developer has better tonality. Haven't used Xtol with Delta 3200), then you need to try Tmax Developer.


35mm Delta 3200, EI-1600, Tmax Developer



120 Delta 3200, EI-1600, Tmax Developer

[tkamiya]

Hi,

Why do you say D-76 is the worst? What characteristics did you NOT like? I ask because I was looking for a certain effect.

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Hi,

Why do you say D-76 is the worst? What characteristics did you NOT like? I ask because I was looking for a certain effect.

Poor shadow detail, grainy, ugly gradation.

[tkamiya]

Thanks. Grainy I wanted. Everything else, NO!

[markbarendt]

I've been in darkroom printing from this negative. While the neg itself looks thin, amazingly enough the prints are fine....

I have the same experience.

[ic-racer]

You have to lower your standards if you want "acceptable" images when underexposing film.