View Full Version : T-Max 3200 vs Delta 3200
Which of these two do you prefer? What's your favourite rating and developer?
I need more speed and don't mind grain, so I need to stock up ... looking forward to learning from your experiences.
Gene
I personally prefer T-max 3200 @1600 to gain a bit more contrast.
I've used it in my R3A and my SLR. I always DEV in eithr T-Max or D-76. I tired Delta 3200 but never really "enjoyed it" as much for some reason. Also, because the T-grain structure is, apparently, different between the two films you would need to use a different dev (in Delta's case, probably something like Microphen or Perceptol ) with Delta.
That's just my experience mind you; YMMV as always :D
Cheers
Dave
back alley
08-08-2005, 10:07
most of my high speed experience was with the mamiya 6 - so 120 film.
but i found delta to be easier to work with and less contrasty in general.
i rated it at 1000 and developed in everythiing from ilfosol s to ddx. the ddx was the nicest.
i did not find the grain to be a problem but it was 120 remember.
joe
BJ Bignell
08-08-2005, 10:07
I've never used T-Max 3200 before, so I can't help you with any comparison. However, I've had good luck with Delta 3200 up to ~12500 in DD-X. Examples: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6841
I've also pushed D3200 up to 6400 in Ilfosol-S (not a good developer for high-speed work), but that's only the type of thing you'd do if you were looking to destroy all fine detail in your shots; big, soft, popcorn grain that's not entirely unpleasing.
Marc Jutras
08-08-2005, 10:17
I use Delta 3200 a lot. I haven't tried T-Max 3200 since I want to support Ilford and really like the results I get from the Delta. I use it anywhere between 1600 and 12500 but mostly at 6400 for the low light club stuff I shoot. I have it processed at my local lab in X-Tol according to Ilford's documentation. There are some examples in my gallery but most of my work in low light is on my site since it might not be proper to show here.
Roger Hicks
08-08-2005, 11:38
TMZ is slower, true ISO about 1/3 stop below (Kodak & Ilford figures). Delta 3200 is grainier (because it's faster...) and as far as I am concerned VASTLY superior tonally. Microphen or DDX gives a true ISO 1250 with Delta. I'm happiest with Delta at up to 3200 but have successfully pushed it to 12,500 and beyond -- insofar as an EI has any meaning at that speed (how are you metering). I've not used TMZ since Delta came out.
Delta is NOT a T-grain film; it's a different (epitaxial) technology, at least as clever, which also brings a more conventional spectral response, i.e. normal (instead of reduced) blue sensitivity and normal (instead of increased) orange sensitivity.
Perceptol will give nice tonality but poor speed (ISO 800 or below) and Rodinal will give huge grain and poor speed.
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- take a look at some of the free modules on Photo School there)
Delta, cant stand the grain structure of TMZ, makes me feel drunk looking at a print :/ (in a bad way I mean ;) ).
Honu-Hugger
08-08-2005, 12:25
I like them both -- P3200 I usually shoot at EI 800, develop in T-Max 1:9 @75 degrees F for 13-1/2 minutes. Delta I shoot at EI 1600 (misplaced my developing formula). The tracks were shot with T-Max and the Mangrove was shot with Delta (Stephan, don't look -- the grain could be hang-over inducing, without any of the fun that usually precedes a legitimate morning-after :)).
I prefer TMax P3200, never got any good results with Delta 3200, even though I have tried different developers with it (but I have seen great results from others, so it's just me who does not get along with it...) - I found TMax to be much sharper (but also a bit grainier - though I do like the grain) than Delta, my Delta prints were always looking soft & washed-out (and the negs were really hard to print in a wet darkroom).
I like TMax at around EI 1600 to 2000 best, in Calbe A49 1+1 (20°C, about 18 min. - this dev. is available eg. from www.fotoimpex.de in Europe, and JandC in the US), but I can also get quite good results with TMZ at EI 3200, A49 1+1 for about 22 min.
You can see a few results in my gallery (though I doubt quality/differences can really be judged from small neg.scans on a monitor...)
Roman
i'm using delta because it's faster. there's just more on the negative.
I just read through the thread and want to thank you all for responding! There's a lot of information here.
It looks as if each film has different characteristics that appeal to some photographers and not to others. Or, put another way, that some of you prefer the characteristics of one over the other.
I've bought a roll of each. I'll try to shoot them under similar conditions and develop them both with the same developer (HC-110 most likely) and see if one or the other triggers a more favourable reaction.
Gene
Roger Hicks
08-10-2005, 01:41
Dear Gene,
Using the same developer doesn't necessarily mean a fair test: it may favour one film over the other. As I don't use HC110 I can't say whether this will be the case, or in which direction, but it's worth being aware of. The tabular grains of TMZ respond differently from the epitaxial crystals of the Delta 3200, both to exposure and development: if the TMZ has bigger grain than the Delta, it is probably over-exposed.
Cheers,
Roger
Using the same developer doesn't necessarily mean a fair test: it may favour one film over the other. As I don't use HC110 I can't say whether this will be the case, or in which direction, but it's worth being aware of. The tabular grains of TMZ respond differently from the epitaxial crystals of the Delta 3200, both to exposure and development: if the TMZ has bigger grain than the Delta, it is probably over-exposed.
Fair enough, but I only use HC-110 and Rodinal, so rather than looking for an objective test of which film looks better under optimal development conditions, I'm really after which one of them adapts best to my processing environment. Local adaptation -- a kind of Darwinism of film technologies :D
Gene
I use Delta 3200 a lot. I haven't tried T-Max 3200 since I want to support Ilford and really like the results I get from the Delta. I use it anywhere between 1600 and 12500 but mostly at 6400 for the low light club stuff I shoot. I have it processed at my local lab in X-Tol according to Ilford's documentation. There are some examples in my gallery but most of my work in low light is on my site since it might not be proper to show here.
Youre photography are geiger fantastic! But yes, maybe a bit to broad for alot of americans.
Daniel.
Marc Jutras
08-10-2005, 05:34
Youre photography are geiger fantastic! But yes, maybe a bit to broad for alot of americans.
Daniel.
Thanks. The whole quote is a compliment! ;)
Asking "Which film works best in the developer I prefer to use?" is a bit of a Procrustean exercise (although I admit it may be a necessary one) especially with these ultra-speed films, since they're more developer-sensitive than most.
Both these films seem optimized for a particular developer (I recall Kodak stating this specifically for T-max 3200.) I've tried both of them in recommended developers (T-Max Liquid for Kodak, DDX for Ilford) and, in the manufacturer's preferred brew, in all honesty I couldn't see much difference in shadow detail (speed), grain, or tonality.
Having said that, my favorite is T-Max 3200, shot with a meter setting of 1250 but developed in T-Max Liquid for the time given for 1600. (Of course that 1250 number also takes into account my specific metering equipment and techniques, so "your mileage may vary"; you can't conclude from that number that T-Max is "slower" than Delta 3200.) This gives grain I find acceptable, along with full shadow detail and a reasonable resistance to highlight blocking.
I use a developing time just a bit longer than "ideal" for my EI rating because it generates a bit more highlight density, which in turn lets me standardize on a paper grade about 1/2 lower; this helps give a bit more separation in light tones (on my favorite now-discontinued Kodak papers!) which is important because my subjects are usually people, and I like well-separated skin tones. (If you look at the filter curves for Kodak papers -- admittedly an academic exercise since they won't be around much longer -- you'll see that #2 and #1-1/2 have the same contrast index, but different curve shapes; #2 has more midtone separation and #1-1/2 has more highlight separation.)
If you photograph landscapes or architecture, for example, you might want the midtone separation instead, in which case you'd cut back on your developing time a bit and use a slightly harder filter.
This is probably a lot more info than you wanted, but I included it as an illustration of how film choice interplays with developer choice, EI selection, developing-time selection and paper grade to help give you the results you want. Mind you, you don't have to tinker up different combinations for every type of subject and shooting condition you encounter! I just started with the manufacturer's recommendations and fine-tuned them until I came up with a set of practices that made it easier for me to get prints I liked of the kinds of subjects I like to shoot.
I haven't tried TMZ myself, so no comment on how they differ. I do use Delta 3200 all over teh place (1600-12,800) and have kind of managed to get good results at all speeds once I get times down (6400 & 12,800 require more tweaking in PS). I dev in Microphen.
For what it's worth, there is an example of D3200 in rodinal at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BfqQ
allan
I never shot the Ilford but I have used TMAX 3200. I always get great results with TMAX 3200 and I rate it at 1250 or 1600. I think I read it is actually a 1250 speed film. I just shot a circus under a tent at 2500 and I am curious to see how it works at that speed.
I have always had outside labs develop the film and they seem to be able to get good results. I have never been able to get decent results from labs developing TMAX 100 for some reason.
Many photos on my web site were shot using TMAX 3200 rated at 1250 or 1600.
Roger Hicks
08-11-2005, 11:28
Dear Bigdog,
True max ISO of TMZ 800-1000; of Delta 3200, 1000-1250. But how are you metering? Unless you are spot metering the shadows, all EIs are so personal as to be of limited value to anyone else anyway.
Cheers,
Roger
Honu-Hugger
08-11-2005, 12:19
Dear Bigdog,
True max ISO of TMZ 800-1000; of Delta 3200, 1000-1250. But how are you metering? Unless you are spot metering the shadows, all EIs are so personal as to be of limited value to anyone else anyway.
Cheers,
Roger
Yes, I believe the most recent packaging here in the US refers to this as "P3200" film with the "P" denoting "push." A little marketing trickery on Kodak's part :).
Dear Roger,
Gene had asked how we rated the film so I responded providing the info he requested. If IE's are of no value then why do we even discuss pushing or pulling films in relation to the manufacturer's film speed? Sure, how you rate your film is only one variable but allowing for an additional stop at film loading does allow me to err on the side of getting exposures that provide shadow detail I may have missed if I under expose the film. I also, as a general rule, meter the shadows.
Roger Hicks
08-12-2005, 00:43
Dear Bigdog,
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. All I meant was that personal metering variations are so great that EIs need to be treated with great caution. Someone who meters the way you do (which is the best way for negatives) can rate the film faster than someone wo uses an incident-light or in-camera averaging meter.
I'd also totally agree that modest overexposure -- 1/3 stop to 1 stop -- is ALWAYS wise.
As for 'push' and 'pull' I'd say that many of the people who use these terms don't actually understand what they mean -- again, I don't mean you, but what follows is for lurkers.
ISO film speeds are based on sensitometric (not in-camera) testing with the film developed to a constant contrast, roughly a gamma of 0.62. They are (or should be) based on a stated developer.
Develop to a higher gamma and you are pushing; overdevelopment lifts the speed point. Develop to a lower gamma and you are pulling: underdeverlopment depresses the speed point.
Use a different developer that gives a different film speed at the same gamma and you are neither pushing nor pulling: you are changing speed through developer choice. Something like Microphen can give a true 2/3 stop speed increase, maybe a little more, lifting an ISO 400 film to ISO 650 or better. A fine-grain developer can wipe off almost any amount of speed, but 2/3 stop to 1 stop would be common, dropping an ISO 400 film to ISO 250 or below.
Then there are metering variations (as already discussed); with anything except spot metering of the shadows, there are the 'fudges' needed to be sure of adequate shadow detail on a sunny day. And equipment variations: the shutter on my Pentax SV runs a stop slow so I can rate HP5 in DDX at 1250 and still get the same exposure at the same dev time as at 650 in my MP.
And of course some people just prefer the results they get at different speeds. They may or may not be pushing or pulling -- but a lot of people who rate (say) Tri-X and 200 and develop normally, to the standard gamma, still refer to it as 'pulling' the film.
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com, where in the Photo School this is a whole free module on ISO speeds)
sunsworth
08-12-2005, 01:57
The answer for me is neither. I used to use Delta 3200 but have abandoned that in favour of Fuji Neopan 1600. I like the look of the film more, better grain and more contrast than Delta 1600.
Steve
Dear Roger,
No offense taken. I am sure you have more experience in the darkroom! I use a scanner, photoshop and inkjet printer to make my prints after sending my film to a lab for development. At least our exchange has provided more information for all who find it helpful. Cheers!
mattmills
08-14-2005, 02:33
I spent about five years switching between the two and not really liking either, then I invented a two bath formula for TMax 400 rated at 3200.
You develop 14 minutes at 72 degrees f in edwal FG-7 diluted in a 10% sodium sulphite solution instead of streight tap water. Then you put it in a borax bath (10% by weight; two tablespoons per quart) for three minutes, same temp. Agitation must be gentle in the second bath, because of the short time.
It doesn't block up in the highlights (as in never, as in stuff that's 5 stops over is still printable, and I once accidentally put a roll that was exposed at 400 through this and had completely usable negs), and the shadow detail is nothing short of amazing. Well worth the effort. I've thought about trying this with tmax 3200 and delta 3200(higher native speeds), but tmax 400 is so much cheaper I havent bothered. (I bulk load my film, too). Anyway, good luck.
Matt
www.sunrisetimes.net
Now that's impressive homebrew development :D And to think I'm to lazy to develop in simple rodinal until I've got a huge pile of films weighing on my conscience :D
RObert Budding
09-28-2005, 16:29
Anyone ever try Delta 3200 with D76?
I just shot a roll EI 1600 and am planning on using the times on the box, unless someone has another recommendation.
Thanks!
Robert
Thanks again to all for your contributions to this thread. I've had a dry summer, photographically, so haven't experimented yet. I still have a roll of Tmax3200 and Delta3200 and I've added a roll of Neopan1600 to the mix. I'll likely be dunking them all in Rodinal.
Gene
i've done delta 3200 in d76 1:1. it works fine with the times on digitaltruth, though i haven't downrated it.
RObert Budding
09-28-2005, 17:51
i've done delta 3200 in d76 1:1. it works fine with the times on digitaltruth, though i haven't downrated it.
I checked digitaltruth and all of the times were for stock D76. Did you dilute !:! and use the digitaltruth times for stock? If so, that's in line with what a friend of mine guessed would be a good starting point.
Robert
i thought they had it for 1:1, but my notes show i increased the time for stock by 40%.
Thanks again to all for your contributions to this thread. I've had a dry summer, photographically, so haven't experimented yet. I still have a roll of Tmax3200 and Delta3200 and I've added a roll of Neopan1600 to the mix. I'll likely be dunking them all in Rodinal.
Gene
mmm... I love Neopan 1600 @ 1600 for bands on a stage.
You can get some really awesome stuff using that.
This one was shot about 2 years ago using Neopan 1600 @ 1600 in D76 1:1.. sadly.. not with an RF :(
Dave
RObert Budding
09-28-2005, 18:27
There is a problem with Neopan 1600 - it's not available in 120!
Nice shot, though. How long did you develop?
Robert
Daniel Unkefer
09-28-2005, 18:42
I recently processed eight rolls of Delta 3200 together in a (new to me) long-tom Nikkor tank using DDX. I set my R and L meters to 800EI, processed for 1600, and the negatives look like they have copious shadow detail and will print easily. I am very pleased with the results.
Now, need to find the time to do some printing.
There is a problem with Neopan 1600 - it's not available in 120!
Nice shot, though. How long did you develop?
Robert
Hi Robert,
Hmmm... if I can remember.. I usually went "warmer" rather than cooler so it was likely around 74 - 76 F which would have been only around 7 minutes tops.
Dave
back alley
09-28-2005, 19:09
There is a problem with Neopan 1600 - it's not available in 120!
Nice shot, though. How long did you develop?
Robert
have you tried delta 3200 in 120?
rate it at 1000 or 1600 and develope in ddx.
i doubt you will look back.
joe
Yes, I believe the most recent packaging here in the US refers to this as "P3200" film with the "P" denoting "push." A little marketing trickery on Kodak's part :).
The "P" always has been part of the name. My lab guy told me its true speed is about 1000 in a "standard" developer such as HC-110. But it's a legitimate 1600 in T-Max developer, for which it is specifically tailored.
RObert Budding
09-29-2005, 03:38
Perhaps I should just try some DD-X. I'll pick up a liter tonight and give it a go!
Robert
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.