Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Monochrome Work > Monochrome Film

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 27th March 2010, 05:46 PM
outremer's Avatar
outremer outremer is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Belfast
Posts: 76
Default Delta 3200 samples

OK here are my sample images. You should also note that my scans tend to make the grain look slighty worse than it actually is.

Full image: D3200 @ iso 3200. Dev DDX 9.5min @ 20C normal agitation
http://www.paulmorrow.co.uk/FADU/msmorans_full.jpg

100% section of same image
http://www.paulmorrow.co.uk/FADU/msmorans_100.jpg

Full image: D3200 @ iso 1600. Dev DDX 10min @ 20C partial stand
http://www.paulmorrow.co.uk/FADU/tavoli_full.jpg

100% section of same image
http://www.paulmorrow.co.uk/FADU/tavoli_100.jpg

Both images have the same dimensions and are like for like. Scanned from prints. Ilford MG RC. Split graded 2/5.

The image produced from the partial stand method was far easier to print, had a better range of tones and detail which I thought not bad for handheld shots at 1/60th sec.

After reading Les' reply to my question I assumed that the better grain was down to using D3200 closer to its actual iso which on research seems to be agreed at around 1250 iso. The lesser agitation and slight longer dev time of 10min (normally 8min for 1600) seems to stop the grain going native again.

I have repeated the technique on a film yesterday and the negs look consistant with my previous results. I may try again with D3200 @ 1600 iso and dev normally to see what the difference is next time.

Hope this helps.
__________________
Paul Morrow

Down to one Nikon FG and two fixed lenses.

Last edited by outremer; 27th March 2010 at 05:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 27th March 2010, 06:08 PM
Miha's Avatar
Miha Miha is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 1,508
Default

Paul, you've shown us some really great snaps! Who cares how the grain looks like at 100% when your photos speak louder... Good on you!

Miha
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 27th March 2010, 07:51 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,969
Default

Thanks Paul. Both images look quite good at full neg but I agree the 1600 partial stand dev method has the edge in terms of grain but it seems an edge rather than chalk and cheese.

I always think that key to this question of grain is what the section represents in terms of a full neg print size. If it is say the equivalent of 20x24 full neg then grain no matter what the method will show.

In grain terms I wonder how much different the two actual prints of the full neg would be at say 8x10, 9.5 x 12 or 11x14? If my prints were usually 8x10 which they are or even smaller and shooting at 3200 didn't look a lot different from 1600 then I'd have no hesitation in going for 3200 every time conditions demanded it.

My only experience of 120 at 3200 was with my Agfa Isolette and then blowing up the print to get an 8x10 which full neg would have been maybe 12 x16 or more. The print looked more like the 1600 neg scan and that was ID11 which is in my opinion more grainy than DDX.

Full neg at 8x10 with a 120 film even in ID11 would not have had obtrusive grain

I must try the full neg print again at 8x10 just to see what the grain is like.


Mike
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 27th March 2010, 07:57 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

making judgements about this sort of thing from a screen image is perilous. You only have around 96 ppi on screen which stretches everything out and exagerates grain very badly. I'd guess if the 1600 ddx neg were printed you would barely see any grain. Sure it wouldn't be as smooth as a 100 speed film but I think you might describe it as coarse as opposed to grainy. Its a look some people favour.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 27th March 2010, 08:08 PM
outremer's Avatar
outremer outremer is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Belfast
Posts: 76
Default

As I said the scans tend to over cook the grain factor. In terms of what I see in front of me as 12x12 prints from full 120 neg then the 1600 iso stand dev print wins hands down, no question about it at all. What I have reproduced are 8x8 proofs.
__________________
Paul Morrow

Down to one Nikon FG and two fixed lenses.

Last edited by outremer; 27th March 2010 at 08:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 27th March 2010, 08:49 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outremer View Post
As I said the scans tend to over cook the grain factor. In terms of what I see in front of me as 12x12 prints from full 120 neg then the 1600 iso stand dev print wins hands down, no question about it at all. What I have reproduced are 8x8 proofs.
Virtually everywhere I have read about d3200 and ddx says it works best upto 1600 speed.
My own tests indicate that at 1600 you get 4 stops below metered and around 4.5 stops above metered. But my dev times were 15mins @ 20degC so I guess your negs must be softer than mine giving you maybe 5 or 6 stops above metered unless you are using higher strength than 1+4.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 27th March 2010, 11:13 PM
outremer's Avatar
outremer outremer is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Belfast
Posts: 76
Default

I use DDX at 1+4 all the time so I guess you're probably right. The use of DDX was primarily due to Ilford recommending it for all its Delta films and I was obviously happy with the D400/DDX combo so D3200 had to get a try out in the camera as well. Prior to 120 use I used HP5 in 35mm format with HC-110 and was alway happy with the results. Obviously when moving to 120 I wanted to eek out as much quality as possible so D3200 unfortunately seemed a disappointment. I think the partial standing dev method makes it more useable but if there is was an alternative to use for low light/handheld shots up to 1600 iso (and not fuji 1600) I would use it.

If anyone is recommending I'm all ears!
__________________
Paul Morrow

Down to one Nikon FG and two fixed lenses.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 27th March 2010, 11:46 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

Well I from my test with Perceptol I got 800 speed which isn't worth doing because delta 400 pushed to 800 would be better.
But I rekon you can get 1600 speed using STOCK perceptol. You will need to dev @ 24deg C for around 22mins as a starting point. You will only get 3 stops above and 3 stops below of useable scale so it will work for subject scale of 6 stops from black to white. Treat each zone as 0.6 of a stop. So zone 3 would ideally be 1 1/3 stop less than metered. The toe will be shortish. Stock perceptol gives a pretty straight curve with ilford films.
But if your subjects are more than 6 stops scale from black to white then something else is needed.
p.s. thats a guestimate based on the curves I have to hand. 30 secs initial agitation then 2 inversions every minute.

Last edited by Argentum; 27th March 2010 at 11:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 28th March 2010, 12:17 AM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,969
Default

Well I never thought my thread would be the catalyst for such an interesting thread.

D3200 I feel always stood out as one of the few films where Ilford times are way under what's needed which flies in the face of what people such as Barry Thornton say: Most films need more exposure but up to 20-30% less development.

Outremer's times make this point to a degree but percepts times does this in spades! The Ilford time for DDX at EI 1600 is 8 mins but percepts uses 15 mins.Nearly twice as much.

I must admit that I had followed what I think proved a good rule for D3200 which is: use the Ilford time for the next speed up and even then I think that a couple of more minutes is worth a try but I would have been wary of nearly doubling the time.

Now I am not so sure so here I go again. Percepts have you got any prints you can scan for viewing from D3200 at EI 1600 in DDX at 15 mins?

I have used stock Perceptol at 1600 at the Ilford 3200 time plus 2 mins so 20 mins and thought that another 2 mins might be called for next time but this is still only 22 mins and at 20 deg C not 24 degC.

However looking at this again 2 extra mins isn't a lot with a base time of 20 mins and for what it is worth, Outremer, I'd be tempted to try percepts 22 mins at 24 deg C.

Using Perceptol to get fine grain and still square the circle of getting 6 stops with this kind of fine grain is very tempting.

If I have understood the zone system, 6 stops still gives detail from zones 3 to zone 8. To cope with low light situations this seems quite a good trade off in terms of acceptable prints.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 28th March 2010, 12:55 AM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

Mike your 1600 speed 20 mins @ 20deg is what I got for 800 speed so you are about a stop out on my rekoning which would translate into you placing your shadows too low if using zone placement of zone 3. Would that be your experience?

I don't have prints as I have only done some film testing for speeds and development so far. But since I use densitometer and verify by printing zone patches I'm sure these times are good for me at least. YMMV
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Film agitation? outremer Ask Les 2 25th March 2010 10:07 PM
Perceptol Agitation Stoo Batchelor Monochrome Film 58 1st February 2010 09:21 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.