Kodak T-Max P3200 or Ilford Delta Pro 3200?
Most of my pics are taken in low light at night so I'm in need of very high speed film...so I stopped my choice with these 2
Ilford Delta pro 3200 (ISO 1250)
Kodak T-Max P3200 (ISO 3200)
I need at least ISO 1600...which film do you prefer? In terms of grain how do they compare?
The best advice is to try a roll of each, using your shooting style and especially your development routine, and see which one your personal eye likes best.
That said, I've seen some pretty amazing stuff done with TMZ. Ilford seems to have a lower contrast look -- both have unique grain patterns but from the work I've seen, pleasing looking grain.
I've used both and shot them at EI-1600...as I said, your choice of developer will make a big difference.
I shoot mostly night and in dark places, so I have been trying to figure this out as well. Here is what I have found
TMax3200 its true speed is higher than Delta pro, which gives me more leeway when pushing. BUT it only comes in 35mm, and fairly expensive. I think it's slightly grainier than the delta, in my experience at least.
Delta 3200, true speed is bit low, as you stated 1250. It doesn't push too well. I am having problem squeezing speed out of it.
BUT if you shoot MF, this is really the only choice.
Finer grain than p3200, imho.
I have tried pushing Tri-x or Neopan 400 to 3200, they both work well imho. But since both are non-latest-t-grain emulsion(as far as I know), the reciprocity effect is horrendous. You don't really get that with the p3200 and delta 3200, since they are both modern emulsions.
For pushing, consider a 2 hr stand dev. You can see the discussion, methods and sample images here
Good luck and would like to hear what you endup choosing.
You'll likely get a bunch of different (conflicting) responses. According to Kodak, T-Max 3200 (TMZ) is nominally an 800-1000 speed film. Ilford puts Delta at 1000-1200. So they are more or less the same real speed, with Ilford being a hair faster. Most people I've heard think Delta is a bit lower in contrast if not developed longer. I think TMZ works just fine at 800 or 1600, whereas I've been told that Delta is harder to make workable at 800. Delta is obviously available in 120 as well - if you shoot 35mm and 120, then just use the Delta. From shots of others that I've seen, I feel like Delta is a bit grainier. Of course, there will be others who say the opposite - a lot depends on your developer and exposures.
Discussions of tonality of the two films are difficult to decipher, since so much of that depends on metering, exposure, development, and printing/scanning. And when you start pushing films, and these two films are often exposed at 3200, which is a 1+ stop push, tonality usually suffers due to the underexposure of shadows and increase in contrast from extended development. So you might be better off making your own decisions here.
I use and prefer TMZ. I've used the Delta once or twice, but since TMZ is working for me in my developer of choice, XTOL, I'm sticking with it for now. It's actually one of my favorite films. I often shoot it at 1600, where it looks pretty good. When I feel like it's appropriate, I'll rate it at 800. It looks wonderful there. 3200 starts getting a bit pushed looking for me; I'll do it if I have to, but if I have enough light for 1600, I shoot it at 1600. It's a great film for traditional darkroom printing in my opinion. Lastly, while it is grainy, it has about the same resolving power (or a bit more) than Tri-X in my casual tests.
One thing I will say, since these are high speed films, most people shoot them in low contrast poor lighting. They can really shine if shot in environments with decent lighting - I think they get a bad rap because they are shot in such difficult situations.
I can share with you some shots if you'd like.
I use a ton of Delta 3200 in my Hasselblads, and can honestly say that I have no problems what so ever using it at 3200. 14.5 minutes in straight D-76 does it for me.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'll go with T-Max 3200 but Delta 3200 is quite good also. Try both and see what happens.
I've only shot a few rolls of each so I'm no expert. I reckon Delta is a bit finer grain if the two films are exposed and developed in similar ways. The one thing I don't like about Delta 3200 is that it seems to have a hight base fog and this can be made a lot worse if you push it in certain developers. It means denser looking negs and longer enlarging times.
I agree. If you have the possibility to shoot in good lighting situations, both films can produce excelent negatives. My personal favourite is Delta 3200.
Originally Posted by Tim Gray
What has struck me is that if you can focus, expose and develop the film correctly it can give you razor sharp images that you didn't think was possible with such a grainy film. I have gotten the best results with Ilford DD-X developer, but also Xtol if you develop for one step faster than you exposed for ( based on digital truth times ). That means if you expose for 1600 ISO, develop for 3200 .
Good luck !
I\'m no big fan of TMZ3200, but I have seen very good work done with it. As above Delta usually likes to be developed for an extra EI\'s worth of time.
Last edited by Chris Lange; 09-30-2011 at 05:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.
In my experience they BOTH need to be developed for the manufacturer's recommendation for one stop more than they're actually exposed for. I just ran some 120 Delta 3200 shot at 3200 in T-Max (not RS) developer, 9.5 minutes at 24C/75F, straight from the Ilford product sheet for 6400. The negs look GREAT.