gb hill
Mentor
I have been invited to shoot some local bands in about a month. Indoors, low light situation. Thinking to shoot some 3200 so I was wondering what film do you prefer? Delta 3200 or TMax 3200. Seen some nice results from Delta, but would like to here your input. Also what iso would you suggest I shoot it at. I'm thinking 1600. I'm gonna be using a pretty fast lens. 50/1.4.
chikne
-
craygc
Well-known
Much prefer Fuji Neopan 1600 over both of these...
Burlap Jacket
Established
lns
Established
I just got some Delta 3200 (120 though), and after a little research I'm going to shoot it at 1600. But I really picked it because I have DD-X developer already. If I used T-Max developer I might have tried the Kodak. I've never had much luck shooting Neopan 1600 indoors, but that might be me.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Telenous (Alkis) has some nice Neopan 1600 work on his flickr site; he uses D-76 and I like the look he gets from it. Just tonight I developed some Neopan 1600 (from a Great Big Sea concert) in D-76 and it is drying right now. The negatives looked a little thin, but I was working without a net ... i.e., no meter.
gb hill
Mentor
Chikne & Burlap Jacket you both have some nice work. Do you remember what you rated the film at? So far i'm impressed with the TMax.
gb hill
Mentor
Trius said:
I wouldn't mind seeing some results or hearing your thoughts on the Neopan. I have some D-76. What were your development times?
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
Hi,
Neopan 1600 is much too contrasty in my taste unless I shoot it at 800iso.
I used Delta3200 for a project you can see here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michiel-fokkema/sets/72157603905937667/show/with/2263717180/
I shot at 1600 iso. 3200 iso didn't work for me. I tested DDX as well as xtol. I liked xtol just a bit better. I used the xtol 1+1 and developed for 15 minutes in 24 degrees Celsius.
Best regards,
Michiel Fokkema
Neopan 1600 is much too contrasty in my taste unless I shoot it at 800iso.
I used Delta3200 for a project you can see here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michiel-fokkema/sets/72157603905937667/show/with/2263717180/
I shot at 1600 iso. 3200 iso didn't work for me. I tested DDX as well as xtol. I liked xtol just a bit better. I used the xtol 1+1 and developed for 15 minutes in 24 degrees Celsius.
Best regards,
Michiel Fokkema
Roger Hicks
Mentor
When Delta 3200 came out, my wife and I both switched to that from TMZ on the grounds of vastly better tonality, especially up to about 3200. The faster you go, the less the difference in tonality: by 12,500 it doesn't matter much which you use. Basically, the slower you go (down to about 1600 with Delta 3200), the better the tonality.
True ISOs in speed increasing developers: Delta 3200, 1000-1200; TMZ, 800-1000; Neopan 1600, 650-800 (ISO standard testing, not EIs or just my opinion). Understandably, Neopan is finest grained because it's also slowest, and Delta 3200 is coarsest because it's fastest.
Cheers,
Roger
True ISOs in speed increasing developers: Delta 3200, 1000-1200; TMZ, 800-1000; Neopan 1600, 650-800 (ISO standard testing, not EIs or just my opinion). Understandably, Neopan is finest grained because it's also slowest, and Delta 3200 is coarsest because it's fastest.
Cheers,
Roger
chikne
-
gb hill said:
I shoot without a meter so I wouldn't really know on that, though I remember quite clearly using f2 at the slowest I can handhold, which would be 1/60.... maybe 1/30....
charjohncarter
Mentor
Burlap and Endustry, great stuff. I can't believe the rock star using a BessaR and a Canon lens.
Last edited:
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Another vote for Delta3200. Also unlike Tmax it is available in 120.
In my experience it has better grain and tonality than TMAX3200. But Tmax has a very specific look, which a lot of people like. If you want grit, Tmax is for you.
I rate Delta3200 @ 1600 and develop it in Ilford DD-X. Xtol would work just as good.
In my experience it has better grain and tonality than TMAX3200. But Tmax has a very specific look, which a lot of people like. If you want grit, Tmax is for you.
I rate Delta3200 @ 1600 and develop it in Ilford DD-X. Xtol would work just as good.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Roger summed it up well.
The old rule "there ain't no free lunch" applies here as well.
I prefer Neopan 1600 for 35mm and Delta 3200 for MF. But that's just me, you may have different priorities.
One suggestion: don't fixate on your e.i. until you meter the area. Then use the max speed of your lens, minimal shutter speed you are comfortable using to compute what e.i. you need. That will insure you are not pushing film when your alternative would be to simply open up the lens.
The old rule "there ain't no free lunch" applies here as well.
I prefer Neopan 1600 for 35mm and Delta 3200 for MF. But that's just me, you may have different priorities.
One suggestion: don't fixate on your e.i. until you meter the area. Then use the max speed of your lens, minimal shutter speed you are comfortable using to compute what e.i. you need. That will insure you are not pushing film when your alternative would be to simply open up the lens.
TheHub
Well-known
On TMAX 3200 I shot this photo during a typhoon last summer and it came out very grainy: http://www.pbase.com/nickinnagoya/image/89341645 Some people hate grain, I like it (I like grain so rough you can file your nails with it.)
These were shot with Delta 3200 in an almost completely dark school gym: http://life-electronic.net/blog/?p=423
These were shot in a mostly dark hall on Presto 400 pushed to 1600: http://life-electronic.net/blog/?p=423 They look okay small, but at 100% are missing a lot of detail.
From my experience I would say Ilford has finer grain, but I've only shot one of each
These were shot with Delta 3200 in an almost completely dark school gym: http://life-electronic.net/blog/?p=423
These were shot in a mostly dark hall on Presto 400 pushed to 1600: http://life-electronic.net/blog/?p=423 They look okay small, but at 100% are missing a lot of detail.
From my experience I would say Ilford has finer grain, but I've only shot one of each
gb hill
Mentor
Bob Michaels said:
I will follow this advice. I just dont want alot of grain & i figured shooting at 1600 would reduce that. But for most purposes I like grain.
Endustry the TMax looks nice.
Last edited:
gb hill
Mentor
TheHub said:On TMAX 3200 I shot this photo during a typhoon last summer and it came out very grainy: http://www.pbase.com/nickinnagoya/image/89341645 Some people hate grain, I like it (I like grain so rough you can file your nails with it.)
These were shot with Delta 3200 in an almost completely dark school gym: http://life-electronic.net/blog/?p=423
These were shot in a mostly dark hall on Presto 400 pushed to 1600: http://life-electronic.net/blog/?p=423 They look okay small, but at 100% are missing a lot of detail.
From my experience I would say Ilford has finer grain, but I've only shot one of each
I didn't think your photos had alot of grain. If I get results like this I will be happy. I bought a roll of Delta 3200 at my camera store & the dealer said he got in a supply of Microphen by mistake. Gave it to me for $3.00. I will play with this & see how I like it.
Senmu
Member
Actually, I did a back-to-back test of Delta 3200 & TMax 3200 just a couple of weeks ago. Late night, a club, some outdoors with street lighting. Developed at a professional lab, scanned to TIF, then Noise Ninja to generate the JPGs. Both films at 3200 performed really well, better than expected. I found the TMax to be somewhat silkier -- smoother transition, finer grain. But it was subtle. Delta was perhaps a bit more contrasty. I liked both, will probably shoot more TMax in the future, but I encourage you to try a bit of both, really. They're both mature fiims.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Do you know what dev. times the lab used? Because Delta 3200 is not inherently more contrasty than TMZ. If anything, it should be less contrasty at a given speed because it's less of a push.Senmu said:
The times Ilford gives for the two films, at 3200, differ by a minute and a half in DD-X.
If both were developed for the same time, then yes, the Ilford would be contrastier -- but only because either the Ilford was overdeveloped, or the TMZ underdeveloped.
Most people like to give more dev. time for a given speed than the manufacturers call for -- many go so far as to develop for 6400 when exposing for 3200 -- but there is still no inherently greater contrast in the Delta 3200.
Cheers,
Roger