It's interesting how you talk about the difference in highlight rendering between Kodak an Ilford. It confirms my own observation that overcast skies look more textured on the former. Very informative video as always. Thank you for making this series.
Just yesterday I re-watched the Kodak P3200 episode of this series and was a bit disappointed that Delta 3200 episode wasn't out yet. Thanks for reading my mind! :)
Great video. This matches with my own testing. In xtol, delta 3200 is 1000-1250 ISO, basically a smidge over 1000, but not quite to 1250 unless you want to give more development and let the toe ride a little over 0.1 density. comparatively, tmax p3200 came out to 640-800 for me for ISO contrast. Kodak and most everybody says it’s really 800, but in xtol I just couldn’t get it to 800 without more development and marginally more contrast than ISO contrast. Close enough you can fudge it and say 800, but if you have the precision, it’s not quite 800.
When you compare both 3200 films, it would be worthwhile to make some low light test shots and even push some beyond into the 6400/12800 iso range. There is not much value in using these 3200 films under normal light conditions but seems to me to be how most others test these films. I have never been satisfied with the results nor do I think they can really achieve these higher pushed ISO values stated in the techpubs.
You can get all the information you need from this test. Much more than some randomly exposed low light test shots. People are not happy with these films because the expect too much from them. You need to understand what it can do to use it effectively. I shot some portraits with Delta 3200, on 6x6 in daylight. I needed Delta 3200 as i wanted to use a small aperture on a 180mm lens at close range. With delta 3200, i got the extra speed i needed to pull it off. And the prints looked nice. The other reason why people don't know how to use these films, is that you need to know how to make prints.. in darkroom or in photoshop. Most people expect that pictures come ready made straight out of the negative. This is why you see so much mid grey mush from "analog" photographers. They have no clue how to make prints.
this film does look very good if shot at 1250-1600 and developed in Microphen as 3200. Grain is then much finer, almost as 400, also shadows does not look like mud.
Just so I've understood that correctly: this was developed in D76 for 10.5 minutes, the dev time for 3200, and even at ASA1000 the highlights are underdeveloped?
It’s been over two years since I actually made these videos, I just publish them when I want a break. Because of that, I don’t remember what time I used, but I’m fairly certain it was the 3200 speed time
I think it would have been very valuable to mention what you’ve developed the film for. Delta 3200 is a 1000-1250 ASA film (depending on the developer) that has been designed to be pushed to 3200 and give you a more normal contrast at longer development times. It looks like you’ve developed it at 1000 ASA which doesn’t really display the characteristics the film has been designed towards. And it also makes for a less interesting comparison to Tri-X, since Tri-X will push fine to 1000 ASA but reaches its limits at 3200. Delta 3200 is a film to use for when Tri-X isn’t sensitive enough. Same for when you’d want finer grain and shoot FP4+ or Delta 100 if you’re out in bright light and want an image with normal contrast and maybe shoot the a more open aperture. Sure you could pull Tri-X but it’ll give you a less “normal” look with less contrast.
I'm 99,9999% sure it was developed for the manufacturer's recommended time for "box speed" (which, in case of Delta 3200 and P3200 is an even more vague concept as it is with other films) in D-76, and the exposures are all bracketed I'd guess from EI 800 if not 400 up to 6400 in 1/3 stop increments. Anyway, that's what Gregory clearly states in the intro of each and every episode in this series... And so, the shot at EI 1000 happened to be the one that gave similar shadow density to the benchmark Tri-X. As a reminder, exposure is the factor that mainly affects the shadows, and highlights can be controlled with the developing process. Naturally, there are numerous variables like agitation technique, how one times the developing time, thermometer accuracy, the quality of the water the developer is mixed into....... As a conclusion: no, our Naked Photographer didn't screw up, nor did he deliberately perform this test in a different way than what he states in each and every video. It just seems that Perhaps the developing time given by Ilford is too short. Anyway, that's how I understand the results of this test. Calibrating the film speed (testing and adjusting the developing time) isn't part of the testing procedure in this series.
@@markuslarjomaa3122 But that’s exactly my point. Ilford recommends this film to be developed longer for 3200 to get full density in the highlights. And the film is called 3200 after all. What is the point of doing a test that doesn’t show the film’s characteristics for the development time it was intended for? Even if it’s at heart a 1000 ASA film.
@@VariTimo The Ilford recommendation for EI 3200. That’s what was used here as far as I know. Because this whole series is about bracketing exposures and developing per manufacturer’s recommendation in D-76. Box speed. Delta 3200 rather unsurprisingly says 3200 on the box….
This definitely fits with my theory that Ilford films are designed more with scanning and digital postprocessing in mind, while Tri-X is still designed more for traditional printing. When scanning it's easier to add more contrast to a flat HP5 scan, than to try and recover a blown-out Tri-X scan.
@@adamcordelle131especially with how illford is very into getting more people into making dark room prints. And there example doesn't make much sense, adding contrast in the darkroom is as simple as changing filters. I know there is a limit with much much contrast you can add but normally its sufficient
How the hell you scan film so nice? Please share. I'm just using my phone, Samsung's S22 against a table with white light and 3d printed holder and it's not that good.
I would take another look at hp5 with microphen developer. It's zone system speed (10 stop dynamic range) stock microphen for 8 mins is 800 or 1000 iso. The grain is much finer than Delta 3200, and the contrast is much more controlled at 3200 than Delta 3200@3200.
@@user-ti9zc1xv2b this isn't true. I can show you my zone system test negatives clearly showing 9 stops of dynamic range for sure, with an extra non-linear stop in the highlights
In my experience, tmax 3200 gives better results than this, whether it's shot at 1000 or 3200. One great advantage of this film compared to kodak, however, is that it comes in 120.
@@stratocactus Yes, doesn't change the fact Delta 3200 is the weakest and one of the most expensive film from Ilford. I like pushing Tmax 400 to 3200 - not a popular option, I know bit when done correctly you've less grain than HP5/Tri-X - but if I wanted to save some money I'll go on pushing Hp5 like most people do - I don't like the look though. Delta 3200 is just an irrelevant option, whatever you aim at doing.
@@Thorpal Well everyone has their own preference in films. I also prefer pushing HP5 than shooting Delta3200. But I don't like T grain films in general. I know people who love them. Whatever floats your boat. Also the problem with Kodak films is their availability in Europe right now.
@@stratocactus Of course :) At 400 I love Tri-X, I like Tmax and Delta (if developed with DDX) and don't mind shooting Hp5. Also, speaking from a french perspective, the availability issue only arises if you want Gold and other "cheap" 35mm color films. Otherwise unless you're keen on buying Kodak products from french stores: you'll always find someone nicer and cheaper in Belgium or Germany.
Ilford Delta 3200 is really ISO 3200, but the grain on this speed is brutal even after developing in stock Microphen. My experience is the pull to ISO 1600 suits this film better.
It's interesting how you talk about the difference in highlight rendering between Kodak an Ilford. It confirms my own observation that overcast skies look more textured on the former. Very informative video as always. Thank you for making this series.
Just yesterday I re-watched the Kodak P3200 episode of this series and was a bit disappointed that Delta 3200 episode wasn't out yet. Thanks for reading my mind! :)
this is the first video ive seen from this channel and despite the warning i was caught of guard by the intro HAHA
Great video! Very informative as usual. Thank you very much!
Great video. This matches with my own testing. In xtol, delta 3200 is 1000-1250 ISO, basically a smidge over 1000, but not quite to 1250 unless you want to give more development and let the toe ride a little over 0.1 density. comparatively, tmax p3200 came out to 640-800 for me for ISO contrast. Kodak and most everybody says it’s really 800, but in xtol I just couldn’t get it to 800 without more development and marginally more contrast than ISO contrast. Close enough you can fudge it and say 800, but if you have the precision, it’s not quite 800.
Wow. Thank you for doing this!
Is the recommendation to expose at ISO 1000 and develop normally?
Quick question... Did you eventually faint during agitation, you seemed to be getting closer to the floor and somewhat lithargic. ;-)
Maybe you can make a series like this on 120 films on the future. Thank you very much!
When you compare both 3200 films, it would be worthwhile to make some low light test shots and even push some beyond into the 6400/12800 iso range. There is not much value in using these 3200 films under normal light conditions but seems to me to be how most others test these films. I have never been satisfied with the results nor do I think they can really achieve these higher pushed ISO values stated in the techpubs.
You can get all the information you need from this test. Much more than some randomly exposed low light test shots.
People are not happy with these films because the expect too much from them. You need to understand what it can do to use it effectively.
I shot some portraits with Delta 3200, on 6x6 in daylight. I needed Delta 3200 as i wanted to use a small aperture on a 180mm lens at close range. With delta 3200, i got the extra speed i needed to pull it off. And the prints looked nice.
The other reason why people don't know how to use these films, is that you need to know how to make prints.. in darkroom or in photoshop. Most people expect that pictures come ready made straight out of the negative. This is why you see so much mid grey mush from "analog" photographers. They have no clue how to make prints.
this film does look very good if shot at 1250-1600 and developed in Microphen as 3200. Grain is then much finer, almost as 400, also shadows does not look like mud.
What would be better? Simply rating the film as 1000 or pulling it to 1000 as well?
Just so I've understood that correctly: this was developed in D76 for 10.5 minutes, the dev time for 3200, and even at ASA1000 the highlights are underdeveloped?
It’s been over two years since I actually made these videos, I just publish them when I want a break. Because of that, I don’t remember what time I used, but I’m fairly certain it was the 3200 speed time
I think it would have been very valuable to mention what you’ve developed the film for. Delta 3200 is a 1000-1250 ASA film (depending on the developer) that has been designed to be pushed to 3200 and give you a more normal contrast at longer development times. It looks like you’ve developed it at 1000 ASA which doesn’t really display the characteristics the film has been designed towards. And it also makes for a less interesting comparison to Tri-X, since Tri-X will push fine to 1000 ASA but reaches its limits at 3200.
Delta 3200 is a film to use for when Tri-X isn’t sensitive enough. Same for when you’d want finer grain and shoot FP4+ or Delta 100 if you’re out in bright light and want an image with normal contrast and maybe shoot the a more open aperture. Sure you could pull Tri-X but it’ll give you a less “normal” look with less contrast.
I'm 99,9999% sure it was developed for the manufacturer's recommended time for "box speed" (which, in case of Delta 3200 and P3200 is an even more vague concept as it is with other films) in D-76, and the exposures are all bracketed I'd guess from EI 800 if not 400 up to 6400 in 1/3 stop increments. Anyway, that's what Gregory clearly states in the intro of each and every episode in this series... And so, the shot at EI 1000 happened to be the one that gave similar shadow density to the benchmark Tri-X.
As a reminder, exposure is the factor that mainly affects the shadows, and highlights can be controlled with the developing process. Naturally, there are numerous variables like agitation technique, how one times the developing time, thermometer accuracy, the quality of the water the developer is mixed into.......
As a conclusion: no, our Naked Photographer didn't screw up, nor did he deliberately perform this test in a different way than what he states in each and every video. It just seems that Perhaps the developing time given by Ilford is too short. Anyway, that's how I understand the results of this test. Calibrating the film speed (testing and adjusting the developing time) isn't part of the testing procedure in this series.
@@markuslarjomaa3122 But that’s exactly my point. Ilford recommends this film to be developed longer for 3200 to get full density in the highlights. And the film is called 3200 after all. What is the point of doing a test that doesn’t show the film’s characteristics for the development time it was intended for? Even if it’s at heart a 1000 ASA film.
@@VariTimo The Ilford recommendation for EI 3200. That’s what was used here as far as I know. Because this whole series is about bracketing exposures and developing per manufacturer’s recommendation in D-76. Box speed. Delta 3200 rather unsurprisingly says 3200 on the box….
This definitely fits with my theory that Ilford films are designed more with scanning and digital postprocessing in mind, while Tri-X is still designed more for traditional printing. When scanning it's easier to add more contrast to a flat HP5 scan, than to try and recover a blown-out Tri-X scan.
I've always heard it was the opposite
@@adamcordelle131especially with how illford is very into getting more people into making dark room prints. And there example doesn't make much sense, adding contrast in the darkroom is as simple as changing filters. I know there is a limit with much much contrast you can add but normally its sufficient
Sounds like a theory. Except that Ilford designed their films before anybody was scanning. But apart from that little temporal anomaly …
I wonder how many people will skip the video and immediately comment down here "It's really 1000 speed, but meant to push to 3200" ?
Everyone who can't wait until 5:30
How the hell you scan film so nice? Please share. I'm just using my phone, Samsung's S22 against a table with white light and 3d printed holder and it's not that good.
I would take another look at hp5 with microphen developer. It's zone system speed (10 stop dynamic range) stock microphen for 8 mins is 800 or 1000 iso. The grain is much finer than Delta 3200, and the contrast is much more controlled at 3200 than Delta 3200@3200.
False; you'll lose a few bottom zones in the hp5; my sensiometry tests confirm this
@@user-ti9zc1xv2b this isn't true. I can show you my zone system test negatives clearly showing 9 stops of dynamic range for sure, with an extra non-linear stop in the highlights
@@westonharby165 I would love to see your results; my tests are really do show the loss
@@user-ti9zc1xv2b what developer did you use?
Quite different film than Tmax 3200. Now i wish fomapan would bring back T800, would be a good time for it.
Have one in my fridge since 4 years...
In my experience, tmax 3200 gives better results than this, whether it's shot at 1000 or 3200. One great advantage of this film compared to kodak, however, is that it comes in 120.
And Delta 3200 is almost half the price of Kodak TMax3200 (at least in the store I bought it from).
@@stratocactus Yes, doesn't change the fact Delta 3200 is the weakest and one of the most expensive film from Ilford. I like pushing Tmax 400 to 3200 - not a popular option, I know bit when done correctly you've less grain than HP5/Tri-X - but if I wanted to save some money I'll go on pushing Hp5 like most people do - I don't like the look though. Delta 3200 is just an irrelevant option, whatever you aim at doing.
@@Thorpal Well everyone has their own preference in films. I also prefer pushing HP5 than shooting Delta3200. But I don't like T grain films in general. I know people who love them. Whatever floats your boat. Also the problem with Kodak films is their availability in Europe right now.
@@stratocactus Of course :) At 400 I love Tri-X, I like Tmax and Delta (if developed with DDX) and don't mind shooting Hp5. Also, speaking from a french perspective, the availability issue only arises if you want Gold and other "cheap" 35mm color films. Otherwise unless you're keen on buying Kodak products from french stores: you'll always find someone nicer and cheaper in Belgium or Germany.
@@Thorpal Delta 3200 is a really nice film if you need the speed. Pushing slower speed films will never give you the shadow detail.
Why wouldn't you shoot it at box? Not a fair comparison.
Ilford Delta 3200 is really ISO 3200, but the grain on this speed is brutal even after developing in stock Microphen. My experience is the pull to ISO 1600 suits this film better.
Sorry, that is nonsense!