Back in the day we reporters (in Europe mind you) used Ilford's HP5 for the most part, if needed pushed to either ISO 800 or 1600, and usually, in combination with bright lenses (f2,8 or brighter) that was good enough. However, there are instances where you couldn't make a valuable shot (yeah people tend to move even in the dark, so long exposure is out of the question), so the only way to achieve high enough exposure time in the dark where those films, sometimes pushed even to ISO12500, course HP5 became too contrasty at that point. The trick was, the shot had to be in focus no matter what, and film should be properly developed. On top of that, results you are showing here are scans directly from film, right? Well, try to make a wet print and than scan those, I swear the end result will be much more pleasing and less grainy. And those pictures made with Delta3200 or P3200 where more than good enough for the press, course the paper from what newspapers are made is very, VERY forgiving, even today...
This is a great comment, and it does really touch on the utility of these film stocks. I think nowadays I think of most of these as being closer to novelty films, since the actual utility is obsolete- but its important to remember that they were invented for a specific purpose! I'd love to make wet prints of my work one day, hopefully I'll get the opportunity sooner rather than later!
Personally, I love the silvery luster in the grain and obscured details. The mood you’ve captured is to me far more appealing than a perfectly exposed frame. The difference between ‘technically’ good and ‘aesthetically’ good photos is a tricky balance. Overall, I think far fewer of your shots were ‘flops’, but it is important that you get a result that YOU are happy with. Also, I think its important to note that pushing film boosts contrast, which is probably why your lights were so white and shadows so dark. I liked this review very much, and it actually makes me want to experiment with delta 3200 now!
Thank you so much! I'm glad you like the shots, I think I can be fairly hard on myself when it comes to street photography because there's SO much bad street photography out there and I hate to contribute to it haha. I'm glad you're inspired to try out this film!
@@YvonneHansonPhotography I tried Tmax 3200 because of a different video where they were shooting at 12800 ISO... not my favorite, but I think Ill have a much better time with Ilford (I prefer the anyway.)
@@YvonneHansonPhotography The sweet spot for D3200 is ISO 1250, stand develop in DDX 9+1 for 45 minutes. Meter shadows on a zone 4. That will tame the grain, hold the highlights, and give you a nice linear profile. It is nearly impossible IMO to find a lab that develops Delta 3200 to its full potential in the U.S. They need to be using replenished DDX, but even then it's not great. Xtol or 510 in a Jobo does a decent job.
"Some say its not 3200 iso" i think thats literally in the data sheet provided by the companys for the film. And not none of the boxs say "iso 3200" they just say that it can be used at those speeds
Assuming you were reflective metering / in-camera metering, a lot of what you described is just underexposure of the shadows caused by the metering bias towards direct light sources, which is more obvious on higher speed films. To make life easier, you can compensate by setting your reflective/camera meter to a stop or preferably a couple of stops lower ISO. If you were incident metering, ignore what I said. Sharing as I had a similar experience to you on my first roll and then later compensated by incident metering or compensating by 2 stops on my camera/reflective meter. Might be worth another shot?
I've been trying out various things with this film for several years now, and definitely understand the many compromises that come with "3200" ISO. I've shot all of my Delta 3200 in 120, though I've shot a fair amount of TMAX 3200. The biggest factor I've seen in getting a true higher ISO performance out of this is to use 510 Pyro developer. I thought most developers I tried it with did not have nice results at 3200, though I got some nice stuff around 800-1000 ISO. But so far, Delta 3200 looks pretty spectacular using very specific developers, but mostly 510 Pyro in my experience. ha. (D76 was big meh, TMAX Devloper was ok, Rodinal is a no-go, Hc-110 is ok but very thin but looks nice at 1000ish, and Microphen is decent). The shadows certainly gum up quickly, but I've managed to start getting a much more pleasing feel from the high grain and at least some texture if not full detail.
On of my favorite wedding photographers, Bambi Cantrell, loved the dreamy rendering of this film in 35 mm for weddings. I find it a bit heavy on the grain in 35 mm. I shoot it at 1600 and develop normally, 3200. But in a 6x7 format, since the same emulsion is spread over a larger negative making the grain crystals smaller in proportion, I find it a bit small for my taste when going for the grain. But 645? Goldilocks. I have a 645 back for my r67 and a complete set of lenses for my mamiya 645 pro tl. It has nearly a 3x larger negative than 35 mm and easily makes 20" prints. It is true that kodak 3200 is not a 3200 speed film, it's a 1000 or 1250 speed. And it is pretty finicky on nailing exposure. I love it for portraiture. However, at the other end of the grain spectrum, I love acros 100 and tmax 400 is my go to 35 mm film stock with another t grain film, portra 400. For shooting 1600 in b&w on 35 mm, I prefer pushing Ilford hp5 400 to 1600, smaller grain, really forgiving on exposure.
I really like this video, you are so good at explaining things and i really appreciate it. I love the grain in the photos, especially in the lighter images and your self portrait especially .Thank you!
Thank you for the information. I'm new to your channel, but have just subscribed. Based on your images, I wouldn't be buying this film either! But it may not be all the film's fault. The issues I see the most prevalent from your images are simply that they are somewhat flat, under-exposed, and lacking decent contrast. Shooting in "available darkness" with bright specular lights is not easy with any film. More evenly lit scenes would most likely provide better results with this film. That said, I think you're on to something with your theory of it being a 1000 speed film. Which would mean shooting this film @ 3200 is actually under-exposing it by 1.67 stops. Pushing the development time with a +1 or +2-push would certainly yield better results. Or, as you eluded to, just pulling the exposure value back to 1600, 1000, or 800, using the standard developing time. Personally, in film, I either want no grain, or a whole lot of it! Grainy images (IMO) can become quite artsy, especially if photographed under better lighting conditions. Back in film days, I pushed a lot of Tri-X 400 to 1600. The results were plenty grainy, but with significantly more contrast, and a certain ethereal presence that would draw you in.
Thank you for subscribing, and for the advice! I think I'll give this film another shot at some point, and take some of the advice people have left in the comment section. I've had a few good pointers!
Ilford 3200 is one of my favorite film stocks. It's beautiful and rich when overexposed (or pushed) one stop. (I've got 2 top row photos on my website on the wedding page.) That said, I do prefer it in medium format AND using it for well-lit portraits. Sharp, beautiful eyes.
Ilford Delta is a 1000 ISO stock. It's somewhere on their website or Datasheet. Kodak TMax P3200 is an 800 ISO stock. The P in P3200 stands for pushed. Both films can be shot at 800 and there's times available for that online and I believe their datasheets. The main thing about these films is while Kodak Tri-X actually has finer grain and is sharper up to about 1600, that's its limit. Even at 1600 it's dynamic range is very tight; I'd say 5-6 stops based on my results(Yes I know I can extend the range with a some developers, I've only pushed it in D-76). The 3200 films are designed to be super low contrast at their native Speed so that the contrast is increased to normal when pushing. They're definitely useful films for certain situations. Also, I'm curious what developer you used? It looks way softer then I'm used to?
I think your experience seems to be in line with most folks. I had originally tried it in hopes of using it as an option for concert photography and found the images unusably grainy. From what I've read, it is apparently a bit fussier with developer choice and it can be mitigated to some degree using something like Xtol or DD-X. I think the biggest argument however against Delta 3200 is the price. You can make up for its shortcomings by shooting at lower ISO or going out of your way to use a different developer you might not otherwise use but at that point, why not just shoot HP5 or Delta 400? HP5 can look amazing at 3200 with no where near the amount of grain and if you're dropping from 3200 down to 800 or 1000 it's no contest.
I have shot one roll of this yet, I have not yet developed it, so I am very curious still. Shot it at box speed of 3200, specifically indoors and without flash, but to me it seems that the 1000 ISO thing is not speculation, it's on the datasheet. I need to choose between dunking this thing in Rodinal or Ilfosol 3... I bet Rodinal would make it look even grainier 😅 I still find it very funny that technically box speed and default development parameters are actually pushing the film quite a bit
Amazing work actually. I love 3200. Would you shoot at 1600 and develop at 3200? D76? I’m a photographer also based in Vancouver. Many cheers. My husband and I are out all the time shooting. Might see you about.
I enjoyed your "brainy" explanation of this film and its properties in particular; it is brilliant! Your results were well done, but this is an objective opinion. I am now subscribed.
the only good roll i shot with 3200 iso is when I did a fire bender inspired shoot with propane fire bubbles. Other than that the shots usually come out way too dark and I just stick to 400 ISO for black and white if shooting in low lighting settings
I tried it in a pinhole camera. Is too fast for bright light (assuming your pinhole camera has a hand-operated shutter). And at longer exposures, reciprocity falls off a cliff. So shutter speeds are either too quick to do by hand, or are stupid long giving no advantage in low light.
Personally I use delta 3200 as a day time street photography film on my Ricoh GR1. Turn aperture priority to F/8, use snap focus mode and never miss a shot. Just don't expect much when shooting indoors at that aperture.
I just shot a 120 roll of Delta indoors at a gallery opening, rated at 1600. This was in the daytime mind you so I think 3200 comes out better in interior locations where you can't use a tripod and you have some window light. Also, I'm based in Victoria and lived in Vancouver for years. Cheers from Vancouver Island.
i picked some of this up today with a plan to shoot a gig. maybe i’ll use flash and that direct lighting will help it? very moody images you got. did you take any in daylight?
I didn't take any in daylight unfortunately! I wish I had- it was December so daylight was somewhat hard to come by lol. I think this could be pretty sweet with flash, especially at a lower setting. Might take some heavy lifting in post but you could get really unique shots that way I think
I'm not a fan of the Delta 3200 or TMax P3200; they're too soft and graining at the box speed. I found that both works best shot at ASA-1600 and are developed by a fine-grain developer like Ilford Microphen or Xtol. Although your images have a certain look and feel that suit the mood.
I once shot one roll of 35 mm Delta 3200 downtown at night and I have the same comments as you, my photos look underexposed although the exposure was right. The film does not pick the dimmed light and when it's underexposed it's way too grainy. So it was done for me for the Delta 3200 until, one day, in an act of "I do not know what crossed my mind" I bought Delta 3200 BUT in 120 format .... much better. I did not try it at night, but in low light, the Delta 3200 in 120 format, the grain is less obvious. So 35 mm never, 120 sometime.
Ohhhhh that makes a lot of sense- I should have mentioned in the video that I only tried 35mm because of course the 120 would be less grainy. I'll put that on my list to try in the future!!
in 35mm its kinda shit for most people but its very good in 120. also the images look super low contrast compared to my 35mm delta 3200 shots, what developer did u use?
Good comments. It seems that everyone who shoots Delta 3600 for the first time hates it. Then you come back thinking that how could you sell bad film these days. So you learn how to shoot it or better said how to process it. If processed well and taken into a darkroom that film stock can be wonderfully nuanced and full of character. This film was developed in the late 1980’s so it is not ideal for scans. Maybe on day you will pick it up again and work to get the film stock to work for you. Then again it is definitely not a film stock for everyone. Good video. Thanks for sharing.
Like you, I shot a roll of Delta 3200 in 120 & 35MM with the same outcome as you describe. I was greatly disappointed. I'll stick to the old reliable: Kodak Tri-X Pan!
I bought a roll of this entirely to keep on hand in case I was flying with film and wanted to have justification for asking tsa to handcheck all the rolls. Then I remembered the last time I flew was….2014? 😅 So I’ve been debating whether I want to try it just for fun, but so many reviews seem to reach the same conclusion of it being so-so at best.
I say try it!! Black and white film doesn't expire nearly as fast as colour film I think, so there's a good chance it is still perfectly fine to shoot!
I loved that you tested the film in various conditions, a lot of people Just take pictures in dark environments! I'll try to give you something back for your video, to thank you. I am currently following a course of nuclear and subnuclear Physics at Uni in Milan. In the study of collisions, we often make use of a very important physical quantity: the cross section. Its dimensions are [metres^2] and it can be thought as an efficient area in the proximity of a target, an area where a shot particle interacts, with some probability, with the target. A very simple situation would be to shoot point-like darts at a circle (area a = cross section) on a sheet of paper (area A), and you can define the probability of the interaction (i.e. hitting the circle in this case) as the ratio a/A. As you can see, the bigger the circle, the higher the probability. Bye!
Ah yeah! That makes a lot of sense! For some reason I had been conceptualizing the chemical reaction between light and silver as being particles in a solution- where the reaction would be catalyzed by surface area- rather than as particles being bombarded by other particles. Makes a lot more sense now that I understand it haha.
if it means anything its obvious through these shots you're a great photographer, even with the limitations of the "3200" ISO. i bought some on a whim earlier today and I'm curious how it'll do shooting concerts. definitely won't be shooting it at 3200 though lol.
Thank you for the flattery! Haha, I actually rewatched the video to see if I had misjudged my photos initially. Good luck shooting concerts with this, I bet it will produce some good results with the stage lights directly illuminating the performers!
Too bad you didn’t do a little research before you used the roll. You might have shot it at 1000 (and not at 3200 as you mention) and the night photos would have come out more to your liking. I think they look great believe it or not! It is a specialty film and used for special situations. You photos look! Maybe over the months since you filmed this video you feel differently about this film. All the best!
Thanks for the tips, got a roll of 120 from analog-friend recently, gonna expose it for 1600 I think. I quite like testing ISO films, so far I quite enjoy Double X and Bergger @800 or 1600, PTmax on the other hand turned out to be a huge disappointment.
Could it be that your metering (in the streets) was wrong. If you use spot metering, the film will focus it's strength in giving short dynamic range. In my experience the metering shouldn't be done on the brightest spot of the scene. I may be wrong but that's the feeling i get from some of your shots.
These photos look indeed underexposed. I remember shooting with 1600 ASA Fuji colour negative film ~1988 at night in the city and the film captured motives like the building with the illuminated contours perfectly well, only limited by the strong grain. Already on a 6 x 4 inch print the grain was extreme. The only "artistically feasible" use would've been making the grain part of the work. I remember seeing prints that tried to achieve a linoleum cut or Aquatinta print quality with interesting results.
I shot TMAX 3200 a couple of times in broad daylight. Once at a baseball game, the other in Crimea (back when it was in Ukraine). I feel this grainy film actually did waaaaaay better than in night/street light. I shot at like f16 and got quite a bit of detail (during daylight).
I sent them to "The Lab"- a local development place that is known to be the best in town. I just recently started using them and so far I've gotten good results back. I shot this set with a 50mm 1.8 on my Nikon F801s.
probably said to death in this comments section but it is a lot better in medium format, and a lot better indoors as opposed to at night. ive shot one roll of d3200 in 35mm and was also thoroughly disappointed
@@YvonneHansonPhotography your doing right 😂 it does suck tho ive done one roll and it was waaaaay to grainy so then i thaught maybe try the p3200 ilford and i didn't understood my minolta x700 completly at the time so instead of shooting it at box speed i shoot it 2 stops overexposed so it was also too grainy and idk what to do now 😂 (excuse my english im french and rly tired its almost 3am here)
A title of the video is sort of misleading: it should be what you learned from shooting one roll of film stock. The question is: is one roll is enough to be so critical of this film? You shoot the whole roll certain way so you don't learn from each 36 images separately unless you expose the same scene several times differently and take notes. I think some of the comments point to the reasons why your exposures were disappointing, You can't expect details in the shadows without metering for the shadows, it would work in digital much better
I shoot Delta 3200 and Kodak P3200 at 800-1000. That is pretty much what this film is - the P in P3200 means it can be Pushed to 3200. Ilford HP5, Kentmere 400 behaves better shot at 800 than Delta 3200 and P3200 do. It's almost like these '3200' films are just a marketing gimmick... p.s. I'd never buy a 3200 film, I was gifted them. (which was very nice)
Yeah, it's actually both a 1000 iso and the worst Ilford film. Tmax 3200 is better, but I prefer the look of Tmax 400 pushed 3 stops : clean blacks, sometimes less grain than a trix/Hp5 and a interesting natural contrast. But that leaves you with a very tiny margin for error, like a slide film, and you'll have to test different dev times to get what fit your styles. Challenging but worths it.
These turned out really well. I mean our and film’s mistakes are actually an art unto themselves. You shot some amazing shots… film is film and has a mind of its own.
i always found the grain ugly as sin ever since it came out i prefer digital noise over this film their other films are fine but i would push fuji neopan 1600 sadly no longer available or kodak Tmax 3200 or 400 pushed and triX and kodak 800 iso pushed for colour
I don't like Ilford 3200 either. It looks like a 50 year old roll of badly stored Tri-X. It is better to push a brand-name 400iso film to 1600. Better still to push the 400 iso film using an Acufine type developer.
I literally just developed a roll of this film for the first time and thought damn this came out way too dark. Turns out my in camera meter was reading inaccurate on top of the poor low light performance so I have 36 well composed grainy virtually unintelligibly dark pics. I'm gonna try at 2000 iso and and over expose and see how that goes. Bummer I had high hopes for this film
Nooo thats too bad! I can imagine that shooting this even a touch underexposed would pretty much ruin a good chunk of the roll. There were a few shots that I thought "thats probably not enough light but I can fix it a bit in post" but there was no saving it in post, anything dark was just....a snowy mist when lightened up. Good luck on your next roll, I hope you get some fun results!
I developed a 2nd roll shot at 2000-1000 iso and got actually properly exposed results and it’s just ok. Very grainy though and I think I’d rather just shoot CineStill800T. Your explanation of how grain size relates to sensitivity was the first time it clicked for me after a year of not really getting it
Subscribed. I automatically disregard any reviewer who recommend the Ilford 3200. It just suck. I would rather shoot with my car's dash cam than with this film.
Back in the day we reporters (in Europe mind you) used Ilford's HP5 for the most part, if needed pushed to either ISO 800 or 1600, and usually, in combination with bright lenses (f2,8 or brighter) that was good enough. However, there are instances where you couldn't make a valuable shot (yeah people tend to move even in the dark, so long exposure is out of the question), so the only way to achieve high enough exposure time in the dark where those films, sometimes pushed even to ISO12500, course HP5 became too contrasty at that point. The trick was, the shot had to be in focus no matter what, and film should be properly developed. On top of that, results you are showing here are scans directly from film, right? Well, try to make a wet print and than scan those, I swear the end result will be much more pleasing and less grainy. And those pictures made with Delta3200 or P3200 where more than good enough for the press, course the paper from what newspapers are made is very, VERY forgiving, even today...
This is a great comment, and it does really touch on the utility of these film stocks. I think nowadays I think of most of these as being closer to novelty films, since the actual utility is obsolete- but its important to remember that they were invented for a specific purpose! I'd love to make wet prints of my work one day, hopefully I'll get the opportunity sooner rather than later!
Personally, I love the silvery luster in the grain and obscured details. The mood you’ve captured is to me far more appealing than a perfectly exposed frame. The difference between ‘technically’ good and ‘aesthetically’ good photos is a tricky balance. Overall, I think far fewer of your shots were ‘flops’, but it is important that you get a result that YOU are happy with. Also, I think its important to note that pushing film boosts contrast, which is probably why your lights were so white and shadows so dark. I liked this review very much, and it actually makes me want to experiment with delta 3200 now!
Thank you so much! I'm glad you like the shots, I think I can be fairly hard on myself when it comes to street photography because there's SO much bad street photography out there and I hate to contribute to it haha. I'm glad you're inspired to try out this film!
@@YvonneHansonPhotography I tried Tmax 3200 because of a different video where they were shooting at 12800 ISO... not my favorite, but I think Ill have a much better time with Ilford (I prefer the anyway.)
@@YvonneHansonPhotography The sweet spot for D3200 is ISO 1250, stand develop in DDX 9+1 for 45 minutes. Meter shadows on a zone 4. That will tame the grain, hold the highlights, and give you a nice linear profile. It is nearly impossible IMO to find a lab that develops Delta 3200 to its full potential in the U.S. They need to be using replenished DDX, but even then it's not great. Xtol or 510 in a Jobo does a decent job.
@@jw48335 Thank you. Just bought 2 120 rolls. I will try it at 1250 iso.
"Some say its not 3200 iso" i think thats literally in the data sheet provided by the companys for the film. And not none of the boxs say "iso 3200" they just say that it can be used at those speeds
Also shooting 3200 at 3200 is only done when you *NEEd*, most of the time it prefomes better at iso 1600 or lower
why does it say 3200 on the box??
Assuming you were reflective metering / in-camera metering, a lot of what you described is just underexposure of the shadows caused by the metering bias towards direct light sources, which is more obvious on higher speed films.
To make life easier, you can compensate by setting your reflective/camera meter to a stop or preferably a couple of stops lower ISO.
If you were incident metering, ignore what I said. Sharing as I had a similar experience to you on my first roll and then later compensated by incident metering or compensating by 2 stops on my camera/reflective meter.
Might be worth another shot?
I think it is worth another shot! I appreciate the info!!
I've been trying out various things with this film for several years now, and definitely understand the many compromises that come with "3200" ISO. I've shot all of my Delta 3200 in 120, though I've shot a fair amount of TMAX 3200. The biggest factor I've seen in getting a true higher ISO performance out of this is to use 510 Pyro developer. I thought most developers I tried it with did not have nice results at 3200, though I got some nice stuff around 800-1000 ISO. But so far, Delta 3200 looks pretty spectacular using very specific developers, but mostly 510 Pyro in my experience. ha. (D76 was big meh, TMAX Devloper was ok, Rodinal is a no-go, Hc-110 is ok but very thin but looks nice at 1000ish, and Microphen is decent). The shadows certainly gum up quickly, but I've managed to start getting a much more pleasing feel from the high grain and at least some texture if not full detail.
Have you tried different ways of developing with 510 Pyro? Do you have one that works best for you? Is it only 1:100 -- 23min?
On of my favorite wedding photographers, Bambi Cantrell, loved the dreamy rendering of this film in 35 mm for weddings. I find it a bit heavy on the grain in 35 mm. I shoot it at 1600 and develop normally, 3200. But in a 6x7 format, since the same emulsion is spread over a larger negative making the grain crystals smaller in proportion, I find it a bit small for my taste when going for the grain. But 645? Goldilocks. I have a 645 back for my r67 and a complete set of lenses for my mamiya 645 pro tl. It has nearly a 3x larger negative than 35 mm and easily makes 20" prints. It is true that kodak 3200 is not a 3200 speed film, it's a 1000 or 1250 speed. And it is pretty finicky on nailing exposure. I love it for portraiture. However, at the other end of the grain spectrum, I love acros 100 and tmax 400 is my go to 35 mm film stock with another t grain film, portra 400. For shooting 1600 in b&w on 35 mm, I prefer pushing Ilford hp5 400 to 1600, smaller grain, really forgiving on exposure.
This seems ideal for those who specifically want a grainy lo-fi aesthetic.
I really like this video, you are so good at explaining things and i really appreciate it. I love the grain in the photos, especially in the lighter images and your self portrait especially
.Thank you!
Thank you so much for watching! Im glad you found this video informative! I have a few more film reviews coming up in July so stay tuned!
Expose at 1600 but develop for 3200. Results on 120 film will be better.
Thank you for the information. I'm new to your channel, but have just subscribed. Based on your images, I wouldn't be buying this film either! But it may not be all the film's fault. The issues I see the most prevalent from your images are simply that they are somewhat flat, under-exposed, and lacking decent contrast. Shooting in "available darkness" with bright specular lights is not easy with any film. More evenly lit scenes would most likely provide better results with this film.
That said, I think you're on to something with your theory of it being a 1000 speed film. Which would mean shooting this film @ 3200 is actually under-exposing it by 1.67 stops. Pushing the development time with a +1 or +2-push would certainly yield better results. Or, as you eluded to, just pulling the exposure value back to 1600, 1000, or 800, using the standard developing time.
Personally, in film, I either want no grain, or a whole lot of it! Grainy images (IMO) can become quite artsy, especially if photographed under better lighting conditions. Back in film days, I pushed a lot of Tri-X 400 to 1600. The results were plenty grainy, but with significantly more contrast, and a certain ethereal presence that would draw you in.
Thank you for subscribing, and for the advice! I think I'll give this film another shot at some point, and take some of the advice people have left in the comment section. I've had a few good pointers!
Ilford 3200 is one of my favorite film stocks. It's beautiful and rich when overexposed (or pushed) one stop. (I've got 2 top row photos on my website on the wedding page.) That said, I do prefer it in medium format AND using it for well-lit portraits. Sharp, beautiful eyes.
How did you develop the negatives? Ilford recommends DD-X or Ilfotec HC 1:15
I really really like a of of your shots!, so don´t be so hard on yourself . a lot of us would be happy to get those images .
Ilford Delta is a 1000 ISO stock. It's somewhere on their website or Datasheet. Kodak TMax P3200 is an 800 ISO stock. The P in P3200 stands for pushed. Both films can be shot at 800 and there's times available for that online and I believe their datasheets. The main thing about these films is while Kodak Tri-X actually has finer grain and is sharper up to about 1600, that's its limit. Even at 1600 it's dynamic range is very tight; I'd say 5-6 stops based on my results(Yes I know I can extend the range with a some developers, I've only pushed it in D-76). The 3200 films are designed to be super low contrast at their native Speed so that the contrast is increased to normal when pushing. They're definitely useful films for certain situations.
Also, I'm curious what developer you used? It looks way softer then I'm used to?
I think your experience seems to be in line with most folks. I had originally tried it in hopes of using it as an option for concert photography and found the images unusably grainy. From what I've read, it is apparently a bit fussier with developer choice and it can be mitigated to some degree using something like Xtol or DD-X. I think the biggest argument however against Delta 3200 is the price. You can make up for its shortcomings by shooting at lower ISO or going out of your way to use a different developer you might not otherwise use but at that point, why not just shoot HP5 or Delta 400? HP5 can look amazing at 3200 with no where near the amount of grain and if you're dropping from 3200 down to 800 or 1000 it's no contest.
I have shot one roll of this yet, I have not yet developed it, so I am very curious still. Shot it at box speed of 3200, specifically indoors and without flash, but to me it seems that the 1000 ISO thing is not speculation, it's on the datasheet. I need to choose between dunking this thing in Rodinal or Ilfosol 3... I bet Rodinal would make it look even grainier 😅
I still find it very funny that technically box speed and default development parameters are actually pushing the film quite a bit
Amazing work actually. I love 3200. Would you shoot at 1600 and develop at 3200? D76? I’m a photographer also based in Vancouver. Many cheers. My husband and I are out all the time shooting. Might see you about.
I enjoyed your "brainy" explanation of this film and its properties in particular; it is brilliant! Your results were well done, but this is an objective opinion. I am now subscribed.
the only good roll i shot with 3200 iso is when I did a fire bender inspired shoot with propane fire bubbles. Other than that the shots usually come out way too dark and I just stick to 400 ISO for black and white if shooting in low lighting settings
I tried it in a pinhole camera. Is too fast for bright light (assuming your pinhole camera has a hand-operated shutter). And at longer exposures, reciprocity falls off a cliff. So shutter speeds are either too quick to do by hand, or are stupid long giving no advantage in low light.
Personally I use delta 3200 as a day time street photography film on my Ricoh GR1. Turn aperture priority to F/8, use snap focus mode and never miss a shot. Just don't expect much when shooting indoors at that aperture.
Best description of “grain” I ever heard
I just shot a 120 roll of Delta indoors at a gallery opening, rated at 1600. This was in the daytime mind you so I think 3200 comes out better in interior locations where you can't use a tripod and you have some window light.
Also, I'm based in Victoria and lived in Vancouver for years. Cheers from Vancouver Island.
i picked some of this up today with a plan to shoot a gig. maybe i’ll use flash and that direct lighting will help it? very moody images you got. did you take any in daylight?
I didn't take any in daylight unfortunately! I wish I had- it was December so daylight was somewhat hard to come by lol. I think this could be pretty sweet with flash, especially at a lower setting. Might take some heavy lifting in post but you could get really unique shots that way I think
I'm not a fan of the Delta 3200 or TMax P3200; they're too soft and graining at the box speed. I found that both works best shot at ASA-1600 and are developed by a fine-grain developer like Ilford Microphen or Xtol. Although your images have a certain look and feel that suit the mood.
I'll have to try the T max to compare but I sense I will have similar feelings about it!
I once shot one roll of 35 mm Delta 3200 downtown at night and I have the same comments as you, my photos look underexposed although the exposure was right. The film does not pick the dimmed light and when it's underexposed it's way too grainy. So it was done for me for the Delta 3200 until, one day, in an act of "I do not know what crossed my mind" I bought Delta 3200 BUT in 120 format .... much better. I did not try it at night, but in low light, the Delta 3200 in 120 format, the grain is less obvious. So 35 mm never, 120 sometime.
Ohhhhh that makes a lot of sense- I should have mentioned in the video that I only tried 35mm because of course the 120 would be less grainy. I'll put that on my list to try in the future!!
The mystery, darkness, grain and bloom of the Ilford 3200 somehow just makes it the best film for me. Any recommendations for similar color films?
Cinestill will give you the bloom, idk about grain maybe you could push the 800t a couple of stops
Lomo 800 perhaps? I haven't found anything quite like Delta 3200. I'm a sucker for crushed blacks.
thanks for the great explanation. I was about to buy this film 😅well I guess it's gonna be TMAX 3200.
in 35mm its kinda shit for most people but its very good in 120. also the images look super low contrast compared to my 35mm delta 3200 shots, what developer did u use?
Good comments. It seems that everyone who shoots Delta 3600 for the first time hates it. Then you come back thinking that how could you sell bad film these days. So you learn how to shoot it or better said how to process it. If processed well and taken into a darkroom that film stock can be wonderfully nuanced and full of character. This film was developed in the late 1980’s so it is not ideal for scans. Maybe on day you will pick it up again and work to get the film stock to work for you. Then again it is definitely not a film stock for everyone. Good video. Thanks for sharing.
Like you, I shot a roll of Delta 3200 in 120 & 35MM with the same outcome as you describe. I was greatly disappointed. I'll stick to the old reliable: Kodak Tri-X Pan!
id love to see you shoot another roll knowing what you know now :)
I bought a roll of this entirely to keep on hand in case I was flying with film and wanted to have justification for asking tsa to handcheck all the rolls. Then I remembered the last time I flew was….2014? 😅 So I’ve been debating whether I want to try it just for fun, but so many reviews seem to reach the same conclusion of it being so-so at best.
I say try it!! Black and white film doesn't expire nearly as fast as colour film I think, so there's a good chance it is still perfectly fine to shoot!
I loved that you tested the film in various conditions, a lot of people Just take pictures in dark environments!
I'll try to give you something back for your video, to thank you.
I am currently following a course of nuclear and subnuclear Physics at Uni in Milan.
In the study of collisions, we often make use of a very important physical quantity: the cross section. Its dimensions are [metres^2] and it can be thought as an efficient area in the proximity of a target, an area where a shot particle interacts, with some probability, with the target.
A very simple situation would be to shoot point-like darts at a circle (area a = cross section) on a sheet of paper (area A), and you can define the probability of the interaction (i.e. hitting the circle in this case) as the ratio a/A. As you can see, the bigger the circle, the higher the probability.
Bye!
Ah yeah! That makes a lot of sense! For some reason I had been conceptualizing the chemical reaction between light and silver as being particles in a solution- where the reaction would be catalyzed by surface area- rather than as particles being bombarded by other particles. Makes a lot more sense now that I understand it haha.
@@YvonneHansonPhotography i am very happy!
Opinions on the film aside, I really liked all the photos and enjoyed the grainy blurriness
nice review, very helpful in the rating at ISO 800 idea.
Im a huge fan of the results to be fair
That’s my impression as well. I am going to push rather than shoot 3200 from now on. Good video.
Thanks for watching! Good luck with your roll!
if it means anything its obvious through these shots you're a great photographer, even with the limitations of the "3200" ISO. i bought some on a whim earlier today and I'm curious how it'll do shooting concerts. definitely won't be shooting it at 3200 though lol.
Thank you for the flattery! Haha, I actually rewatched the video to see if I had misjudged my photos initially. Good luck shooting concerts with this, I bet it will produce some good results with the stage lights directly illuminating the performers!
Too bad you didn’t do a little research before you used the roll. You might have shot it at 1000 (and not at 3200 as you mention) and the night photos would have come out more to your liking. I think they look great believe it or not! It is a specialty film and used for special situations. You photos look! Maybe over the months since you filmed this video you feel differently about this film. All the best!
Thanks for the tips, got a roll of 120 from analog-friend recently, gonna expose it for 1600 I think. I quite like testing ISO films, so far I quite enjoy Double X and Bergger @800 or 1600, PTmax on the other hand turned out to be a huge disappointment.
Could it be that your metering (in the streets) was wrong. If you use spot metering, the film will focus it's strength in giving short dynamic range.
In my experience the metering shouldn't be done on the brightest spot of the scene.
I may be wrong but that's the feeling i get from some of your shots.
It's the only film that will work in a Polaroid swinger...
Similar experience with me. I still have one roll left and will try it on 800
I hope it works out better at 800! I saw some folks online who got great results at that speed
These photos look indeed underexposed. I remember shooting with 1600 ASA Fuji colour negative film ~1988 at night in the city and the film captured motives like the building with the illuminated contours perfectly well, only limited by the strong grain. Already on a 6 x 4 inch print the grain was extreme. The only "artistically feasible" use would've been making the grain part of the work. I remember seeing prints that tried to achieve a linoleum cut or Aquatinta print quality with interesting results.
thank you
I shot TMAX 3200 a couple of times in broad daylight. Once at a baseball game, the other in Crimea (back when it was in Ukraine). I feel this grainy film actually did waaaaaay better than in night/street light. I shot at like f16 and got quite a bit of detail (during daylight).
Thats good to know!I feel like at some point in the near future I want to pick up another roll and test this out!
Nice video. We appreciate your honesty. What lens were you using? Did you develop the negatives or did you send them somewhere?
I sent them to "The Lab"- a local development place that is known to be the best in town. I just recently started using them and so far I've gotten good results back. I shot this set with a 50mm 1.8 on my Nikon F801s.
probably said to death in this comments section but it is a lot better in medium format, and a lot better indoors as opposed to at night.
ive shot one roll of d3200 in 35mm and was also thoroughly disappointed
I don't get it? other reviewers liked the film and suggested using it at ISO 1000. They don't rubbish it.
😂😂 really good intro !! best few sec since a long time
hahahaha thank you- I noticed my viewer retention takes a dip when I do my whole spiel so I cut to the chase this time lol
@@YvonneHansonPhotography your doing right 😂 it does suck tho ive done one roll and it was waaaaay to grainy so then i thaught maybe try the p3200 ilford and i didn't understood my minolta x700 completly at the time so instead of shooting it at box speed i shoot it 2 stops overexposed so it was also too grainy and idk what to do now 😂 (excuse my english im french and rly tired its almost 3am here)
@@timothe5198 I want to try the P3200 next! Stay tuned for another video...someday some time when film isn't $20 per roll lol
Great review. I feel the same way about this film. I've had better luck with Kodak's 3200 film or just pushing Tri-X or TMax.
BUT Cinestill 800T is like 30 USD a roll here...
That film has some pretty serious grain as to be expected.
Reciprocity failure a factor?
They've told me pushing it DOWN to 800 is... "desirable"
A title of the video is sort of misleading: it should be what you learned from shooting one roll of film stock. The question is: is one roll is enough to be so critical of this film? You shoot the whole roll certain way so you don't learn from each 36 images separately unless you expose the same scene several times differently and take notes. I think some of the comments point to the reasons why your exposures were disappointing, You can't expect details in the shadows without metering for the shadows, it would work in digital much better
Not really since it says 36 exposers on the box.🤷🏻
I shoot Delta 3200 and Kodak P3200 at 800-1000. That is pretty much what this film is - the P in P3200 means it can be Pushed to 3200. Ilford HP5, Kentmere 400 behaves better shot at 800 than Delta 3200 and P3200 do. It's almost like these '3200' films are just a marketing gimmick... p.s. I'd never buy a 3200 film, I was gifted them. (which was very nice)
Marketing gimmick sounds right to me! Next time I shoot it, I'll do it at 800 and hopefully get some.better results!
Yeah, it's actually both a 1000 iso and the worst Ilford film. Tmax 3200 is better, but I prefer the look of Tmax 400 pushed 3 stops : clean blacks, sometimes less grain than a trix/Hp5 and a interesting natural contrast. But that leaves you with a very tiny margin for error, like a slide film, and you'll have to test different dev times to get what fit your styles. Challenging but worths it.
Iluminati!
These turned out really well. I mean our and film’s mistakes are actually an art unto themselves. You shot some amazing shots… film is film and has a mind of its own.
thank you, that's nice to hear! I'll probably try this one again someday.
She shot one roll of this film and came to teach us. Laughable!
Yup! It's the name of the series!
i always found the grain ugly as sin ever since it came out i prefer digital noise over this film their other films are fine but i would push fuji neopan 1600 sadly no longer available or kodak Tmax 3200 or 400 pushed and triX and kodak 800 iso pushed for colour
I don't like Ilford 3200 either. It looks like a 50 year old roll of badly stored Tri-X. It is better to push a brand-name 400iso film to 1600. Better still to push the 400 iso film using an Acufine type developer.
I literally just developed a roll of this film for the first time and thought damn this came out way too dark. Turns out my in camera meter was reading inaccurate on top of the poor low light performance so I have 36 well composed grainy virtually unintelligibly dark pics. I'm gonna try at 2000 iso and and over expose and see how that goes. Bummer I had high hopes for this film
Nooo thats too bad! I can imagine that shooting this even a touch underexposed would pretty much ruin a good chunk of the roll. There were a few shots that I thought "thats probably not enough light but I can fix it a bit in post" but there was no saving it in post, anything dark was just....a snowy mist when lightened up. Good luck on your next roll, I hope you get some fun results!
I developed a 2nd roll shot at 2000-1000 iso and got actually properly exposed results and it’s just ok. Very grainy though and I think I’d rather just shoot CineStill800T.
Your explanation of how grain size relates to sensitivity was the first time it clicked for me after a year of not really getting it
@@aaronlabarre501 I'm glad you got some useable results! Worth trying twice then I guess!
Subscribed. I automatically disregard any reviewer who recommend the Ilford 3200. It just suck. I would rather shoot with my car's dash cam than with this film.
Hahahahaha I like that you tell it like it is!