Ilford Delta 3200

[Irminsul]

I recently "inherited" 3 rolls (36 exp. ea.) of the title negative. I like to shoot B&W, but I wouldn't know what to do with that high an ISO number. I didn't know there was anything much higher than 1600 ISO. I guess I may end up selling it soon, but... Is it worth a try, or is this high ISO number designed to be used only for specialized or particularly creative purposes? :?:

[Ads]

[Luke_H]

You can pull it to 1600 or even 800iso if you choose.

I had this problem in that my Yashica cameras are aperture priority and the ISO setting only goes to 1000iso. But on a manual camera, you can meter for 800 or 1600 iso and bump the aperture up the necessary stops to compensate.

[Orgnoi1]

Or you could shoot it an try it out... it works good for evil looking night or early morning shots... I can post up a pic or two if you like...

[ksmattfish]

Read up on it at the Ilford website. You'll find that it's true speed is closer to ISO 800 to 1000 depending on the developer used. It has been designed to be pushed a couple of stops, but you will get better shadow detail, and less grain shooting it at slower ISOs.

[Irminsul]

Or you could shoot it an try it out... it works good for evil looking night or early morning shots... I can post up a pic or two if you like...

Ahh, "evil looking night" shots. I'll try that: some film noir atmospheric night photography. Thanks all for the advice. I guess I should push a few of the shots to 800 or thereabouts just to see what happens.

[fightheheathens]

its great film. I've shot it at 3200 a few times. I mean where else can you shoot in low light through a 200mm 5.6 zoom with shutter speeds of 1/500 and f-16?

this is what it looks like

[ksmattfish]

I guess I should push a few of the shots to 800 or thereabouts just to see what happens.

If you shoot it at ISO 800 it's not a push. At ISO 1600 is a one stop push, and ISO 3200 is a 2 stop push.

A push is when you increase development time to compensate for intentional underexposure.

A pull is when you decrease development time to compensate for intentional overexposure.

The confusion here is that Ilford and Kodak insist on labeling their ISO 800 tabular grain films as ISO 3200, but read the fine print, they are really ISO 800 to 1000.

[Orgnoi1]

The picture is slightly large so heres a link to just a morning playing around with the 35mm while waiting on my film place to open..

http://www.northeastfoto.com/gallery...2-R3200-02.jpg

[Irminsul]

The confusion here is that Ilford and Kodak insist on labeling their ISO 800 tabular grain films as ISO 3200, but read the fine print, they are really ISO 800 to 1000.

Thanks, I see now. Now it doesnt feel that if I shoot Ilford 3200 the image is going to look like swiss cheese with all that grain. And thank you for the photo samples, orgnoi1 and fightheheathens, they are great.

[Irminsul]

The picture is slightly large so heres a link to just a morning playing around with the 35mm while waiting on my film place to open..

http://www.northeastfoto.com/gallery...2-R3200-02.jpg

Orgnoi1, that's beautiful photography. What an impressively moody shot, dreamlike even. Thanks.

[Orgnoi1]

Welcome... and thanks for the compliment... you should see what 3200 Delta does on medium format...

[Don Simon]

I was fairly confused when I first heard about ISO 3200 not being ISO 3200, but I just shot it at 3200, followed the developer's instructions for developing as such, and loved the results. Loss of detail is a fair price to pay for capturing an image that would otherwise be highly difficult or impossible in available light, and as you noticed the grain can be very effective at creating a sense of mood - film grain from ISO 3200 is definitely a lot more aesthetically pleasing than poorly controlled digital noise from the equivalent.

[Irminsul]

[...] and as you noticed the grain can be very effective at creating a sense of mood - film grain from ISO 3200 is definitely a lot more aesthetically pleasing than poorly controlled digital noise from the equivalent.

This is so very true and is the essence of the issue in this thread, I think. Aside from from other digital/film issues, there is no question in my mind that I would in almost any case prefer film grain to digital noise, precisely for the reason that you pointed out.

[LWW]

I have shot both but I prefer Kodak. Both are awesome for night shots, astrophotography, blues/jazz clubs, street photography, artistic grain, etcetera.

LWW