# Developing times for Delta 3200?



## Don Simon (Jun 4, 2006)

Hi, I've just shot a couple of rolls of Delta 3200 and am about to develop them. I've read that high-speed films can't be developed properly with the same developer you'd use for slower films, is this true? I'm planning to use what appears to be generic developer. I'd run out of D76 so I bought some Fotospeed FD10, which was cheap but was the only developer the shop sold, and claims to be a "fine grain one shot film developer".

Anyway the developer lists suggested dilution ratios and development times for various films, one of which is Delta 3200. The problem is I've been informed that high-speed films are not actually high-speed films and have to be pushed to the speeds they claim to be (this is new to me). Now maybe I'm getting needlessly confused, but does that mean the time given for developing Delta 3200 is for when the film is rated at 3200, or for a lower speed? I metered for using 3200 iso film, so obviously would like to develop the film accordingly.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Alexandra (Jun 4, 2006)

I had a look at the instructions behind a bottle of Ilfosol S, which I usually use.
Here's what it says for Delta 3200:
10:30 minutes at 1+9

You might want to try this if you want to be sure everything goes fine.
I never heard of these pushing/different devs theories but the one about pushing sounds wierd to me. I'd just stick with the instructions in this case.


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 4, 2006)

Well the bit about pushing is because apparently a 3200 ISO film is not 3200 but at most 1000... so you have to push to 3200. Confuses the heck out of me; surely if that's the case nobody would buy high-speed films?

p.s. thanks for the times for Ilfosol; my developer suggests roughly the same time, 11 mins at the same dilution.


----------



## ThomThomsk (Jun 4, 2006)

The Massive Development Chart says 11 minutes at 1+9 or 14 minutes at 1+14. These are supposedly based on actual experience of people who contribute to that website, but of course your mileage may vary. Incidentally,  that website you linked to has a PDF of technical information which gives the same times, or 13 and 20 minutes for high contrast. 

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

Have you asked on APUG? This thread has some discussion of FD10:

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=27190&highlight=FD10


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 4, 2006)

Thanks for the links there. The Massive Dev Chart may be the most useful thing I've seen all week. That APUG thread has made me very happy indeed, according to them the Fotospeed dev is actually very good; I just bought it reluctantly because it was all the shop had.


----------



## Alexandra (Jun 4, 2006)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> Well the bit about pushing is because apparently a 3200 ISO film is not 3200 but at most 1000... so you have to push to 3200. Confuses the heck out of me; surely if that's the case nobody would buy high-speed films?
> 
> p.s. thanks for the times for Ilfosol; my developer suggests roughly the same time, 11 mins at the same dilution.


yeah, that's confusing... I'd understand that 3200 could be really 1000, but why the hell is there 1600 ISO, then? Or is it really 800? then is 800 really 400? Then can you just shoot 50 ISO and push it to whatever you like?
Something just doesn't work here. If I were you, I wouldn't give much importance to all that.
I'd just use a developer that comes with official and verified instructions for the specific film you're using.

Good luck with this


----------



## motcon (Jun 4, 2006)

the development times are based on the true speed of the film, NOT the box rating. that said, shooting it at 3200 and developing it for the box times will produce 'ok' negs. most shoot it at 1600, the closest to actual speed is 1200.


shooting at box speed for any film and developing it as per the dev chart will produce fine results. you _will_, however; notice significant differences if you were to find the true speeds for your process.


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 5, 2006)

Thanks for clearing that up, but I'm still having problems with this. Firstly, why do Kodak and Ilford market their high-speed films as being so far above their 'true' speed? That they can sell it for more money that way I understand, but don't most countries have laws against companies making untrue claims about their products? Yeah of course you can push it to 3200, but it doesn't say 3200p or p3200, it says 3200. And if most people shoot it at 1600, why on earth not sell it as 1600 iso film?

The next question would be, since they're selling it as 3200 film and some people actually want to shoot at 3200, why doesn't Ilford, the developer company or a third-party like the people at Massive Development Chart actually post/publish development times for that? Is a bunch of test strips really the only way? I'm surely not the first person to buy 3200 and try actually shooting it at 3200, so why does it seem to be some kind of big secret?


----------



## motcon (Jun 5, 2006)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> Firstly, why do Kodak and Ilford market their high-speed films as being so far above their 'true' speed?



it isn't arbitrary nor is it perfectly deliberate. there have been a number of agencies in the past that have attempted to provide some standard for how fast film reacts to light. films have a 'toe' and a 'heel' (amongst other characteristics) when plotted on a graph. what needs to be understood are the following:

1) iso (international organization for standardization) ratings are based on film response according to their data set
2) an iso rating is _meant_ as a standardized method to allow photographers to _estimate_ exposure
3) films and developers all vary within themselves
4) as mentioned in a previous post, personal true speed calculations are suggested
5) the film will behave and produce usable results with the box rating



			
				ZaphodB said:
			
		

> That they can sell it for more money that way I understand, but don't most countries have laws against companies making untrue claims about their products? Yeah of course you can push it to 3200, but it doesn't say 3200p or p3200, it says 3200. And if most people shoot it at 1600, why on earth not sell it as 1600 iso film?



the film manufacturers create the film, then apply the iso rating system to it. they don't create a film then apply a rating to it that they think will be marketed well. it would take two rolls for one photographer to figure out that game. the people that shoot it at 1600 are people that were once in your shoes; being smart enough to ask the question and having the willingness to change their further shooting methods. why not sell it as 1600? because it isn't 1600 according to the standards. nor is 1600 standard. some shoot at 1000, some at 1200, others at 1600, a lot at 3200. they all produce usable negs. my process is significantly different than yours, so my film rating will be different than yours and the box rating. this isn't a malicious marketing scheme devised by film companies.



			
				ZaphodB said:
			
		

> The next question would be, since they're selling it as 3200 film and some people actually want to shoot at 3200, why doesn't Ilford, the developer company or a third-party like the people at Massive Development Chart actually post/publish development times for that?



the massive dev chart is not a third party testing group. the massive dev chart is nothing but a repository for what is published in the market. they make no decisions about film speed or development times. 

the reason it isn't considered a push in the development process is because it develops with an acceptable d-max and d-min with the stated times. it is a guideline to produce usable results. that is the intent. for people that shoot differently, have different development practices, and use a selection of developers, well, that resource pool is here and elsewhere in the world. there is no way a company can be held accountable to account for the fact that sometimes i shoot for zone 7, sometimes for zone 3. sometimes the scenes are high contrast, sometimes they aren't. i like to use pmk pyro. my agitation method is inversion, not agitation. therefore, my true film speed varies just for me depending on my situation. i can't expect a company, nor anyone else for that matter, to tell me what i should do. that's my job.



			
				ZaphodB said:
			
		

> I'm surely not the first person to buy 3200 and try actually shooting it at 3200, so why does it seem to be some kind of big secret?



no, you aren't and there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy shooting it at 3200 and will continue to do so. it's not a secret. it's all about learning a particular film. you may be one of the people that decide it isn't worth the effort and continue to shoot at 3200. you may decide that you want to determine the speed that works for you. the only mystery here is how you want to proceed. it's not a corporate conspiracy.


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 5, 2006)

motcon said:
			
		

> i can't expect a company, nor anyone else for that matter, to tell me what i should do. that's my job.


 
I appreciate that, but it's not my job (in the literal sense), it's my hobby, and I can't really afford to keep buying rolls of high-speed film until I find the right method. Ilford is a big company with a very large consumer base that no doubt provides useful feedback; it's not really too much to ask that they provide some suggestion (not telling me what to do, just suggesting) as to how to use a film that says 3200 on the box as a 3200 film. Obviously there are various methods, but some must be more common than others, so they could surely use them as a guide. Don't get me wrong, I ignore the manual when setting up my new DVD just like everyone else, but would find it odd if there was no manual there. I'm all for independence and self-sufficiency and all that, I'm not suggesting we should follow the company's orders when developing, I'm simply saying it would be nice of them to give me a clue as to how to use their product for the purpose I believed it was designed for (a film that I can shoot at 3200).



			
				motcon said:
			
		

> it's not a corporate conspiracy.


 
I realise that, which is why I was bringing up those points to question what had already been said regarding the box rating of films and their actual speed. The company obviously can't lie, nor do they have any reason to. The company isn't doing anything malicious. But it now looks to me like what they are doing is making an assumption, which is that anyone buying this film already understands that the film they are buying, when used as a 3200 film, will only produce 'ok' negatives. When I buy slow films and develop them at around the suggested times my negatives are not simply ok or useable, so when that is the case with high-speed films I would appreciate the company letting me know that.

It seems to be a case of the more I learn the less I understand. Thankyou for your help, I'm grateful that there are people like you who are patient and willing enough to try explaining this stuff... my complaint is that Ilford haven't tried explaining it already; they just assume I know it.


----------



## motcon (Jun 5, 2006)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> I appreciate that, but it's not my job (in the literal sense), it's my hobby,


a better word is 'responsibility'. the 3200 iso works just fine when developed at the published times for given developers. you can continue to shoot it at 3200 and never have a problem. for the record, well before photography became a job of mine, it was a hobby. even as such, i took the time to figure out what worked best for me. after all, what good is a hobby if it's something that i don't understand?



			
				ZaphodB said:
			
		

> and I can't really afford to keep buying rolls of high-speed film until I find the right method.



the easiest method takes only 3 frames of a single roll of film that you are shooting. shoot 33 frames at 3200. the last 3 frames are to be of the same subject and consistent lighting conditions. shoot a frame at 3200. shoot the last two frames at 1600 and 1000 respectively. find the one that you like. done. (very simplified, but at the end of the day, that's really all it takes).



			
				ZaphodB said:
			
		

> I'm simply saying it would be nice of them to give me a clue as to how to use their product for the purpose I believed it was designed for (a film that I can shoot at 3200).



the iso publishes standards. ilford makes the film and applies those standards, then publishes times for development. it can be shot at the box rate of 3200 and developed to the spec sheets and everything will turn out just fine.



			
				ZaphodB said:
			
		

> ... but what they are doing is making an assumption, which is that anyone buying this film already understands that the film they are buying, when used as a 3200 film, will only produce 'ok' negatives.



'ok' means just that; they are fine. ok. usable. printable. for some, they prefer the 3200 rating. the film reacts differently to my style of shooting and the developer that i use, so i adjust to produce 'ok' negs. 



			
				ZaphodB said:
			
		

> Thankyou for your help, I'm grateful that there are people like you who are patient and willing enough to try explaining this stuff... my complaint is that Ilford haven't tried explaining it already; they just assume I know it.



i'm happy to help where i can.

ilford has done everything that it needs to do. the iso board supplied a list of standards and ilford applied them to its films. shot at 3200 developed at the sheet times will work every time. if people desire to use it against the iso standard, that is on them; ilford is not responsible for what people decide to do with their products. this applies for all b/w film companies. 

not too long ago i had a conversation with a female photographer friend of mine. she wasn't doing it full time (nor do i), but she did/does do it professionally. she had been shooting her kodak tmax films for years at the box rate. we had a conversation about her style of shooting, her process, and the chemicals she likes. i suggested trying a few frames of the tmax 400 rated at 320. subtle differences, but she loved the result. for years she had been selling prints done at the box rating. why? because it works. 

hobby or something more, it's something that you've chosen to be a part of your life. you do what you want to do. shoot box rating all day every day; you won't be disappointed. 

it may be semantics, but i choose to categorize it differently. a 'pass the time' hobby and a 'persistent and evolving' hobby. if you are a 'pass the time' hobbyist, then shoot at 3200, develop as per spec sheet, and you'll never have a complaint. if you are a 'persistent and evolving' hobbyist, accept the fact that most things in life are mere guidelines. what defines our hobby is how we use our tools.

**edit**

here is a ss from the 7 page spec sheet on the ilford delta 3200:


----------



## ThomThomsk (Jun 5, 2006)

I've recently bought Way Beyond Monochrome by Ralph Albrecht and Chris Woodhouse, and I'm in the middle of the film speed testing chapters at the moment. 

With FP4+ I like the shadow detail that I get from a stop of overexposure, but I need to repeat my development tests to really pin down the N+ and N- times. From what I've read, if I bought a densitometer I'd get the information I need for all possible circumstances, but I'll be trying the simpler methods first.

I would be very interested to hear how you get on with the Delta 3200. If shooting at box speed is a stop or a stop and a half of underexposure then the shadows are going to be a bit dense, but hopefully still usable.


----------



## motcon (Jun 5, 2006)

ThomThomsk said:
			
		

> From what I've read, if I bought a densitometer I'd get the information I need for all possible circumstances



you would, yes. densitometers will not be 100% effective with some developers, however.


----------



## Rolleistef (Jun 5, 2006)

why are those films sold as 3200 wheras they are 1000 or so?
The reason for that is very simple. In order not to make people pay extras for film pushing, I think it's the main reason. That's all.


edited : good idea. ye shall not answer before reading the thread, saith the Lord upon thy head.


----------



## motcon (Jun 5, 2006)

Rolleistef said:
			
		

> why are those films sold as 3200 wheras they are 1000 or so?
> The reason for that is very simple. In order not to make people pay extras for film pushing, I think it's the main reason. That's all.




mmm no. take some time to read the posts in this thread.


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 5, 2006)

I think tbh my main problem here was just a misreading of what you meant by 'fine' and 'ok'. I'm definitely coming round to your way of seeing things now. I could say I don't have the time to test various different exposure/dev methods, but it's summer and I'm a student, so that would be a big fat lie :mrgreen:. Over the next few weeks I'll shoot some 3200 in various different conditions with different ratings and post some results.

Thanks again for all the help!


----------



## motcon (Jun 5, 2006)

let me know before you venture out to test; i'll be happy to supply you with some info that will help.

do you have spot or center weighted metering in your camera or off camera?


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 5, 2006)

Ah this is where it gets complicated... center-weighted with option of spot on my Pentax, and a whole multitude of different metering options on the Minolta, though where possible I tend to use a cheapish handheld meter to take incident readings, then compare that with what the camera says, and bracket. Thanks for the offer, I'll probably start next week (am waiting for a f/1.4 courtesy of JonK  ) and will let you know what I've got planned.


----------



## motcon (Jun 5, 2006)

just give me a day notice. you'll be using spot for a few frames. it's not tricky; i'll diagram everything for you.


----------



## ThomThomsk (Jun 6, 2006)

motcon said:
			
		

> you would, yes. densitometers will not be 100% effective with some developers, however.



As I understand it, using a densitometer you are testing the relative transmission density of the film, compared with film base + fog, for a range of different exposures and development times, for a given film and developer combination. So, what is the problem with some developers, and which ones are they?


----------



## motcon (Jun 6, 2006)

a densitometer won't work with films that have been developed in a staining developer. you will get readings, but they will not be accurate due to the stain.


----------

