Topic: apropos pushing... ASA 3200 film (and developer) recs

[hookstrapped]

Since my beloved Neopan 1600 is no longer made, and I'm a bit leery of pushing Tri-X three stops, are there any good alternatives?  Is the Ilford 3200 any good?  Should I try pushing Tri-X to 3200?  Developers to use?

BTW, I've tried Tmax 3200 and hated it.  No shadow detail at all, the blown highlights were blown in an ugly way.  I'm willing to have blown highlights for shadow detail.

[LT]

delta 3200 is a wonderful film ... but in normal developers it is somewhere around 1000-1600 iso.  You need to use a speed increasing developer to get 3200 + out of it.

[charles binns]

Ilford Delta 3200 is a fantastic film.  It can be pushed to a whopping ASA 25,000 using Ilfotec DDX with lovely results.  Loads of grain & atmosphere.  You can push it to ASA12,500 (I think - maybe it was ASA 6400) with Rodinal but DDX gives much much better results.

The Digital Truth development chart has the times.

[hookstrapped]

Thanks!  Will be trying the Delta 3200.

[Francois]

Lost shadow detail is pretty much the norm when it comes to pushing film. Even TMZ is pushed when exposed at EI 3200. In reality, it is an ISO 800 film for normal developers. 1000 if processed in t-max.
The thing is that low light situations are often high contrast too.

[hookstrapped]

Lost shadow detail is pretty much the norm when it comes to pushing film. Even TMZ is pushed when exposed at EI 3200. In reality, it is an ISO 800 film for normal developers. 1000 if processed in t-max.
The thing is that low light situations are often high contrast too.

That was the thing that was so great about Neopan 1600.  It retained great shadow detail at 3200 (using Tmax developer).  It is so far superior to TMZ...  TMZ at 3200 is utter crap, Neopan 1600 is sublime.  So, I'm hoping Delta 3200 is closer to Neopan.

[Jack Johnson]

If you hunt around Flickr, you'll find a lot of examples of Acros 100 pushed to 1600 (one at random), and I'm surprised how much I like it. Haven't made the attempt yet, though.

[Francois]

That was the thing that was so great about Neopan 1600.  It retained great shadow detail at 3200 (using Tmax developer).  It is so far superior to TMZ...  TMZ at 3200 is utter crap, Neopan 1600 is sublime.  So, I'm hoping Delta 3200 is closer to Neopan.

All I really can say is that they're all very different looks. TMZ is more raw in a way. A bit like Recording film was.

It's related to both the sensitivity curves and the fact that Neopan seems to be a true 1600 ISO film which is in reality one stop more than TMZ which is in reality only an 800 ISO.

Here's the spec sheet for Neopan http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/Neopan1600.pdf

[Nigel]

Since my beloved Neopan 1600 is no longer made.

This is news to me! 

[Photo_Utopia]

I use Ilford Delta quite a bit have a mini review here:
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/ilford-delta-3200.html

Like others have pointed out 3200 is the exposure index (EI) value not the ISO which is 1000. That shouldn't worry you though because ISO ratings are based on long tonal scale images (D Log 1.3) such as sunny days with shade and highlights.
With Delta 3200 you're more likely to be using it indoors with little or no light and certainly a lower scene brightness range so tonal compression is easily done.

The trick (if indeed it is a trick) is to expose for emerging shadow detail and then stop down two stops. This will give you a snowballs chance in h**l of getting shadow detail. I then develop it in Rodinal (yes I know I sound like a salesman for the black syrup) which at 1:25 and minimal agitation seems to give a compressed highlight and shadow detail.
I have managed to expose at EI 25,000 and get useable results with this combination:



Metering is the key, especially if your spotmeter only goes to 6400 ASA

The following is at 12,800 EI (notice the moonlight coming though the skylight)



I've tried all sorts of combinations with this film, and really feel I have arrived at a workable solution, there are limits of course you don't need much light–but you do need some...



No lightmeter here!

[hookstrapped]

I use Ilford Delta quite a bit have a mini review here:
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/ilford-delta-3200.html

Like others have pointed out 3200 is the exposure index (EI) value not the ISO which is 1000. That shouldn't worry you though because ISO ratings are based on long tonal scale images (D Log 1.3) such as sunny days with shade and highlights.
With Delta 3200 you're more likely to be using it indoors with little or no light and certainly a lower scene brightness range so tonal compression is easily done.

The trick (if indeed it is a trick) is to expose for emerging shadow detail and then stop down two stops. This will give you a snowballs chance in h**l of getting shadow detail. I then develop it in Rodinal (yes I know I sound like a salesman for the black syrup) which at 1:25 and minimal agitation seems to give a compressed highlight and shadow detail.
I have managed to expose at EI 25,000 and get useable results with this combination:



Metering is the key, especially if your spotmeter only goes to 6400 ASA

The following is at 12,800 EI (notice the moonlight coming though the skylight)



I've tried all sorts of combinations with this film, and really feel I have arrived at a workable solution, there are limits of course you don't need much light–but you do need some...



No lightmeter here!

Interesting.  Nice results.  Will check out!

[gregor]

HP5 pushed works swell for me. this, 3 stops using d-76, stock.  I've pushed it 4 stops with satisfactory results.