 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / February 2007Ilford Delta 3200 120 push processing
Doing some further exploration of MF B+W. I got some Delta 3200 as I want to explore MF with grain. I just exposed a test roll at ISO 6400, think I might need to go higher to get the grain effect I want on a 6x7 neg, but I thought I'd start with just a little bit of push over rated speed. Any views on speed to expose at from anyone using this type of material? Do I lose a lot of contrast going up to 6400? The developer I have to hand is Tetenal Ultrafin, so I'd like to develop the test in this. It's about 3 decades since I did any push processing, can't recall what I have to do to uprate the 3200 to 6400. Any input on developing technique to do this would be very welcome. I'm guessing Delta 3200 needs special treatment even at it's rated speed? Steve >The developer I have to hand is Tetenal Ultrafin, so I'd like to >develop the test in this. It's about 3 decades since I did any push [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Steve See the development chart at http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html  SignaturePaul Friday >>processing, can't recall what I have to do to uprate the 3200 to 6400. >>Any input on developing technique to do this would be very welcome. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >See the development chart at http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html Thanks, I came across this today, a useful site indeed. Sadly no data on using Ultrafin at the ISO I am using. However I now find that the both film data sheet and that URL have detailed info on push development times using Ilfotec DD-X. So to keep things simple I've bought a bottle of that as well, given that it was designed for the film and costs not a lot. For those who might want it the Delta 3200 datasheet is at: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/200613019405339.pdf Steve Steve schrieb: > Doing some further exploration of MF B+W. I got some Delta 3200 as I > want to explore MF with grain. I just exposed a test roll at ISO > 6400, think I might need to go higher to get the grain effect I want > on a 6x7 neg, but I thought I'd start with just a little bit of push > over rated speed. Any views on speed to expose at from anyone using > this type of material? Do I lose a lot of contrast going up to 6400? It depends. You'll loose some contrast, but for grain, push the film +1,5 to +2 (12800). Take hard paper (or multigrade filters). Add 30 seconds to 1 minute to the given time in the data sheet. > The developer I have to hand is Tetenal Ultrafin, so I'd like to > develop the test in this. It's about 3 decades since I did any push > processing, can't recall what I have to do to uprate the 3200 to 6400. > Any input on developing technique to do this would be very welcome. > I'm guessing Delta 3200 needs special treatment even at it's rated > speed? Since you already found the data sheet... my choice is Microphen, but DDX works similar. Andreas SignatureFotos unter http://www.gugau-foto.de/ Schottland unter http://www.whisky-guide.de/ >over rated speed. Any views on speed to expose at from anyone using >this type of material? Do I lose a lot of contrast going up to 6400? you should get *more* contrast as long as you push a film. if you want golf ball size grain, i'd develop it with rodinal: on the massive dev chart on digitaltruth.com website you find times for rodinal 1+25. >I'm guessing Delta 3200 needs special treatment even at it's rated >speed? i don't think it does. the only thing i've seen, talking about 135 format but 120 makes no difference, is that sometimes exposimeters tend to overevaluate light in poor light conditions, then if you plan to use pushed delta3200's in low light, i'd overexpose by at least half a stop --1 stop even better: it has great exposure latitude imvvvho. just my 2cent. regards, SignatureGianni Rondinini (31, tanti, RA) Nikon user - Bmw driver http://bugbarbeq.deviantart.com Dicite, judicii quid habet plebicula veri? (Palingenio, Zodiac. vitae, Sagit., p. 236) >you should get *more* contrast as long as you push a film. >if you want golf ball size grain, i'd develop it with rodinal: on the >massive dev chart on digitaltruth.com website you find times for >rodinal 1+25. Thanks, I see the contrast issue now. I found a good sheet on the theory of push processing on that Ilford site, all very interesting. The Rodinal idea is useful. I'm very short of light for these shots, so might go for further speed instead, but will bear this one in mind. Steve >Thanks, I see the contrast issue now. I found a good sheet on the you're very welcome! newsgroups have been such a great source of information that when i can help --and it's not frequent :)-- i do my best to do it. i simply love delta3200, 20 times more than tmz because of the grain shape: tmz grain is slightly smaller, but far sharper and "harder". delta's remain softer anytime and it's grain is always more "round shaped". you'll see it as you try it. >The Rodinal idea is useful. I'm very short of light for these shots, >so might go for further speed instead, but will bear this one in mind. be a bit conservative when exposing it because delta3200 some exposimeters tend to make you underexpose films with very low light is available and it has a base+film level a bit high. delta3200 film isn't "very transparent" as film, while delta100 is. all of the above is, of course, my humble opinion: i'm all but expert in darkroom, but i use a lot of delta3200, in 135 format. regards, SignatureGianni Rondinini (31, tanti, RA) Nikon user - Bmw driver http://bugbarbeq.deviantart.com Dicite, judicii quid habet plebicula veri? (Palingenio, Zodiac. vitae, Sagit., p. 236) > but far sharper and "harder". >delta's remain softer anytime and it's grain is always more "round >shaped". you'll see it as you try it. Really interesting, glad I got the Delta from what you say. I'll blow up some scans and take a peak when I get the negs developed. I'm going to shoot a roll of 135 first on a Nikon F5 as a test for my next series of shots, then move up to medium format there if I like those results, exposure measurement being that much easier on the Nikon. One thing I find frustrating about the RZ and 120 is that if you do use the prism TTL capability you don't have clue what actual exposure the thing is giving. Which to me makes MF TTL work pretty much useless in this circumstance. I need to work with known settings for sure. Some actual feedback would have been useful, an old-fashioned match needle display would do me fine. Ah well, probably need a decent exposure meter RSN. Steve >I'm going to shoot a roll of 135 first on a Nikon F5 as a test for my i'm glad you use the very same camera i do. the f5 work flawlessly and amazingly well as long as you use a flash --in ttl-- or there is some decent light. otherwise, you need to be careful. i've taken quite a bunch of delta3200 and when the light is so poor that you need to go around 1/8th of a second with a 50/1.4 fully open, the ttl exposimeter gave me some underexposure. if you look at my gallery on deviantart, you find some images which were taken using delta3200, developed in rodinal and printed around 8x12". these are scans of the actual print: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/30964370 printed on 8x8" forte "silk" fb paper; shot taken with 10x20hz strobo flash (sb-800); exposure time: half a second http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/27769965 printed on 8x12" ilford glossy rc paper; same strobo flash http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/27769856 printed on 8x12" ilford glossi rc paper; photo taken with ttl single shot flash the scene was *totally* dark, indeed i was using manual focus and "guessing" the focus distance. the pianist, who is my friend, didn't want any light in the scene, then you could hardly see the musicians with your eyes. i have a couple of scans of tmz's, but they're "quick" scans of the negative that don't say much about the grain size and shape: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/23667461 http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/23667346 both of these were made with ttl flash. unfortunately, being low resolution of the negative, they don't show well the actual grain. at the moment i don't have the time to play with the scanner to show you the grain; however i can guarantee that if you like smoother --thou big-- grain, you'll love delta's. >much useless in this circumstance. I need to work with known settings >for sure. Some actual feedback would have been useful, an sure you do. if you have "well known conditions" under which you got good results with an f5, you can use the same time/aperture values also with your medium format camera. i own a rolleiflex f3.5 planar, which doesn't even have 3200asa in its sensibility range, then i've shot just one roll "guessing" by hand the exposure time and aperture and results weren't that good --i said i'm no expert. i have recently made a couple of rolls of delta3200 during the day: it was an awfully foggy day, then i picked up the camera and went taking photographs. i'll develop those images soon... this was the first time i used 1/8000th of a second on f5 :) regards, SignatureGianni Rondinini (31, tanti, RA) Nikon user - Bmw driver http://bugbarbeq.deviantart.com Dicite, judicii quid habet plebicula veri? (Palingenio, Zodiac. vitae, Sagit., p. 236) >the f5 work flawlessly and amazingly well as long as you use a flash >--in ttl-- or there is some decent light. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >if you look at my gallery on deviantart, you find some images which >were taken using delta3200 Good work there, I liked those blurred hands also! Thanks for the further tips. My subject here will be on ice, in a very badly lit rink. Looking at your work I believe this film will also perform well in this situation. Will try it out tomorrow, maybe bracketing the F5 exposures a little. > this was the first time i used 1/8000th of a second on f5 :) :-0 Steve Steve, a while back I was doing some tests to find the best film to do some low-light shots for someone, and I therefore tested a few films at 3200ASA. It's not completely up-to-date, but the table below shows some results I came to:- FILM: BOX ASA: EXP. AT: DEVELOPER: TIME: [SHOULD] FOG D: MAX.D: MAX-FOG: [NONE, CLEAR PATH TO CHECK D = 0.0 ON DENSITOMETER] -- -- -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 PAN-F 50 50 RODINAL 1+25 8MINS 0.1 2.8 2.7 TMX PRO 100 100 T-MAX RS 10MINS FP4+ 125 125 RODINAL 1+25 7MINS 0.12 2.3 2.18 FP4-88 * 125 125 RODINAL 1+25 8MINS 0.22 2.45 2.23 HP5+. 400 400 MICROPHEN STOCK. 7:30. [8] TMY PRO 400 400 T-MAX RS 10MINS HP5+ 400 3200 MICROPHEN STOCK 17MINS 0.2 2.25 2.05 TMAX 400 400 3200 XTOL UNDILUTED 14:30 [16] 0.16 2.45 2.29 TMAX 400 400 3200 MICROPHEN STOCK *** TO BE TESTED *** TRI-X 400 400 3200 XTOL UNDILUTED 14:30 [17] 0.31 2.2 1.89 DELTA100 100 800 ** MICROPHEN STOCK 14MINS [17] 0.15 2.05 1.9 DELTA400 400 3200 MICROPHEN STOCK 15MINS [17] 0.42 2.1 1.68 DELTA3200 [800] *** 3200 MICROPHEN STOCK 11MINS 0.6 1.95 1.35 * "FP4-88" IS OLD FP4, BOUGHT 1986, EXPIRY DATE = 1988 ! ** ILFORD DELTA 100 PUSHED 3 STOPS, LIKE THE 400ASA'S AT 3200. *** FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, I TAKE THE BASE SPEED OF DELTA 3200 TO BE AN 800 ASA EMULSION For me, TMY (T-Max 400) in undiluted XTOL gave me the best tonal range for use at 3200 asa, development time was initially 14:30 but subsequently shown it should be 16:00mins. It was significantly better than the Delta 3200, which is actually an 800 - 1000 ASA emulsion. If I wanted to push up to 6400 or even 12500 I might still try it with TMY. Hope this helps - F.C. Trevor Gale. > Doing some further exploration of MF B+W. I got some Delta 3200 as I > want to explore MF with grain. I just exposed a test roll at ISO [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Steve F.C. Trevor Gale wrote: ... I suppose those times were for 20 degrees? I've used Rodinal 1+50 at as low as 16 deg to get finer grain. Development times tend to get around 25 minutes... -- Lassi > Steve, a while back I was doing some tests to find the best film to do > some low-light shots for someone, and I therefore tested a few films at > 3200ASA. It's not completely up-to-date, but the table below shows some > results I came to:- any chance of putting that table up somewhere in a web page so folks can reference it? Darn useful, if I might say so. And thanks for making it public. >>Steve, a while back I was doing some tests to find the best film to do >>some low-light shots for someone, and I therefore tested a few films at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so folks can reference it? Darn useful, if I might say so. > And thanks for making it public. Noons, I didn't realise it was that useful to folks but yes, I'll paste it onto my website in a couple of days. Thanks for the tip - F.C. Trevor Gale. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.