Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Bar portraits
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   B&W Film Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:48 pm    Post subject: Bar portraits Reply with quote
Hello to all

lately i've tested Ilford Delta 3200 film. I tried it @ 1600 iso, and the results are fine. It's developed with Ilfosol 3, a great match. camera used was Contax Aria and lens 1.4/50 Planar mainly wide open, 2.8 max

here goes




















PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
very nice. i look forward to your posts as i always find them interesting amd a great use of your equipment.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Tony. Most of them will be enlarged Very Happy by the way i'll be testing the Tessar by today, with same film and camera.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fantastic idea, and execution. I really like the look.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The fastest film I've ever used is 400, so thus may seem a silly question. Is the graininess part of the film or part of the processing?


PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Nesster

David, the grain is part of the film . and at the nominal iso 3200, the grain would have been even more pronounced


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Properly developed, aiming at higher shutter speeds.... Delta 3200, at 3200, is much smooth. None of these at more open that f2 (lenses are f2 and f2.Cool. I even used Rodinal, which should of made mine grainier than yours. I don't think yours look right, at all. I think the film is meant to be developed more, like yours is incomplete development. HP5 pushes to 1600 and looks better than that.





(I know, I'm a lazy scanner, I don't do it for good copies, just so I can see what I got)




Other people's from flickr are not that grainy either.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/strolldiary/6726158659/

HP5 (a lot of people prefer it even at 3200, for the contrast, over delta 3200, which is smooth but lacking contrast)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fklv/3932799008/


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can't see the images at the moment, but I tried Delta once which was pushed 2 stops (developed accordingly) and the negs came out so thin that they were unusable. I've never bothered to try it again.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:
and at the nominal iso 3200, the grain would have been even more pronounced


I don't think so. Pull processing can be as obnoxious as push processing, especially on such high speed film
High speed films are not good films for pushed/pulled development, because the grain goes out of control, as it happened to your shots.
You would have obtained far, far better results (and spent less money) by pushing a Tri-X (400) to 1600.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm happy with the 3200 so far, i got this film because i'm fed up with pushing films a bit.
It may be the scan, the grain is not so pronounced on the prints i've done. And i like grain, so it doesn't bother me Very Happy


Field wrote:
I think the film is meant to be developed more, like yours is incomplete development. HP5 pushes to 1600 and looks better than that.


I've developed 10.30 instead of th 10.00 recommanded, maybe it's not enough. That said your pics lack contrast too, especially the 3rd and 4th, they're flat and lack of light.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
maybe i'm dumb, but may i ask about your decision to shoot this film at 1600 rather than at its native 3200? again, i'm no afficianado when it comes to film, but in my simple mind one would buy a 'specialty' film like 3200 to shoot at 3200, like buying an asa25 and shooting it at 100, i dont understand that. again, i'm not trying to be smug, i'm actually trying to learn why photographers make these decisions beyond them being dictated by situational necessity, which is how i make them. i'm interested in the 'artistic' criteria behind a decision like that.
thanks
tony


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
maybe i'm dumb, but may i ask about your decision to shoot this film at 1600 rather than at its native 3200? again, i'm no afficianado when it comes to film, but in my simple mind one would buy a 'specialty' film like 3200 to shoot at 3200, like buying an asa25 and shooting it at 100, i dont understand that. again, i'm not trying to be smug


With no offense meant to dear Hexi, but his decision does not make sense.
Pull development always causes a degradation of the image quality. Even more than push development.
The reason is that while for pushing you need to develop more (which guarantees a minimum level of action by the developer),
in order to pull process you need to underdevelop, and this is not good because chemicals need a minimum given time to fully exploit their action.
In fact, all photography books recommend to never pull development for more than one stop, and to do that only in case of mistake
(accidental constant overexposure of the negative).
Hoping that pull processing would reduce the grain is just wishful thinking. A 3200 ISO film is built to produce optimal grain at the nominal exposure index.
If you pull process it, you do not reduce the grain, you just develop less which means that all shadows in the negative are weak, and will force you to over-contrast the enlarger and paper
(or to force digital exposure while scanning), both of which things ultimately result in more grain being visible, as these photos unmistakeably prove. Sad


PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Delta isn't meant to be pushed, or pulled. HP5 however is magical at it more than any other film I know of currently.

Delta = Fine Grain
HP5 = Malleable

3200 "The 'Delta 3200' product is not actually rated at ISO 3200/36°. Its speed is only ISO 1000/31° but it has a very wide exposure latitude. Thus it can be successfully push processed to EI 3200 or even higher. Delta 3200 was introduced in 1998, 10 years after Kodak's similar T-MAX P3200. It replaced Ilford's high speed 'HPS' film." - Wikipedia.

Even though the true ISO is 1000, the make up of it doesn't seem to do well with under development for your bar photos... unless those are heavily cropped then that changes everything.

HP5:

"HP5 PLUS is a high speed, medium contrast film making it especially suitable for action and press photography and also an excellent choice for general purpose photography. Nominally rated at ISO 400, it yields negatives of outstanding sharpness and fine grain under all lighting conditions. HP5 PLUS has been formulated to respond well to push processing and film speeds up to EI 3200/36 are achievable with ILFORD MICROPHEN developer maintaining good shadow detail and well separated mid-tones with sharp grain." - Ilford website

Tri-X at 1600 looks great too.

http://hasselrad.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/scan-100711-0014l.jpg

Sorry to poo poo your bar photos, but unless you want noise (I'd call it noise at this point, not just grain) then there are better approaches.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Okay so to respond to the fact that i used it @ 1600. I read that it gives better results @ 1600, so it was a try, for the info it is just my second 3200 Delta developed.

On the push case, most recommand to use high sensitivity films, instead of pushing 400 iso films, just because it gives better tonalities. To each their own, i've done many 400 iso pushing films, and wanted to try the Delta.

Now saying that it doesn't make sense to use 3200 @ 1600, is basically the same than pushing 400 @ 1600. Why don't you use a 3200 instead ? In case of low light my choice is quickly done.

Having said all that, people that i offered prints to are very happy, and it's all that matters to me, pushed, pulled or whatever. Once again prints i've done aren't that grainy as they look here, i wish you could see them, cause you won't be able to say that it is 3200 film.

@ field : 3200 films gives more grain than 400 film, so this is normal. I don't care much if you don't like them because there's noise, or what you think it is. See any other pics of Delta 3200 and you'll see grain, which is normal for this sensitivity.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:

Now saying that it doesn't make sense to use 3200 @ 1600, is basically the same than pushing 400 @ 1600.


It's not the same; I already explained why. When pushing, you go over the recommended development times.
This of course has some consequences: increased contrast, and more grain.
But going over means that you reached the minimum development time necessary for the chemicals to perform their action.
Which means that the shadows are fully developed.
When you pull, you develop for less than the recommended minimum time. As a consequence, the chemicals do not have the time
to fully perform their action: the whites remain gray, and the shadows are not black, but remain veiled, because they did not have the time to develop in full, and so they look bad.
You can then rescue the highlights by simply increasing exposure while printing, but you can not rescue the shadows because the quality there is compromised.
Like I already wrote, this is the reason why photography books and teachers recommend to never pull develop except for emergency cases
(like when you have overexposed a slides film, for instance)
With black and white, it never pays to underdevelop, not even when you overexposed: the price you pay in image quality is higher than the possible benefit.
If you shoot a 3200 ISO film at 1600, but develop normally (as if you exposed for 3200), you will get some critical highlights,
but you wil be able to salvage most photos with simple printing corrections.
If instead you pull develop, you will get useable higlights, but the shadows will be screwed.
Remember (I wrote it already on this forum), the B&W film does not have the same large latitude as colour negative. B&W latitude is critical, especially in the shadows.
When you read that the Delta 3200 works better as 1600, they did not mean that you should pull develop. They surely meant that you should expose it for 1600, and develop normally (as if it was 3200).
This probably because the film has a more critical response in the shadows and a better tolerance in the highlights, and the negatives are considered more printable when the film is exposed at 1600.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:


@ field : 3200 films gives more grain than 400 film, so this is normal. I don't care much if you don't like them because there's noise, or what you think it is. See any other pics of Delta 3200 and you'll see grain, which is normal for this sensitivity.


I'm confused because I just posted Delta 3200 and 3200, and all but one of the photos you can't even see the grain... ????? I took them myself. You are just wrong on that. And we are just trying to help you take better photos; if that is your intent.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for the infos Orio.

Times given for 3200 "native" differ from those developed @1600 of a minute : 11' vs 10'. @6400 it's 18'.

Where i disagree, but to each her/his own developing method and result wanted is that a 400 pushed film is better than a 3200.

Just for the info some stuff....

Quote:
Delta 3200 professional allows photographers to take pictures under difficult conditions including fast action and poor lighting. With a measured speed of up to ISO 1250 (up to ISO 1600 when developed in Ilford microphen developer) the film has been designed to be push processed to achieve its nominal speed of EI 3200. It may be further pushed to EI 12,500 with a change of developer, or pulled to provide results equivalent to the best ISO 400 films.


....

taken form this chriscrawfordphoto.com/technical/choosing-film.php, a little extract >

Quote:
I also use Kodak Tmax 3200 in 35mm for night photography and indoor work by available light. It gives far better tonality than a 400 film pushed to 1600 or 3200. Ilford Delta 3200 is good too, but I use the Kodak film because its cheaper where I live and both films look equally good.



I should go on and on, this is just to prove my choice of film sensitivity if necessary, as said above it was "not making sense" to use this film @ 1600. I don't have time to loose typing, i do this a bit too much in my job already, and i prefer take pix instead of talking.

End for me just to be clear, you can still reply, i'll read


PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for the infos Orio.

Times given for 3200 "native" differ from those developed @1600 of a minute : 11' vs 10'. @6400 it's 18'.

Where i disagree, but to each her/his own developing method and result wanted is that a 400 pushed film is better than a 3200.

Just for the info some stuff....

Quote:
Delta 3200 professional allows photographers to take pictures under difficult conditions including fast action and poor lighting. With a measured speed of up to ISO 1250 (up to ISO 1600 when developed in Ilford microphen developer) the film has been designed to be push processed to achieve its nominal speed of EI 3200. It may be further pushed to EI 12,500 with a change of developer, or pulled to provide results equivalent to the best ISO 400 films.


....

taken form this chriscrawfordphoto.com/technical/choosing-film.php, a little extract >

Quote:
I also use Kodak Tmax 3200 in 35mm for night photography and indoor work by available light. It gives far better tonality than a 400 film pushed to 1600 or 3200. Ilford Delta 3200 is good too, but I use the Kodak film because its cheaper where I live and both films look equally good.



I should go on and on, this is just to prove my choice of film sensitivity if necessary, as said above it was "not making sense" to use this film @ 1600. I don't have time to loose typing, i do this a bit too much in my job already, and i prefer take pix instead of talking.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:

Just for the info some stuff....
Quote:
Delta 3200 professional allows photographers to take pictures under difficult conditions including fast action and poor lighting. With a measured speed of up to ISO 1250 (up to ISO 1600 when developed in Ilford microphen developer) the film has been designed to be push processed to achieve its nominal speed of EI 3200. It may be further pushed to EI 12,500 with a change of developer, or pulled to provide results equivalent to the best ISO 400 films.


But this is precisely what I wrote!
When you read that the Delta is best used at 1600 ISO, they mean that it's because it's a native 1250 ISO film, therefore it should be exposed at 1600 and developed with normal time (not pulled).

Quote:
I should go on and on, this is just to prove my choice of film sensitivity if necessary, as said above it was "not making sense" to use this film @ 1600.


But I never said that!!!
What I said is that it does not make sense to pull-develop the film. Here's my exact words:

Quote:
With no offense meant to dear Hexi, but his decision does not make sense.
Pull development always causes a degradation of the image quality.


Don't twist my words please!

Quote:
I don't have time to loose typing, i do this a bit too much in my job already, and i prefer take pix instead of talking.


No one here has time to lose. We only offer our help and if this is not appreciated, you should have said it from the start.
MF Lenses is a discussion forum. Do you realize the concept? If you publish things here, it means to accept that they will be discussed.
If you don't accept discussions, and have to reply with these rude manners to people who are only wanting to help, it is much better if you do not post at all!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have to agree with Orio, the results are horribly grainy, obviously an issue with the development as the film should not be this grainy.

If you like the results fine, but to my eyes they are not good and people are just trying to help you make better results in future without such nasty grain spoiling them.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fine, i think that i should come here when i'm really relaxed ... and not reply when i'm at work and all speedy Very Happy

Apologies to everyones if i've been harsh which is not usually my behaviour.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   B&W Film Gallery
Page 1 of 1