The comments offered have been very helpful. I thought it might be worthwhile to 'drill" into my specifics (as to exposure, processing, etc.) to get into the practical aspects I will be working with.

Generally, I am seeking a product that I can use with both 35mm and 120, and expose at an EI of 1000 to 1600. The comments on Ilford Delta 3200 sound as if within this range I can expect a negative with broad tonal range characteristics and with possibly less grain than using the "box speed" of EI 3200. And, I believe that I would be happier with this approach compared to using Kodak 400 TMAX and exposing at a EI of 1000, with a corresponding adjustment in development.

My lab is a mail-order environment, with a menu of processing options (like "push/pull") and the conversion of the negative into a digital format, uploading to "cloud" and burning onto CD with physical delivery of CD and negatives after processing. I think my next steps would be to ask the lab what experience they have with Ilford Delta 3200 exposed in the ranges that I am proposing. Since the lab is the post-production point in this cycle, I believe it makes sense to work from their experience rather than ignore their input. Ultimately, I will run some test exposures (probably in 120) based on their guidance and view the results.

I realize that for those that develop their own film, and enlarge in their own lab, this might seem like a very different approach, but for now it is my best solution. For those that self-develop, is there any chemistry that you have worked with that yields bad (harsh?) results within these parameters?

Thanks for your comments.

FL Guy