skellum
member
Reged: 25/02/2007
Posts: 109
|
|
Okay. So I promised myself, 'no more films'. Okay, so between the freezer and the fridge I'm stocking PanF, FP4, HP5 and SFX 200. Oh, and Adox 25. And Velvia (50 and 100F). And some colour neg. And just a wee bit of delta 100 (well, its supposed to be sharp). Yes Yes Yes. I KNOW. But . . .
For some reason I've ordered a pile of Delta 3200. Why? I don't know. It was so tempting. Hand held TLR street photography on 120 film. How could you not want to try?
Anyhow- the film's ordered. The question is, WHAT SOUP??
I keep Ilfosol and Pyro.
I want good speed, and I don't mind grain if it's CRISP and JUICY. If anything, I think I want something that looks a bit gritty and 'hard'. So, who's souping 3200, in what, how does it look, and what kinda speeds are ya'll gettin'??
|
ermintrude
Hinkypuff
Reged: 30/06/2003
Posts: 12550
Loc: London, UK
|
|
mmmm I always used DDX on 3200
--------------------
   
|
Woolliscroft
veteran
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1253
|
|
Quote:
mmmm I always used DDX on 3200
Ditto. Ilfosol isn't recommended for films faster than medium speed, although in practice I find it works well enough with 400 speed stock.
--------------------
David.
|
taxor
Reged: 09/07/2004
Posts: 571
Loc: Lancaster, UK
|
|
Microphen works well with 3.2K although I believe the results are similar to DDX. It's also cheap to buy (or make). IMO, this emulsion is fantastic in MF and hand-held candlelight shots are a breeze. Many reckon the true speed of Delta 3.2k to be closer to 1600 asa and my own woefully unscientific testing seems to bear this out. Regards, Taxford
--------------------
"I wanna hold your gland". Lemming & McCartney
|
skellum
member
Reged: 25/02/2007
Posts: 109
|
|
Aha! Thanks folks. I think I'll start with DDX. Been googling, and X-tol and DDX seem to be popular. Some folks even seem to be exposing at 6400 !?! So, first of I'll shoot some tests for film speed. Most films seem to benefit from being rated slower, but in this case I think we'll push the boat out and look for drama as opposed to ultimate shadow detail.
|
ermintrude
Hinkypuff
Reged: 30/06/2003
Posts: 12550
Loc: London, UK
|
|
Ive pushed it as far as 25000. Nice golf balls 
--------------------
|
Mojo_66
Rain Kat
Reged: 25/05/2006
Posts: 3386
Loc: Lancs
|
|
Delta 3200 looks good in ID11 too. DDX is high a high accutance developer, so will emphasize the grain, but using 120 this shouldn't be a problem.
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojo_black/
|
Woolliscroft
veteran
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1253
|
|
Quote:
Many reckon the true speed of Delta 3.2k to be closer to 1600 asa and my own woefully unscientific testing seems to bear this out. Regards, Taxford
Me too, but you can push it a lot further.
--------------------
David.
|
The Circle Of Confusion
veteran
Reged: 01/03/2006
Posts: 1389
Loc: The Big Smoke
|
|
I tend to err on the side of over exposure with Delta 3200 as it can be a bit thin sometimes. Lovely stuff though 
--------------------
www.thecircleofconfusion.com
"They're just photos after all"
|
Simon E.
Reged: 16/01/2001
Posts: 718
Loc: Shropshire, England
|
|
No contest, DD-X.
@Mojo-66, I didn't think it was an acutance developer, as it's a liquid twin for Microphen I'd say it's an allround speed-increasing developer.
Delta 3200 works great at 1000-1600. How much further you want to go depends on how much shadow detail you're prepared to sacrifice.
--------------------
Simon.
|
NorthernMonkey
enthusiast
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 271
|
|
I shoot it at 1600, then dev in DDX, using the timings for 3200.
Although I've only shot it at 1600, I've read in a few places that it's nicer developed one stop quicker than the speed at which it is shot, for greater shadow detail, so if you want to shoot 3200, dev for 6400 etc.
|
Wheelu
member
Reged: 31/10/2007
Posts: 168
Loc: UK, up North
|
|
I've shot 35mm Delta 3200 rated at 1600 and souped in DDX. The grain is impressive
Take a look at the two Turbinia shots on my Flikr site.
--------------------
My Flickr Photos
|
skellum
member
Reged: 25/02/2007
Posts: 109
|
|
E-mail from Morco says Hamper on its way  . Some googling has thrown up all sorts of opinions on 3200. General consensus seems to be that underdeveloping hurts, and to expect GRAIN.
So, plan is to shoot a test roll first under daylight and tungsten, some frames at 1600, 3200 and some at 6400. Process in DDX 1+4 for 11 or 12 mins (waiting for inspiration from ghost of Weegee) and see what I like best.
Then, off to the dark and mysterious streets and pubs . .
I'll let you know how it goes!
|
Simon E.
Reged: 16/01/2001
Posts: 718
Loc: Shropshire, England
|
|
Ilford's push times are somewhat conservative - I'd recommend giving it another 50% over what's on the box for each speed setting. Have fun.
--------------------
Simon.
|
Zou
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/02/2007
Posts: 2117
Loc: Edinburgh
|
|
This is a handy tool
--------------------
Zou's Flickr Page
|
skellum
member
Reged: 25/02/2007
Posts: 109
|
|
Zou- thanks! Very good site. I immediately see times for PanF and HP5 which are pretty close to my own tested times, so fills me with confidence that the Delta times might be reliable as weel.
Sadly, no box from Morco today. Maybe just as well- so tired after work would only screw up film testing anyhow. Brain Jelly . . . So, adios muchachos, I going for beer therapy at the Guiness shop!!!
|
Simon E.
Reged: 16/01/2001
Posts: 718
Loc: Shropshire, England
|
|
More times here.
For anyone looking to experiment or economise with DD-X it can be used at dilutions higher than 1+4. I would not try it for push-development or with Delta 3200. The higher dilution can give a similar increase in acutance as comparing ID-11 stock to 1+1. I have seen the times posted (by snappers whose opinion/judgement I respect) that suggest adding half again to the times established for 1+4.
--------------------
Simon.
Edited by Simon E. (23/11/2007 20:32)
|
skellum
member
Reged: 25/02/2007
Posts: 109
|
|
So, how did it all turn out . . .?
Got my Delta and DDX on Saturday. Shot a test roll, with frames exposed at 1600, 3200, and 6400.
Now, I'd read that this film benefits from being developed for 1 stop faster than exposed. For example, rate at 3200, dev for 6400. So I figured I'd do exactly that, on the basis that I'd either get good frames at 32K, or just possibly 64k would work.
Gave 12 and 1/2 minutes in 1+4.
First, the shots at 6400 were too thin to print comfortably. Those at 1600 had best density, but the highlights were just going too far, and would have benefitted from slightly less dev time.
The shots at 3200 really surprised me. Adequate density, a wee bit short of shadow detail by my usual standards, but easily printable. Very sharp. Full frame printed 8x8 inches showed amazingly little grain. I don't think any worse than 35mm HP5 rated at 400 and printed to the same size. Had I been given the prints to judge I don't think for a second I'd have guessed it came from a very high speed film.
As someone who mostly shoots 6x6 PanF, and FP4 in 5x4, this stuff is VERY interesting.
Next, I'll shoot a couple of rolls at 3200 to get a feel for it. Of course, the only way to find the limit is by going too far. At some point we'll have to try shooting REALLY fast and developing for half an hour. Just to see . .
|
Simon E.
Reged: 16/01/2001
Posts: 718
Loc: Shropshire, England
|
|
Good news, keep it up. DD-X is a terrific all-rounder.
I agree that, generally, the advice to 'dev for 1 stop higher' has worked for me. Mind you, I find shadow detail has dropped away by 3200 anyway and no amount of extra time will bring it back. Never tried 6400...
--------------------
Simon.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
