matvogel
Hello,
Last weekend I exposed a few roll films of Delta 3200 at 6400 ISO. The subject was a wedding reception, which I photographed in a reportage style alongside another photographer, without using a flash. The aim is to achieve nicely detailed negatives with still-acceptable grain; the shadow areas shouldn’t disappear into a black mess. It’s clear that the contrast will be sharper. I know it was quite a risk to try an unfamiliar film/developer combination. That’s why I first shot a roll there with trivial subjects – just a test run to try out the developer combination. Do you have any experience with pushed Delta 3200? How do you develop it?
To avoid a grainy mess, Rodinal is out of the question. Otherwise, I usually use:
A49
Rollei RHS (LP Supergrain)
Rollei RLS (LP Cube XS)
I also have T-Max developer and Tetenal Ultrafin Plus in the fridge – though I have no experience with these developers.
Do you have any suggestions on how I should carry out the development?
Regards
Matthias
thomas_l
Hello!
I’ve had quite good results with A49. Unlike with other films, I’ve noticed with the Delta 3200 that you need to develop it quite generously – in other words, for longer than the manufacturer’s instructions suggest. Otherwise, the film turns out very flat.
Best regards, Thomas
matvogel
Thomas, thanks for the tip. A49 was actually my first thought too, but I read somewhere here that the results with that combination are ‘rather muddy’ – whatever that means...
Oh, and I’ve also got Microdol-X, but I suppose that’s out of the question as well. I only use that for my normally exposed T-Max films in 8x10 in rotary development.
I’m now leaning more towards the T-Max developer, as it was developed specifically for modern flat-crystal films. And a TMZ is actually quite similar to a Delta 3200.
Do you have any other tips on this?
Best regards
Matthias
michael-kielgmxnet
Hi Matthias,
Have a look here – it covers exactly the same topic, and someone has given a specific figure for the development time, albeit at 3200 ISO.
http://www.aphog.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15456
Gast
Rollei RHS (Amaloco AM 74) 1+7 – 13 minutes
Kodak T-Max 1+4 – 11 minutes
Source: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Delta+3200&Developer=&mdc=Search
Personally, I would prefer Kodak Xtol stock solution for 10 minutes (Ilford agitation cycle).
matvogel
Hello,
Thanks for your tips. In the end, I used DD-X and followed Ilford’s recommended development time of 12 minutes 30 seconds for the first roll. The result was quite alright, though a bit flat. The second roll turned out better at 14 minutes. Interestingly, the contrast isn’t as high as I expected. Let’s see how well it prints. I’ll be enlarging them in a few days.
Best regards,
Matthias
cfb_de
Hello,
Thanks for your tips. In the end, I used DD-X and followed Ilford’s recommended development time of 12 minutes 30 seconds for the first roll. The result was quite alright, though a bit flat. The second roll turned out better at 14 minutes. Interestingly, the contrast isn’t as high as I expected. Let’s see how well it prints. I’ll be enlarging them in a few days.
Best regards,
Matthias
Well. You’ll get prints from the negatives that look like they’re from a film pushed to 1000 ASA. With the highlights softened, that might actually look good for stage photography. I wouldn’t want to photograph a wedding in a castle cellar like that, though.
Diffuse pre-exposure helps a lot with enlarging negatives like these. ‘Boosting’ the negatives, on the other hand, does not.
Best regards,
Franz
matvogel
Well. You’ll get prints from the negatives that look like they were taken on a film pushed to 1000 ASA. With the highlights softened, that might actually look good in stage photography. But I wouldn’t want to photograph a wedding in a castle cellar like that.
Diffuse pre-exposure helps a lot when enlarging such negatives. ‘Boosting’ the negatives, on the other hand, does not.
Hi Franz,
Yes, I’m expecting that. This perhaps raises the fundamental question of alternatives. Of course, I could have used HP5 at 200 and photographed with a flash. But that’s exactly what I didn’t want to do. Do you, or do you all, have any other ideas on how to capture a subject like this without a flash?
Best regards,
Matthias
Gast
Fast lens
Tri-X Pan 400 pushed to 3200 ISO
It looks something like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aye_shamus/4361668485/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luketrash/1549141629/
I think 3200 ASA is the maximum you should expect a film to handle.
You might be able to optimise the results further with a two-bath developer such as Moersch MZB, Tetenal Emofin or Thornton 2-bath (homemade).
There are also people who claim they can perform the exposure of Tri-X-400 to 6400 ISO using Rodinal 1:100 with stand development:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/athiril/4554514705/
Best regards
Wolfgang
thomas_l
So, a quick update: yesterday I developed a Delta 3200 to 12,800 ISO using XTOL. According to the instructions, 12.5 minutes in the stock solution. The result is OK – a bit flat, but certainly suitable for enlargement. The lighting was extremely poor there, though.
mattes
So far, I’ve been developing the Delta 3200 in Emofin. I set the camera to 3200 and pushed it by one stop. That worked very well. Unfortunately, when working with films like this, as well as having too little light, you often have artificial light sources with ‘too much’ light. The dynamic range of the subjects is actually far too wide for the photos. As the film needs to be pushed, I recommend a two-stage developer such as Emofin to obtain negatives that can be printed reasonably well.
Matthias
