Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,754   Posts: 1,515,971   Online: 951
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    WV
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    7
    ...I'd do same with Delta 3200 (which true iso is at around 1200-1600 anyways)...
    That it may be, but I'd really like to get 3200 or higher out of it if I can.

    Perceptol and high speed films are not sensible combinations.
    Yeah. I was hoping that I could get the best of both worlds but sadly that didn't happen. I'll invest in some DD-X and try again later. Thanks!

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Ukraine - Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    304
    Perceptol (Ultra Fine Grain) developer is usefull on a slower speed film and then in a 35mm format to suppress the grain. You will loose one F stop in iso rate too.
    So for D3200 take above advice:

    Microphen stock, HC-110 1+15 or DD-X 1+4
    or Xtol stock. These are all speed enhancing developers.

    Greetz,

    Роберт
    My favorite store: http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl

  3. #13
    Willie Jan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Best/The Netherlands
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,910
    Images
    49
    I too vote for microphen.
    used it a lot with theatre work in the past
    Shot it at 3200.

  4. #14
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,154
    Images
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by powermonkey View Post
    I'll invest in some DD-X and try again later. Thanks!
    Good choice! DD-X will be a much better developer for Delta 3200. Xtol is less expensive and a developer that is equally well suited for the job. Kodak TMax developers are very similar to DD-X, and they would do an excellent job as well.

    Good luck,

    - Thomas
    "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

  5. #15
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,747
    I get a very nice effective 3200 out of it, developing in T-Max 1+4 for the time recommended for 6400.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,490
    That makes sense too. T-Max developer gives good speed. DD-X always seemed to me to be very similar to T-Max in its working properties. Bottom line is whether DD-X, T-Max, Microphen or XTOL, the results with this film will be superior to Perceptol, especially in the speed department.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,834
    If my memory serves me correctly I have yet to see a positive post on Perceptol and D3200 at anything like a speed of 3200 and yet Harman insist on quoting times for Perceptol at 3200 and even mention it in the accompanying marketing info as a suitable developer as a plus point for Perceptol.

    Presumably at some stage the original Ilford( rather than Harman) actually tried it at the times quoted and found it to be acceptable.

    If Ilford's experience had been bad then you'd think that it would not have quoted times for Perceptol or at the very least have stated that it could be used but was not recommended.

    It is a puzzle and seems destined to remain so as I have yet to see any response on it from Harman via its R&D dept.

    So are we all doing something wrong when using Perceptol and getting results that do not accord with Ilford's experience when it tested Perceptol and D3200?

    pentaxuser

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Ukraine - Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    304
    Using an ultra fine grain type developer on an ultra high speed film sounds to me not very logical, independed what Ilford is testing.

    Greetz,

    Роберт
    My favorite store: http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl

  9. #19
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,154
    Images
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    So are we all doing something wrong when using Perceptol and getting results that do not accord with Ilford's experience when it tested Perceptol and D3200?
    I think a lot of people use Delta 3200 for hand held shooting in dark situations, like concerts, or late night street photography. I've done just that, illuminated by just the available ambient light from street lights and buildings, and have been able to cull enough contrast from the film to make them workable in the darkroom. I have either used Rodinal and standing development to get maximum shadow detail out of it, or something like Xtol 1+1 for a very long time, with reduced agitation (say every 3 or 5 minutes).
    Using Perceptol for this type of photography is probably not going to work, so I wonder if these are the conditions that Ilford has tested the film in, or if it perhaps is a more normal lighting condition.

    If the film instead is tested in daylight conditions, the very flat contrast of Delta 3200 would probably work just fine with something like Perceptol, because there will be less contrast and less deep shadows to fill with detail.

    There's too much we don't know about how Ilford has tested the film in order to understand how they got to their results, and to surmise if we're even comparing similar work flows.
    "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. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,490
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    Presumably at some stage the original Ilford( rather than Harman) actually tried it at the times quoted and found it to be acceptable.

    pentaxuser
    That is the point. There can be a significant margin between "optimal" and "acceptable". Both Ilford and Kodak list suggested procedures for using nearly every developer they make with nearly every film they make. The materials are certainly flexible, but some are more universally adaptable than others. Certain combinations will inherently be better matched than others. Depending on how you define acceptable, and what look you're going for, you can certainly develop Delta 3200 in Perceptol. Develop D3200 long enough in Perceptol, and you'll get more speed, but not the best image quality either material is capable of. Particularly in the case of Perceptol, trying to get anywhere near box speed with any film, even at 1+3, will obliterrate its ultra-fine grain effects. So you'd be better off in that case with something like XTOL. Perceptol and D3200 are two extremes - ie super high speed, grainy film, and a slow, ultra-fine grain developer. Acceptable results are likely possible, as implied by the combination being published by Ilford, but other possibilities are better.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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