Like for using two exact cameras with two exact lenses for comparison, using same exposures, done at the same time. That's so rare to see these days. Call me a tech control freak, but that's the only fair way to compare films. Well done...
I felt that using the same camera/lens combo was the only was to do a true comparison. The funny thing is that just before I filmed this video I had to have one of the cameras CLAd and the light meter was off by a whole stop... so I metered with the one that I knew and trusted, and I think the results speak for themselves. If you liked this one, you'll probably like my next video when I do the same thing with three of the same camera! Thanks for watching and commenting!
The only fault with this system is if the shutters are not calibrated and the aperture in the lens aren’t exactly the same. However compared to other channels this is the best unscientific method. Interesting to see that Delta seems a bit more sensitive, less contrasts, more shadow detail whilst Kodak is punchier. If you want prints then Kodak would be better out of the tin whilst ILFORD would be suitable for scanning.
I wonder tho. about developing each film in it's own recommended developer rather than the same kodak recommnded xtol. I realize the consistency is important but not necessarily a fair comparison where film is involved unless developing ilford film in ilford recommended developers either ilfotec ddx or microphen? Just a thought.
I agree, different developers (especially ones formulated for specific films) will definitely yield different results. I was, however, limited in my choice of developers, as the local lab that I brought the rolls to only had X-TOL left in stock (and even they were really disappointed at that!). I am really looking forward to shooting more of both of these films and experimenting with developers in the future! Thanks for your comments!
Thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate them! I agree that there seems to be a lack of female film photographers creating content for a YT audience, hopefully more will be inspired to contribute in the future because it is another fun platform in which we can showcase our work. Thanks for watching and commenting, I promise to be back with another video in the near future!
I don't feel like I could pick a favorite. P3200 looks a bit more contrasty but has less shadow details. While Delta 3200 is a bit flatter in contrast but has more detail in the shadows. For me it would probably be dependent on subject matter as to which one I would choose.
I agree! My initial reaction was that I liked how much more contrast the P3200 had... but then I started noticing how much more detail in both the shadows and the highlights that Delta 3200 retains. I think each film has its benefits and it's a matter of knowing when to use each one, depending on your desired results. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Definitely more contrast in the P3200, but I saw something different in the shadow detail in some of the highest contrast shots. For example, @9:28 the highlights are blown out on the P3200 (e.g. the sign above the store), but you can still see details in the shadows (e.g. the upstairs windows, and the car on the right). In the Ilford, however, the highlights in the sign are preserved, but the details in the shadows are washed out. Also look @10:10 and see the side-by-side difference in shadow detail.
My observations are more in line with Barry’s. What I’m seeing in the shadows isn’t what many others seem to be describing here. However, in the subway there were shots where the Delta had more shadow detail, but it also appeared to yield a higher exposure across the board (escalator shots in particular). Looking down at tracks at 5:09, Delta holds highlights a tiny bit better while also being brighter in shadows and appearing to have more detail there too. Could it largely be a spectral response issue? The Delta is significantly more sensitive to the fluorescent light in that environment or something? This reverses in sunlight, with the Kodak exposing the statue brighter. The sculpted red columns at 7:08, they’re lit by sunlight on one side and fluorescent on the other. The Delta is exposing both the outdoor background and the sunlit-side highlights darker and with more detail, but it renders a much brighter exposure on the fluorescent-lit side of the columns. It looks like more than a contrast difference alone. Looking up response graphs for both, the difference isn’t pronounced, but it does kinda look like TMax starts to fall off around where fluorescent lights peak, while the Delta maintains more of a plateau in that range. Given the idea that these films aren’t delivering the same effective sensitivity and exposure in these different types of light, the general impression I’m getting in these comparisons is that the Delta is good at delivering detailed and somewhat flat results when given plenty of exposure, but its shadows can fall apart in low light when exposed insufficiently for whatever reason. The TMax seems to do a remarkably good job of consistently delivering contrasty results that retain good detail across a variety of exposures and lighting types, and it appears that it often only retains less shadow detail when it’s effectively being given less exposure to work with (as in the escalators). I could be wrong, but that’s what I take from this.
The turnstyles at 5:17 is one of the shots that really makes the Delta look more refined and detailed. However, in the P3200 I can see just about as many bricks fading into shadows on the left wall, and the background shape on the wall near the center appears to have details in the Kodak shot that aren’t in the Ilford. If you watch some of the other subway shots, you can sometimes see that, going from Kodak to Ilford, the shadowed walls go from dark with texture detail to brighter but smoothed over. The shot at 10:10 is detailed throughout in the Kodak, but obliterated in the Ilford. In the shots at 10:33, look at the bricks in the deep shadows on the Kodak, then watch how those bricks simply disappear when it switches to the Ilford. The same thing happens consistently in the night shots. I think the commenters picking the Delta for its greater editability are perhaps being fooled into a false perception of shadow detail by the difference in contrast and blackpoint. The Kodak *looks* like it *should* have less shadow detail, but when you compare the same spots back to back the TMax often held shadow details that were absent in the Delta shot. So despite the talk about better shadow detail in the Delta, that generalization doesn’t seem to hold up consistently. If someone prefers the results from the Ilford, that’s totally valid, especially if their reason is that the more low-fi looking result in some of the night shots is the final look they’re going for. If the reason is that it’s recording more shadow detail, which is the reason most are going with, I think that’s valid for some of these shots but not for others, and overall I don’t think that’s actually the result we’re seeing in this comparison. Differences in detail recording aside, it seems there’s a difference of philosophies in the comments: some like that the P3200 delivers a more finished looking image much of the time, while others perceive the Delta as being more editable, like a flat raw file they can edit with more flexibility. But how many of us go to the expense and trouble of shooting film with the goal of getting the most flexibile scan that requires the same heavy shaping as our digital images? I think a lot of us shoot film to escape exactly that, and to achieve a particular look from a film. I’m not sure I see the sense in shooting a film that doesn’t deliver a look very close to what you want in the finished product, without major changes to its character in digital post. Those looking for a good B&W film to digitally edit in a flexible variety of directions, toward an end result that looks completely different from the negative, would likely be better served by just shooting raw and applying a high quality emulation. A full color starting point is, after all, a much more flexible foundation for a digital B&W edit. Film is a lot of unnecessary trouble to add to that process, just to get a digitally crafted end result that can’t take advantage of all the standard digital conversion tools, such as color channel mixture. It’s very compromised. You can shoot a film you like the look of, or shoot digital and craft whatever sort of look you want with some effort, or you can shoot a BW film that doesn’t look like what you’re going for and get the worst of both worlds. :D
I like Contrast. And I purchased a few rolls of TMX3200. However it’s worth mentioning that Ilford was always loyal to film shooters, So it deserves our loyalty and not hurting its business whenever Kodak /Fuji decides to have a film removed or reintroduced on a whim (Acros, anyone?)
I absolutely agree, and I usually lean more towards shooting Ilford rather than Kodak (controversy: I prefer HP5 to Tri-X 400!). I do really like the new P3200, but I also like how much more shadow detail the Delta 3200 retains, which will be interesting to play around with in the darkroom or even through Lightroom. I'll be stocking my fridge with both emulsions for sure! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Where I live the Ilfords are more expensive, actually the Acros was the cheapest. I can’t find ilford developers. So I agree with your assessment partially because even though I love ilford films, availability/cost is sometimes an issue
Got the impression the Delta was asking for more exposure at each setting. Loved the contrast on the Tmax. Thanks for sharing! Well done, more vids please :)
Excellent first video, great work. Straight from camera P3200 seems to look best while the Delta 3200 would really benefit from some post processing. Straight from camera the contrast in the P3200 is great while the Delta shows more shadow details it looks more hazy. Look forward to more videos.
The OM-1 is one of my all-time favourite cameras, so lightweight and fun to shoot with. I agree that the contrast on the P3200 came out beautifully, I love being able to shoot a film and getting those results right out of the box... I haven't completely edged out the Delta 3200 though, I'm intrigued to see what I can do with that film in the darkroom! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Kodak is definitely the winner straight out of the box! But I think Ilford has a few tricks up it's sleeve, I personally find the negatives are more workable either in Lightroom, or printing in a darkroom. I live that both films are somewhat similar, but each have their own characteristics! Thanks for watching!
I prefer the delta 3200 for most shots, could always add in contrast, cant take it away, plus they make delta 3200 in 120 which i what i shoot, so a no brainer really if you want to eventually move up.
I'm actually quite surprised at how much I like the P3200, I wasn't expecting that! I do love how much more detail the Delta 3200 retained, it'll be fun to see how the two films measure up in post-processing/darkroom. I shoot a lot of 120 as well (I will eventually get into that in future videos), although I tend to use slow speed films... I'll pick up a roll of Delta 3200 and try it out sometime! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Thank you so much for the kind words, I really appreciate them! I'm definitely looking forward to providing more content, and the overwhelming response to this video has me chomping at the bit to get back out there! Thanks for watching and subscribing!
I'm the type that I like to add contrast to my shots in post production. I shot and developed P3200 which i rated at 1600 this week and I was impressed by two things: 1. Amazing shadow details as well as ability to recover them in post 2. I barely did any post production on the roll, the contrast was spot on to my taste, not too strong like TriX, not too grey like HP5. I planning on doing a video comparison against HP5, Tri-X and Tmax400 all rated at 1600. Great video by the way, nice personality and energy. Keep it up. Subscribed!
It was a lot of fun to shoot both films, and now I have more ideas for experimentation, both in the shooting and development processes! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Very helpful video Jess. I’m a Ilford guy BUT based on this video I’m definitely going to pick up some TMax 3200! Thanks! I look forward to seeing your next one with HP5 vs TriX & Street Pan!!
I have always been a fan of Ilford myself, but I think my film stock will always include a roll or two of P3200 now! Thanks for watching and commenting!
I did my photography college course few years ago and when I took photos of any subjects I always use a RED or a ORANGE filter to get the BEST contrast from the BLACK AND WHITE films
Ha ha, I was taught to use a yellow filter as a minimum! I didn't for this video to just show the bare bones of the films, but yes, using filters is a big bonus for b&w photography! I also choose a filter according to the lens I choose to use, some have better coatings than others, so they also add nice contrast. Thanks for watching!
Nice video. I can’t decide which I like more. For sure the increased contrast in the p3200 means less work for me in Lightroom. I recently shot p3200 during Halloween. It worked really well where there was some natural light available and with flash. But I had trouble with recovering shadow details. I particularly love the grain structure in the emulsion. I can also reflect about the process of scanning. I develop and scan myself and found that the film is easy to lay flat on the flatbed scanner. I think I will probably buy p3200 since it’s currently going cheaper than the ilford delta 3200 but I think both are excellent and have unique characteristics.
Sometimes with low light you have to guestimate. If the kodak low light photography chart van still be found, you extrapolate from 800 t0 3200 and use the general guidelines,eg: stage light, store windows, etc.
I have always found that the Delta 3200 is a bit of a flatter profile for the film, and the P3200 a much more contrasty film; and if you want to get Delta to get a similar look, you have to use darker contrast filters, like an orange filter to get the contrast like the P3200 gets straight out of box. I look forward to seeing home. And Hello from BC!
The P3200 is so punchy, I was really impressed with the results. I'm also a fan of contrast, so I think I'm giving the slight edge to Kodak on this one, but I'm excited to see what the Delta 3200 can do in Lightroom or in the darkroom. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Thanks so much! I am actually overwhelmed with the positive response to this video, I had no idea it would catch on like it has, but I can't wait to film more videos for everyone! Thanks for watching and commenting!
This is exactly what I've been looking for! Every time I ask what the difference is, people reel of technical data and developing times - all I wanted to know was how the looks compared, and this answers it perfectly!
I agree. I like the contrast of the Kodak film, But in many ways I like both. I think I’ll use them indistinctly if needed, I’m not ready to deny any of them now.
I found you on the episode where you got your Intrepid...I'm just going back to see where you've been.... to me, you hit the ground running with this episode...it's really good to see a nice film comparison. To me, there is no comparison...the P3200 is a clear winner.
For most shots I preferred the contrast of the Kodak, but Ilford’s dynamic range was nice in a few shots. Great video. Loved the camera choice as well.
I am your new subscriber from a photographer who has been shooting film for fifteen plus years. I am glad to see more young folks like you young lady in keeping film alive. Hopefully, they would be building new film cameras despite the popularity of digital photography. I do shoot digital as well. Both the Delta and the Kodak has its plus and minuses. I do like the Kodak in most of the shots for its contrast and in some situations, it can be a little too dark that the Ilford Delta looks better. In most parts, the Delta is a bit bright in contrast but sometimes it helps in very dark places in some of the shots such as the moving escalator. If you need a camera to shoot at ISO 3200 than I would suggest to get either the Nikon F100 or the Nikon F5. I do own these cameras and after watching this video, I decided to check the ISO maximum setting. I found that the maximum ISO setting on both of these cameras are ISO 6400. Nikon manual and autofocus lenses do work well with these cameras. For a 50mm autofocus, a Nikon 50mm F1.8 D lens is a good lens. For a 50mm Nikon AIS manual focus, a Nikon 50mm F1.4 AIS lens works very well and gives very good contrast. Peace, Flood!
Having watched quite a few of your video's Jess, I decided to start again from the beginning as I only found you in 2019 and I have some catching up to do. Wow! talk about getting it right first time!
336 subscribers and 214 likes for your first video so soon after it being released, speaks volumes. Great comparison, very well balanced, to me the TMax had better contrast but the Delta 3200 opened the shadows more. My days of going out after dark are a distant memory so neither are a film I will keep in stock, but it’s great to know there is a choice out there. Fantastic first video, very well done indeed and a great introduction.
Thank you so much for the kind words, they mean a lot to me! The response has been incredible, completely surpassed my hopes/expectations! I really enjoyed comparing these two films, it was fun to see how each held their own under different situations. I have yet to try them out during daytime or portrait shoots, so there will be a lot of experimentation in my future! Glad you liked the video, I promise there will be more where that came from! Thanks for watching and commenting!
It's just because the Delta black level wasn't the same as the P3200, not necessarily more contrast. Having said that, it's hard to tell but I do think the P3200 has slightly higher dynamic range.
To my eye, it was as though each film had a split personality. In the lowest light, the Ilford opened the shadows far better, as geowal91 says, but its weak blacks relative to the Kodak made it appear to have a veiling haze in the better lit scenes. One almost needs two cameras to be ready for both levels of lighting, unless willing to overexpose the Kodak in dark scenes (and then what's the point?).
eric moss Very well put. The only part of the comparison that wasn’t equal was that both films used a Kodak developer, something they had no control over in the video. I don’t shoot very fast film at all, and can’t say I have any experience, but one wonders how the Delta would have fared in DD-X.
I'll admit that the positive response has surpassed my expectations by a long shot, and I am definitely looking forward to producing more content! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Great video loved the accompanying music as well. I definitely liked how punchy P3200 turned out Delta looked a bit flat. Your results made me excited to see my own results. Keep the videos coming.
I have just purchased a roll of Ilford 3200 in preparation for a Nighttime photo shoot at a train museum. Feature is a Streamline Steam Engine. I like the Kodak film better. I may purchase a roll prior to the shoot. Will be using vintage Nikon camera. I enjoyed the video, boarding subway and Montreal underground. Several years ago I spent time in Montreal on business. We stayed near the Airport but made several trips into the city.
Awesome comparison. You did it properly as well! Same camera, same lens and same settings. I look forward to whats next. BTW...under these circumstances i preferred the Kodak.
This one is better than the three films comparisons in terms of photos you had .. i was still thinking ohh bit wider shots pls pls 😆 pretty pretty awesome ones ..p3200 is a lit..
Greetings from Winterpeg. Great video. Both look nice so I suppose it is all about preference. The Delta seems to have much softer greys whereas the Kodak has really rich crushed blacks. I normally am more of an Ilford shooter but in this case I really like the look of the Kodak.
I like the stock look of T-Max better but I'd rather add contrast in the darkroom than have it forced on the image. Delta 3200 seems to be retaining more detail in both the shadows and the highlights. I've shot it at 6400 and it still looked decent. In any case, I have 5 rolls of Tmax 3200 on their way so I guess I'll figure it out:) Great video btw!
I have heard that P3200 is really rated at 800, which would explain the increased contrast. I also found the Delta 3200 to retain more shadow and highlight detail, and I can't wait to get it in a darkroom and see how it prints. 5 rolls, sounds like you can do lots of experimentation! Thanks for watching and commenting!
This is such a good comparison, very rare to see the same camera with the same lens for the comparison. I have never tried those two films but I have a Ilford 3200 waiting to get its turn in my Pentax but from your results I prefer the Kodak 3200, more contrasty
Wow it reminds me a lot of Tri-X vs Hp5, I love the extra contrast that Kodak gives you out of the box. I shot one roll of Delta 3200 in medium format and wasn't impressed, it was so muddy and flat. Hopefully I can find some P3200 locally to give it a try. Btw, fantastic first video! Subscribed
I'm a big fan of Ilford films, but I must say that the P3200 has something special! I actually don't have a lot of experience with high speed films, I tend to push them instead, so I was quite pleased with the results. I shoot a lot of medium format as well, but I still tend to stick with lower speed films. Thanks for your kind words, and for subscribing... I promise to be back soon with another video!
I do think that there is a time and a place for both films, each one has it advantages and disadvantages. I, for one, can't wait to shoot and experiment more with them both!
I love the ilford and for me ilford have been supporting film photography for years now and I want to show my support to them I do flirt with other stocks occasionally for fun but I tend to stick with ilford range as there is something for most situations beautiful images and and lovely to see some OMs in actions I have mainly Nikon’s but I do own a OM 4 and OM 2n great for street photography keep doing what you do it’s great 👍🏻
Ella E-L, I think I agree! It seems as though Ilford has a little more shadow detail, which will be fun to play around with in post, but I find the Kodak is much punchier for the outdoor shots. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Fantastic video very interesting I think I prefer the contrast in the Kodak film but I guess it depends on how much postprocessing you want to do very well done some lovely images 👍🏻😊
Jess Hobbs First of all, kudos for a nice video. I guess I am a veteran in b/w, having used a fair bit of HP4, KB14 and such back then. Scanning negatives might not give the best indication of the film performance, personally I would examine the negatives on a light box and then make conventional prints. For films meant for XL work such as Tri-X and HP5, the aim is to increase contrast at the toe at the H&D curve while maintaining a low overall contrast, so that when pushed, there are more shadow details to be brought out without frying the highlights. In other words, it'd be faster in the camera, and faster in the tank. My own tests with the TMZ (P3200) is that its true speed is 1000/31˚ but with extra contrast at the toe; so it gives great shadow details at its true speed, much better than TX pushed to the same EI; I am still convinced that the 3200/36˚ rating is the most it can be pushed as both highlights and shadows are already starting to get obviously blocked: the pictures might look eye-catching for having "good contrast" but the loss at both ends would be hard to recover, especially when printed conventionally where they are further compressed by the paper's H&D shoulder and toe. Delta 3200 is a bit more conventional and I have not tried to establish its real speed, the higher B&F can be "printed through" but it still alters the response a little. That said, it still preserves separations at both highlight and shadow areas while keeping the overall contrast low enough, coupled with the high B&F, scanned pictures - especially if previously calibrated for something like TMZ - would certainly look "muddy" but there are huge amounts of details that can be easily brought out; it is even quite obvious in your comparison pictures. The real test would be to make conventional prints with an enlarger after calibrating the respective negatives, that would be a lot more telling.
great video, and for your first!!, WELL DONE!!, one other way of doing this kind of comparison is to use a 35 mm magasine camera, like the Rollieflex sl-2000f or 3000 these have magasines, just like a mamiya 645 camera, so you use the same lens, etc. just a different back, and you can switch mid roll.
I love seeing a fresh film channel pop up. You made a great vid and I can't wait to see what else you'll do! Good on ya. (I liked the kodak a lot more btw)
I like the contrastiness of the Kodak in these pictures. But when I've tried it myself, when I look a bit closer, it always comes out a bit too grainy for my tastes. I do enjoy a bit of grain but P3200 is insane! I just ordered my first Delta 3200 (which is why I ended up here).
Kodak is much more contrast, the Delta has much more shadow detail. Private investigators and police would prefer the Delta, but I like the Kodak much more for that punchy look.
So much more detailed contrast in Kodak. I always found Ilford a bit more foggy and slightly under exposed depending on the conditions. Anyways. Great Video! Thanks
Kodak was the clear winner i think, a lot more contrast and sharpness. Really nice comparison, thank you very much. but like a couple of others here i shoot 120 so i also shoot Ilford film. Those are not bad films i just like contrast :) Thanks for sharing.
Great to watch, loved the style, please keep up the great work! As for choice P3200 v Delta3200, I'll need to make my own comparison. Probably fairer to use DDX with Delta3200 and use my own scanner and adjustments. Both Kodak and Ilford deserve all the support we can all give. Can't wait to watch the next video..
Great video! I can actually see your love and passion for film photography. Very inspiring for beginners (like me). Already suscribed, greetings from Perú!
Kodak all the way on this one for me love the contrast delta looks a bit flat for my liking. Back in pre digi days the paper I shot for would give me a roll of Tmax 3200 to shoot winter sport in northern England very dull dark conditions always had to rate the film at 6400 at the time I hated all that grain looking back now I love it they look like real photos embrace the grain 📷 top work again Jess loving your vids ❤️
Hey Jess just stumbled across this video, nice work! You said the Delta 3200 was developed for 6:30. But it should have been dev’d for 7:30 in X-TOL stock which would have given you a bit more contrast in your shots. Maybe mention it to your lab . Otherwise great to see a good detailed comparison 👍🏻
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Like for using two exact cameras with two exact lenses for comparison, using same exposures, done at the same time. That's so rare to see these days. Call me a tech control freak, but that's the only fair way to compare films. Well done...
I felt that using the same camera/lens combo was the only was to do a true comparison. The funny thing is that just before I filmed this video I had to have one of the cameras CLAd and the light meter was off by a whole stop... so I metered with the one that I knew and trusted, and I think the results speak for themselves. If you liked this one, you'll probably like my next video when I do the same thing with three of the same camera! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Subbed
The only fault with this system is if the shutters are not calibrated and the aperture in the lens aren’t exactly the same. However compared to other channels this is the best unscientific method. Interesting to see that Delta seems a bit more sensitive, less contrasts, more shadow detail whilst Kodak is punchier. If you want prints then Kodak would be better out of the tin whilst ILFORD would be suitable for scanning.
I wonder tho. about developing each film in it's own recommended developer rather than the same kodak recommnded xtol. I realize the consistency is important but not necessarily a fair comparison where film is involved unless developing ilford film in ilford recommended developers either ilfotec ddx or microphen? Just a thought.
I agree, different developers (especially ones formulated for specific films) will definitely yield different results. I was, however, limited in my choice of developers, as the local lab that I brought the rolls to only had X-TOL left in stock (and even they were really disappointed at that!). I am really looking forward to shooting more of both of these films and experimenting with developers in the future! Thanks for your comments!
There are wayyy too many dudes making film photography videos, glad to see some females contributing content. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate them! I agree that there seems to be a lack of female film photographers creating content for a YT audience, hopefully more will be inspired to contribute in the future because it is another fun platform in which we can showcase our work. Thanks for watching and commenting, I promise to be back with another video in the near future!
Nice try soy boy, but you still aren't getting laid.
@@abigailsockeye1586 Jesus dude, is it really so bad to appreciate representation in a hobby you enjoy?
Are you being a feminist to film photographers?
@@abigailsockeye1586 Abigail, if you’re real, I love you.
Your movies are a breath of fresh air...and no hipster wobbly crackly loop based jazz 👍😊
I don't feel like I could pick a favorite. P3200 looks a bit more contrasty but has less shadow details. While Delta 3200 is a bit flatter in contrast but has more detail in the shadows. For me it would probably be dependent on subject matter as to which one I would choose.
I agree! My initial reaction was that I liked how much more contrast the P3200 had... but then I started noticing how much more detail in both the shadows and the highlights that Delta 3200 retains. I think each film has its benefits and it's a matter of knowing when to use each one, depending on your desired results. Thanks for watching and commenting!
I think ilford is technically better because of this. I can add contrast when printing but I can't just add detail.
Definitely more contrast in the P3200, but I saw something different in the shadow detail in some of the highest contrast shots. For example, @9:28 the highlights are blown out on the P3200 (e.g. the sign above the store), but you can still see details in the shadows (e.g. the upstairs windows, and the car on the right). In the Ilford, however, the highlights in the sign are preserved, but the details in the shadows are washed out. Also look @10:10 and see the side-by-side difference in shadow detail.
My observations are more in line with Barry’s. What I’m seeing in the shadows isn’t what many others seem to be describing here. However, in the subway there were shots where the Delta had more shadow detail, but it also appeared to yield a higher exposure across the board (escalator shots in particular). Looking down at tracks at 5:09, Delta holds highlights a tiny bit better while also being brighter in shadows and appearing to have more detail there too. Could it largely be a spectral response issue? The Delta is significantly more sensitive to the fluorescent light in that environment or something? This reverses in sunlight, with the Kodak exposing the statue brighter. The sculpted red columns at 7:08, they’re lit by sunlight on one side and fluorescent on the other. The Delta is exposing both the outdoor background and the sunlit-side highlights darker and with more detail, but it renders a much brighter exposure on the fluorescent-lit side of the columns. It looks like more than a contrast difference alone. Looking up response graphs for both, the difference isn’t pronounced, but it does kinda look like TMax starts to fall off around where fluorescent lights peak, while the Delta maintains more of a plateau in that range.
Given the idea that these films aren’t delivering the same effective sensitivity and exposure in these different types of light, the general impression I’m getting in these comparisons is that the Delta is good at delivering detailed and somewhat flat results when given plenty of exposure, but its shadows can fall apart in low light when exposed insufficiently for whatever reason. The TMax seems to do a remarkably good job of consistently delivering contrasty results that retain good detail across a variety of exposures and lighting types, and it appears that it often only retains less shadow detail when it’s effectively being given less exposure to work with (as in the escalators). I could be wrong, but that’s what I take from this.
The turnstyles at 5:17 is one of the shots that really makes the Delta look more refined and detailed. However, in the P3200 I can see just about as many bricks fading into shadows on the left wall, and the background shape on the wall near the center appears to have details in the Kodak shot that aren’t in the Ilford. If you watch some of the other subway shots, you can sometimes see that, going from Kodak to Ilford, the shadowed walls go from dark with texture detail to brighter but smoothed over. The shot at 10:10 is detailed throughout in the Kodak, but obliterated in the Ilford. In the shots at 10:33, look at the bricks in the deep shadows on the Kodak, then watch how those bricks simply disappear when it switches to the Ilford. The same thing happens consistently in the night shots. I think the commenters picking the Delta for its greater editability are perhaps being fooled into a false perception of shadow detail by the difference in contrast and blackpoint. The Kodak *looks* like it *should* have less shadow detail, but when you compare the same spots back to back the TMax often held shadow details that were absent in the Delta shot. So despite the talk about better shadow detail in the Delta, that generalization doesn’t seem to hold up consistently. If someone prefers the results from the Ilford, that’s totally valid, especially if their reason is that the more low-fi looking result in some of the night shots is the final look they’re going for. If the reason is that it’s recording more shadow detail, which is the reason most are going with, I think that’s valid for some of these shots but not for others, and overall I don’t think that’s actually the result we’re seeing in this comparison.
Differences in detail recording aside, it seems there’s a difference of philosophies in the comments: some like that the P3200 delivers a more finished looking image much of the time, while others perceive the Delta as being more editable, like a flat raw file they can edit with more flexibility. But how many of us go to the expense and trouble of shooting film with the goal of getting the most flexibile scan that requires the same heavy shaping as our digital images? I think a lot of us shoot film to escape exactly that, and to achieve a particular look from a film. I’m not sure I see the sense in shooting a film that doesn’t deliver a look very close to what you want in the finished product, without major changes to its character in digital post. Those looking for a good B&W film to digitally edit in a flexible variety of directions, toward an end result that looks completely different from the negative, would likely be better served by just shooting raw and applying a high quality emulation. A full color starting point is, after all, a much more flexible foundation for a digital B&W edit. Film is a lot of unnecessary trouble to add to that process, just to get a digitally crafted end result that can’t take advantage of all the standard digital conversion tools, such as color channel mixture. It’s very compromised. You can shoot a film you like the look of, or shoot digital and craft whatever sort of look you want with some effort, or you can shoot a BW film that doesn’t look like what you’re going for and get the worst of both worlds. :D
I like Contrast. And I purchased a few rolls of TMX3200. However it’s worth mentioning that Ilford was always loyal to film shooters, So it deserves our loyalty and not hurting its business whenever Kodak /Fuji decides to have a film removed or reintroduced on a whim (Acros, anyone?)
I absolutely agree, and I usually lean more towards shooting Ilford rather than Kodak (controversy: I prefer HP5 to Tri-X 400!). I do really like the new P3200, but I also like how much more shadow detail the Delta 3200 retains, which will be interesting to play around with in the darkroom or even through Lightroom. I'll be stocking my fridge with both emulsions for sure! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Where I live the Ilfords are more expensive, actually the Acros was the cheapest. I can’t find ilford developers. So I agree with your assessment partially because even though I love ilford films, availability/cost is sometimes an issue
I support Ilford.
Got the impression the Delta was asking for more exposure at each setting. Loved the contrast on the Tmax. Thanks for sharing! Well done, more vids please :)
Excellent first video, great work.
Straight from camera P3200 seems to look best while the Delta 3200 would really benefit from some post processing. Straight from camera the contrast in the P3200 is great while the Delta shows more shadow details it looks more hazy.
Look forward to more videos.
Great to see someone shooting the Olympus OM-1, The contrast of P3200 is beautiful!
The OM-1 is one of my all-time favourite cameras, so lightweight and fun to shoot with. I agree that the contrast on the P3200 came out beautifully, I love being able to shoot a film and getting those results right out of the box... I haven't completely edged out the Delta 3200 though, I'm intrigued to see what I can do with that film in the darkroom! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Kodak is winner imo.. that contrast on first photo got me.. 🤯🤯 thank you😊
Kodak is definitely the winner straight out of the box! But I think Ilford has a few tricks up it's sleeve, I personally find the negatives are more workable either in Lightroom, or printing in a darkroom. I live that both films are somewhat similar, but each have their own characteristics!
Thanks for watching!
The Ilford negatives are probably more 'workable' but I'd just be working to make them look more like Kodak.
I am way late for this party, but a very nicely done video, and thanks for the reminder of how fabulous Montreal is.
I prefer the delta 3200 for most shots, could always add in contrast, cant take it away, plus they make delta 3200 in 120 which i what i shoot, so a no brainer really if you want to eventually move up.
I'm actually quite surprised at how much I like the P3200, I wasn't expecting that! I do love how much more detail the Delta 3200 retained, it'll be fun to see how the two films measure up in post-processing/darkroom. I shoot a lot of 120 as well (I will eventually get into that in future videos), although I tend to use slow speed films... I'll pick up a roll of Delta 3200 and try it out sometime! Thanks for watching and commenting!
This was the video I was hoping someone would make - and you pulled it off brilliantly. Stellar first video! Subbed.
Thank you so much for the kind words, I really appreciate them! I'm definitely looking forward to providing more content, and the overwhelming response to this video has me chomping at the bit to get back out there! Thanks for watching and subscribing!
I'm the type that I like to add contrast to my shots in post production. I shot and developed P3200 which i rated at 1600 this week and I was impressed by two things: 1. Amazing shadow details as well as ability to recover them in post 2. I barely did any post production on the roll, the contrast was spot on to my taste, not too strong like TriX, not too grey like HP5. I planning on doing a video comparison against HP5, Tri-X and Tmax400 all rated at 1600. Great video by the way, nice personality and energy. Keep it up. Subscribed!
love the comparison!! cant wait to try them out side by side myself!!!
It was a lot of fun to shoot both films, and now I have more ideas for experimentation, both in the shooting and development processes! Thanks for watching and commenting!
By the way, thanks for being my first "celebrity comment"! Let me know if you're ever in Montreal, I'll take you out for some poutine!
Very helpful video Jess. I’m a Ilford guy BUT based on this video I’m definitely going to pick up some TMax 3200! Thanks! I look forward to seeing your next one with HP5 vs TriX & Street Pan!!
I have always been a fan of Ilford myself, but I think my film stock will always include a roll or two of P3200 now! Thanks for watching and commenting!
I did my photography college course few years ago and when I took photos of any subjects I always use a RED or a ORANGE filter to get the BEST contrast from the BLACK AND WHITE films
Ha ha, I was taught to use a yellow filter as a minimum! I didn't for this video to just show the bare bones of the films, but yes, using filters is a big bonus for b&w photography! I also choose a filter according to the lens I choose to use, some have better coatings than others, so they also add nice contrast.
Thanks for watching!
Very very interesting comparison. Enjoyable photographs too. Thank you for your work and skills. RS. Ontario
I was just in Montreal...but without my film camera. What a great city to take photos in, and I didn't come prepared.
Nice video. I can’t decide which I like more. For sure the increased contrast in the p3200 means less work for me in Lightroom. I recently shot p3200 during Halloween. It worked really well where there was some natural light available and with flash. But I had trouble with recovering shadow details. I particularly love the grain structure in the emulsion. I can also reflect about the process of scanning. I develop and scan myself and found that the film is easy to lay flat on the flatbed scanner. I think I will probably buy p3200 since it’s currently going cheaper than the ilford delta 3200 but I think both are excellent and have unique characteristics.
Great content from my #1 female UA-cam photographer. It's so hard to choose between the two, but I do like the richness of Kodak inside the station.
Sometimes with low light you have to guestimate. If the kodak low light photography chart van still be found, you extrapolate from 800 t0 3200 and use the general guidelines,eg: stage light, store windows, etc.
Awesome video across the board. Very informative and helpful as well as nicely presented, shot and edited. Including the audio design. Great job!
Very nice video... loved the photos, and the cool places...
I have always found that the Delta 3200 is a bit of a flatter profile for the film, and the P3200 a much more contrasty film; and if you want to get Delta to get a similar look, you have to use darker contrast filters, like an orange filter to get the contrast like the P3200 gets straight out of box. I look forward to seeing home. And Hello from BC!
Great video!!! Love the comparison. I’m a sucker for contrast, so I’m going with p3200
The P3200 is so punchy, I was really impressed with the results. I'm also a fan of contrast, so I think I'm giving the slight edge to Kodak on this one, but I'm excited to see what the Delta 3200 can do in Lightroom or in the darkroom. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Very good job! Good comparison side by side. Same camera , same lens and same shoot. I like the contrast of kodak.thank you
Your first video. WOW! Keep up the great work ;)
Thanks so much! I am actually overwhelmed with the positive response to this video, I had no idea it would catch on like it has, but I can't wait to film more videos for everyone! Thanks for watching and commenting!
This is exactly what I've been looking for! Every time I ask what the difference is, people reel of technical data and developing times - all I wanted to know was how the looks compared, and this answers it perfectly!
I agree. I like the contrast of the Kodak film, But in many ways I like both. I think I’ll use them indistinctly if needed, I’m not ready to deny any of them now.
So excellent! This is such a amazing video comparison. Done in perfect style. Thank you.
Nice first video, Jess. Looking forward to seeing more of your work.
Thanks for the kind words! I promise to be back soon with a new video!
I found you on the episode where you got your Intrepid...I'm just going back to see where you've been.... to me, you hit the ground running with this episode...it's really good to see a nice film comparison. To me, there is no comparison...the P3200 is a clear winner.
For most shots I preferred the contrast of the Kodak, but Ilford’s dynamic range was nice in a few shots. Great video. Loved the camera choice as well.
I am your new subscriber from a photographer who has been shooting film for fifteen plus years. I am glad to see more young folks like you young lady in keeping film alive. Hopefully, they would be building new film cameras despite the popularity of digital photography. I do shoot digital as well. Both the Delta and the Kodak has its plus and minuses. I do like the Kodak in most of the shots for its contrast and in some situations, it can be a little too dark that the Ilford Delta looks better. In most parts, the Delta is a bit bright in contrast but sometimes it helps in very dark places in some of the shots such as the moving escalator. If you need a camera to shoot at ISO 3200 than I would suggest to get either the Nikon F100 or the Nikon F5. I do own these cameras and after watching this video, I decided to check the ISO maximum setting. I found that the maximum ISO setting on both of these cameras are ISO 6400. Nikon manual and autofocus lenses do work well with these cameras. For a 50mm autofocus, a Nikon 50mm F1.8 D lens is a good lens. For a 50mm Nikon AIS manual focus, a Nikon 50mm F1.4 AIS lens works very well and gives very good contrast. Peace, Flood!
Great video!! The contrast of the P3200 is unmatched. That's definitely the one for me. Thanks for the comparison.
This is your first Video? I don’t believe it, fantastic job! Subscribed.
Having watched quite a few of your video's Jess, I decided to start again from the beginning as I only found you in 2019 and I have some catching up to do. Wow! talk about getting it right first time!
This is a really fun video! Excited to see more that you make!
Thanks for watching! I promise to be back soon!
Great video Jess! I especially like that you not only shot with identical cameras, but indoors as well as out, nice comparison.
Very nice method.
Also liked the way the the episode was shot.
336 subscribers and 214 likes for your first video so soon after it being released, speaks volumes. Great comparison, very well balanced, to me the TMax had better contrast but the Delta 3200 opened the shadows more. My days of going out after dark are a distant memory so neither are a film I will keep in stock, but it’s great to know there is a choice out there. Fantastic first video, very well done indeed and a great introduction.
Thank you so much for the kind words, they mean a lot to me! The response has been incredible, completely surpassed my hopes/expectations! I really enjoyed comparing these two films, it was fun to see how each held their own under different situations. I have yet to try them out during daytime or portrait shoots, so there will be a lot of experimentation in my future! Glad you liked the video, I promise there will be more where that came from! Thanks for watching and commenting!
It's just because the Delta black level wasn't the same as the P3200, not necessarily more contrast. Having said that, it's hard to tell but I do think the P3200 has slightly higher dynamic range.
To my eye, it was as though each film had a split personality. In the lowest light, the Ilford opened the shadows far better, as geowal91 says, but its weak blacks relative to the Kodak made it appear to have a veiling haze in the better lit scenes. One almost needs two cameras to be ready for both levels of lighting, unless willing to overexpose the Kodak in dark scenes (and then what's the point?).
eric moss Very well put. The only part of the comparison that wasn’t equal was that both films used a Kodak developer, something they had no control over in the video. I don’t shoot very fast film at all, and can’t say I have any experience, but one wonders how the Delta would have fared in DD-X.
Really great video, I forget how beautiful the Montreal Metro is
Thank you for the comparison. The Kodak TMAX 3200 sparked!!
But I still would give the Ilford 3200 a try. More power to you!!
First video and you're already off to a great start. Cheers!
I'll admit that the positive response has surpassed my expectations by a long shot, and I am definitely looking forward to producing more content! Thanks for watching and commenting!
This is such a fantastic and dynamic comparison! Thanks :)
I wish you good luck with your channel ! Awesome pictures BTW!
Great first video! Can’t wait to see your next one.
Thank you for the video! I watched all with pleasure. Hats off to a girl with an old film camera. Thank you for being.
Thank you! Please more of this. I like the Kodak Tmax P3200...just ordered some rolls.
Great video loved the accompanying music as well. I definitely liked how punchy P3200 turned out Delta looked a bit flat. Your results made me excited to see my own results. Keep the videos coming.
I have just purchased a roll of Ilford 3200 in preparation for a Nighttime photo shoot at a train museum. Feature is a Streamline Steam Engine. I like the Kodak film better. I may purchase a roll prior to the shoot. Will be using vintage Nikon camera.
I enjoyed the video, boarding subway and Montreal underground. Several years ago I spent time in Montreal on business. We stayed near the Airport but made several trips into the city.
Awesome comparison. You did it properly as well! Same camera, same lens and same settings. I look forward to whats next.
BTW...under these circumstances i preferred the Kodak.
Love the contrast of the Kodak film. Nice work - informative video. Good luck.
Definitely loved the contrast from the tmax p3200. That’s the amount I love in my black and white film!
Yeah, it's definitely a special film! I can't wait to go out and shoot more! Thanks for watching and commenting!
This one is better than the three films comparisons in terms of photos you had .. i was still thinking ohh bit wider shots pls pls 😆 pretty pretty awesome ones ..p3200 is a lit..
Hard to tell the difference . Both films are very good. Like the video. Watching in Terrassa, Spain. Subscribed already.
Really good, well thought through video and a sound comparison made between the films
Greetings from Winterpeg. Great video. Both look nice so I suppose it is all about preference. The Delta seems to have much softer greys whereas the Kodak has really rich crushed blacks. I normally am more of an Ilford shooter but in this case I really like the look of the Kodak.
I like the stock look of T-Max better but I'd rather add contrast in the darkroom than have it forced on the image. Delta 3200 seems to be retaining more detail in both the shadows and the highlights. I've shot it at 6400 and it still looked decent. In any case, I have 5 rolls of Tmax 3200 on their way so I guess I'll figure it out:) Great video btw!
I have heard that P3200 is really rated at 800, which would explain the increased contrast. I also found the Delta 3200 to retain more shadow and highlight detail, and I can't wait to get it in a darkroom and see how it prints. 5 rolls, sounds like you can do lots of experimentation! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Hey I'm from Montreal too! Glad to see this video ! Great content
Awesome, high fives for Montreal! Thanks for watching, and maybe we'll see each other on the streets one day!
Great vid, exactly what I was looking for! You should 100% keep doing UA-cam! Thanks a lot.
Thank you so much for the kind words, I really appreciate them! I promise to be back soon with a new video! Thanks for watching!
P3200 for me. I prefer the contrasty image, more depth. Great video. Keep them coming.
This is such a good comparison, very rare to see the same camera with the same lens for the comparison. I have never tried those two films but I have a Ilford 3200 waiting to get its turn in my Pentax but from your results I prefer the Kodak 3200, more contrasty
Wow it reminds me a lot of Tri-X vs Hp5, I love the extra contrast that Kodak gives you out of the box. I shot one roll of Delta 3200 in medium format and wasn't impressed, it was so muddy and flat. Hopefully I can find some P3200 locally to give it a try. Btw, fantastic first video! Subscribed
I'm a big fan of Ilford films, but I must say that the P3200 has something special! I actually don't have a lot of experience with high speed films, I tend to push them instead, so I was quite pleased with the results. I shoot a lot of medium format as well, but I still tend to stick with lower speed films. Thanks for your kind words, and for subscribing... I promise to be back soon with another video!
You said exactly what I was thinking. Why did I buy so many rolls of Ilford??? The contrast of the Kodak does it for me.
I agree, based on the images, Kodak has a nice contrasty image. I did notice @10:10, the grain structure of Delta looks better. Hmm....
I do think that there is a time and a place for both films, each one has it advantages and disadvantages. I, for one, can't wait to shoot and experiment more with them both!
You could always push Delta to 6400 or 12800 and get similar results contrast-wise, with a faster ISO!
Wow cool vid. Kodak is the definite winner for me as I’m a big contrast fan.
I love the ilford and for me ilford have been supporting film photography for years now and I want to show my support to them I do flirt with other stocks occasionally for fun but I tend to stick with ilford range as there is something for most situations beautiful images and and lovely to see some OMs in actions I have mainly Nikon’s but I do own a OM 4 and OM 2n great for street photography keep doing what you do it’s great 👍🏻
I think I liked the Ilford better for the low light interior shots and the Kodak much better for the nighttime outdoor pix.
Ella E-L, I think I agree! It seems as though Ilford has a little more shadow detail, which will be fun to play around with in post, but I find the Kodak is much punchier for the outdoor shots. Thanks for watching and commenting!
great film comparison and great first video! look forward to what is coming on your channel!
Thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate them! I promise to be back soon with a new video! Thanks for watching!
Thanks for the comparison. Great video.
Thanks so much, I appreciate that! Thanks for watching!
what a great comparison video!
thanks for sharing your insights on these two films with us!
really enjoyed watching this!
Fantastic video very interesting I think I prefer the contrast in the Kodak film but I guess it depends on how much postprocessing you want to do very well done some lovely images 👍🏻😊
Awesome video especially for your first!
Well done and keep up with the good work! Thanks for the contents!
super cool. i just got some ilford delta 3200 for the first time
Jess Hobbs First of all, kudos for a nice video. I guess I am a veteran in b/w, having used a fair bit of HP4, KB14 and such back then.
Scanning negatives might not give the best indication of the film performance, personally I would examine the negatives on a light box and then make conventional prints. For films meant for XL work such as Tri-X and HP5, the aim is to increase contrast at the toe at the H&D curve while maintaining a low overall contrast, so that when pushed, there are more shadow details to be brought out without frying the highlights. In other words, it'd be faster in the camera, and faster in the tank.
My own tests with the TMZ (P3200) is that its true speed is 1000/31˚ but with extra contrast at the toe; so it gives great shadow details at its true speed, much better than TX pushed to the same EI; I am still convinced that the 3200/36˚ rating is the most it can be pushed as both highlights and shadows are already starting to get obviously blocked: the pictures might look eye-catching for having "good contrast" but the loss at both ends would be hard to recover, especially when printed conventionally where they are further compressed by the paper's H&D shoulder and toe.
Delta 3200 is a bit more conventional and I have not tried to establish its real speed, the higher B&F can be "printed through" but it still alters the response a little. That said, it still preserves separations at both highlight and shadow areas while keeping the overall contrast low enough, coupled with the high B&F, scanned pictures - especially if previously calibrated for something like TMZ - would certainly look "muddy" but there are huge amounts of details that can be easily brought out; it is even quite obvious in your comparison pictures.
The real test would be to make conventional prints with an enlarger after calibrating the respective negatives, that would be a lot more telling.
great video, and for your first!!, WELL DONE!!, one other way of doing this kind of comparison is to use a 35 mm magasine camera, like the Rollieflex sl-2000f or 3000 these have magasines, just like a mamiya 645 camera, so you use the same lens, etc. just a different back, and you can switch mid roll.
Good first video. I subscribed. I prefer the delta simply because of the shadow detail and highlights. But of course, both are great.
for my taste I would go with the p3200, even though I shot a roll of delta 3200 earlier this year in Paris and love the results
Love the colour of that coat in the sunshine ✅👍
I really enjoyed this video! It was very helpfull! Did you put your shutter speed one step up to compensate for the ISO1600 setting on the camera?
The shadow detail on ilford is pretty nice! However, I like the more contrasty look that p3200 delivers just a bit more. Nice video!
I love seeing a fresh film channel pop up. You made a great vid and I can't wait to see what else you'll do! Good on ya. (I liked the kodak a lot more btw)
Nice & Thanks :) At 6:06 in the time line ... it was a beautiful frame from Videographers point of view :) Thumbs up for that :) I liked P3200.
Great video! I preferred the Kodak photos.
I like the contrastiness of the Kodak in these pictures. But when I've tried it myself, when I look a bit closer, it always comes out a bit too grainy for my tastes. I do enjoy a bit of grain but P3200 is insane! I just ordered my first Delta 3200 (which is why I ended up here).
Great vid! Can't wait to see where you go from here :)
Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it! I promise to be back soon with a new video! Thanks for watching!
Kodak is much more contrast, the Delta has much more shadow detail. Private investigators and police would prefer the Delta, but I like the Kodak much more for that punchy look.
Great video! I will go with Kodak P3200.
Very enjoyable and informative video!
Nice job! Your compression was very interesting! I believe the Kodak Tmax P3200 won the compression! Thank you for sharing!
So much more detailed contrast in Kodak. I always found Ilford a bit more foggy and slightly under exposed depending on the conditions. Anyways. Great Video! Thanks
I really liked the comparison. Both films made it. Kodak is for the ones looking more contrasty images, and Ilford for more gray scales. nice!
Kodak was the clear winner i think, a lot more contrast and sharpness. Really nice comparison, thank you very much. but like a couple of others here i shoot 120 so i also shoot Ilford film.
Those are not bad films i just like contrast :) Thanks for sharing.
Great to watch, loved the style, please keep up the great work! As for choice P3200 v Delta3200, I'll need to make my own comparison. Probably fairer to use DDX with Delta3200 and use my own scanner and adjustments. Both Kodak and Ilford deserve all the support we can all give. Can't wait to watch the next video..
Best way to drive the film contrast is by development time
Great video! I can actually see your love and passion for film photography. Very inspiring for beginners (like me). Already suscribed, greetings from Perú!
Kodak all the way on this one for me love the contrast delta looks a bit flat for my liking. Back in pre digi days the paper I shot for would give me a roll of Tmax 3200 to shoot winter sport in northern England very dull dark conditions always had to rate the film at 6400 at the time I hated all that grain looking back now I love it they look like real photos embrace the grain 📷 top work again Jess loving your vids ❤️
Great video can see all of the work you put into it keep it up!
Hey Jess just stumbled across this video, nice work! You said the Delta 3200 was developed for 6:30. But it should have been dev’d for 7:30 in X-TOL stock which would have given you a bit more contrast in your shots. Maybe mention it to your lab . Otherwise great to see a good detailed comparison 👍🏻
Great video! Definitely a new subscriber here, good luck with this channel!
They both looked nice for the night stuff. I liked the Kodak for all the other shots, though.