Help with Ilford Delta 3200

[Kugerfang]

Yeah, I stopped worrying and just accepted the fact that I need to work with what I have. The whole C-41 thing is actually an advantage for me since I can just ask my favorite lab to dev and scan it.

Thanks for all the wonderful advice. I'll be bookmarking this thread for future reference.

On a side note, Ilford's film containers are much better than Kodak's or Fuji's.

[pbromaghin]

Heh, my mom is already pretty ticked off at me for still using 35mm film. She says its inferior in quality and expensive. Pssshh. I can only imagine how angry she'd be if I come home with a medium format camera. :P

I will refrain from taking the bait.

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGHHHHHHGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHG !!!

[Roger Cole]

I love XP2. But while Thomas is right that it will be fine at 1000, it will be superb at 200.

See if they have TMZ. It's slightly less grainy and capable of probably higher effective speeds. I use it in 35mm and Delta 3200 in 120.

I don't understand the resistance to ordering. Well, actually, I do - as a teen my father was similar, but tolerated my doing it with my money, which was fortunate as I lived in such a small town even slide film was hard to find, this in the late 70s and early 80s when it was the preferred color film of pros. I ordered everything then. Now I live in a major metro area and still order everything, because film and darkroom stuff is so rare locally. Maybe you could whittle away at this resistance.

[Roger Cole]

I will refrain from taking the bait.

AAAAAHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGHHHHHHGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHG !!!

Well for very low light, mom is actually right. Digital IS superior in very dim conditions, more sensitive and less noise (which presents as grain with film.) But there is a look with film that's hard or impossible to duplicate. For brighter situations I'd join in the scream.

[2F/2F]

Digital is expensive too. And for the snapshots that most people shoot, i.e. in good light, digital is no "better" than film most of the time. Where digital excels is in poor light and in a fast-paced commercial environment.

[Roger Cole]

Yep. Totally agree!

[Kugerfang]

Digital is expensive too. And for the snapshots that most people shoot, i.e. in good light, digital is no "better" than film most of the time. Where digital excels is in poor light and in a fast-paced commercial environment.

In my opinion, digital is like film... except you paid for the cost of development and processing when you bought the camera. (with film equipment being dirt cheap and all)

Will XP2 still look fine when shot at 1600?

[Roger Cole]

Pretty marginal at 1600 in my experience. You might find a lab that pushes C41 but that probably means sending it out.

[Kugerfang]

My favorite lab can push the film. Also, what do you mean by "marginal"?

[Roger Cole]

My favorite lab can push the film. Also, what do you mean by "marginal"?

Low contrast, poor shadow detail and grainy. Unlike black and white, C41 gets less grainy with more exposure as the dye clouds overlap. It will appear apparently more grainy with less exposure - fewer dye clouds = more space between each one = apparently grainier.