Delta 3200 + Ilfosol S
December 5th, 2007
Hexar RF, ZM Biogon 35, Delta 3200 @ 800, Ilfosol S
All forums and other fonts of internet wisdom indicate that this should be a terrible combination. Ifosol S is reportedly not suited for high speed films, but the local art shop had a bottle, and I couldn’t resist. Two rolls is too small a sample size to tell, but I think this looks kind of cool. Grainy, definitely, but there’s a nice gradation in the midtones, contrast is well under control for ISO 800 and shadow detail is not bad. Overall, this was a fun experiment, and a productive enough one that I’ll probably order some more Delta 3200 and maybe some Neopan 1600 with my next film order. Marginal light photography can be interesting as long as you keep your expectations in line. And grain is good for winter.
For all those that have been wondering about the one lens, one film experiment, it’s still under way, although the parameters have changed. The real purpose of the experiment was to learn something more about scanning and post-processing. Once I wrapped my head around a couple of post processing techniques, varying the film seemed like a good idea, and then the enforced asceticism of one lens just started to seem silly when I only use two lenses anyway. In any event, a follow up post will follow, eventually.
Processing Notes: I used the Massive Dev Chart’s suggested time of 8 minutes at 68 degrees. I agitated for 10 seconds every 1 minute. Either my developer was a bit cold, a bit dilute or the suggested time is a bit too short as these negs were a bit on the thin side. 9 minutes might be closer to the correct time.
December 5th, 2007
I don’t say these are technically inacceptable, but fwiw, I think you’ll get better results with Neopan 1600 AT 1600 ISO (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1951130777/)
or all the more so, with the Neopan 400 in DIafine at 800 ISO - I do not have the examples myself, but here’s one shot at 400 ISO developed in Tmax Dev in my lab:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/2080930169/ Neopan is slightly less sharp than Delta 400, but has smaller grain and better tonality.
December 5th, 2007
These are less about getting ‘best’ or even ‘better’ results than they are just about seeing what a particular film developer combo does. There’s a time and place for the ‘best’ choice, but this was an experiment run purely to satisfy my curiosity.
BTW, this photo is particularly nice.
December 5th, 2007
Thanks for posting, that reminds me, I have two rolls of delta 400 I pushed to 3200 still to be developed in ddx.
December 6th, 2007
Very B&W cool. I have not used the great grainy films for many years, but this may inspire to try them again. Among the digitally perfect - so-sharp-they-cut-your-eyes - photos floating around the net, these stand out as much more interesting (to me, anyway). Sharp, contrasty, grainy - what black and white photography means to me.
I think the lighted doorway in the dark frame and the window portrait of Kate are notably effective.
I don’t often post comments, but I visit your site daily and very much appreciate your work. Please keep posting.
Thanks
December 6th, 2007
Max, glad you like them, and thanks for commenting. I also am particularly fond of the lighted doorway; it may end up as the cover for my first book. The window portrait is great from a technical standpoint, but it feels a bit formal to me. It’s nice know I can pull that off, but I think I’ll not do it very often.
December 11th, 2007
Thanks for the comment on my blog, I think you have a fine set of images I know its not fashionable but I like grain and if you want a fast film for 120 then Delta 3200 is the only game in town.
Regarding Neopan vs Ilford I’ve always liked the Fuji 400 and 1600 for the way they hold highlights, never liked Delta 400, but the 3200 rated at 800-1000 EI seems to have a lovely grain pattern and good tonal range.
mark
(Photo Utopia)
December 11th, 2007
Thanks for stopping by Mark. I haven’t shot any Neopan 400 in long time, but I do have a couple of really excellent images taken on Neopan from a couple of years back. For a while I used Neopan 1600 as an everyday film. Slap an ND on your lens, and you are good to go. It seemed to me to produce results more like what other people got with TriX than the results I could get with TriX.
Delta 400 is quirky beast. I’ve shot a ton of it, loved it, hated it, still don’t understand it, but I just bought another 10 rolls of it.
December 12th, 2007
With respect to Massive Dev Chart, I had a terrible experience with their recommended times for Tri-X and D-76 1:1. At their suggested times my negs were way underdeveloped. I think the problem is that the call for _much_ less agitation than, for example, the standard kodak recommendations. They say only 3 inversions per minute. I am stick with that agitation regime but I’ve upped the dev. temp to 24 C. Much better. I wouldn’t use one of their suggestions unless its accompanied by specific notes about agitation.
December 12th, 2007
Massive Dev chart can be all over the place, but I find their times are often a useful starting point when I can’t find a manufacturer’s suggested time for a particular film and developer combo. As you said, they often don’t include agitation notes, and personal tastes for negative densities vary wildly.
January 3rd, 2008
i really don’t like to give film recommendations as it sounds quite pretentious in my opinion… but did you try fuji neopan1600? i think it’s an amazing film. the few times i tried delta3200 i was very disappointed but then again, might be my poor knowledge when it comes to developing. also, i’m more the kodak/fuji/agfa guy. ;-)
anyway, i’m just saying because i really like your photography but these frames look dull to me.
January 3rd, 2008
I’ve shot a lot of Neopan 1600 in the past, but not so much recently. The Delta 3200 was an experiment. It’s a different look, a little less contrast, particularly when rated at 800. And it is certainly grainier than Neopan 1600.