ISO 3200 film in an OM2?

[White Rose]

I've recently returned to film after a long absence. The aim is to have some fun with B&W and do some home developing and printing. I'd like to experiment with some available light shots inside the house so I'm looking for the fastest film I can get my hands on. Delta 3200 looks promising but the OM2 only goes up to iso1600. I've thought about putting in a 3200 film, selecting 1600 on the camera and then dialling in -1ev exposure comp. In theory that should work. In practice though, am I missing something? Any advice gratefully received.

 

[donut]

nope that would work ,,,but i think you'd have plenty of speed with an iso 1600 ,,ive got iso 400 in mine at the moment and it gives me f 2.8 and a 60th of a sec ,so unless you have a really dark interior i dont think you need 3200.

 

[Knikki]

I think that Delta actually works better when it is rated at from what I have tried and people on the interwibble say.

 

[Rolleikin]

Ilford Delta 3200 is actually about 1000 ISO 3200 is an EI recommendation based on what Ilford call "practical speed"

http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2008/02/ilford-delta-3200.html

I love Delta especially as it's available in 120, I have shot it a EI 25,000 and it gives great results.
Here it is at 6400 in Rodinal.

Taken on Medium format Fuji 6x7

 

[alistair.o]

Try Kodak Tri-X 400 shot 3200 and develop pushed. It is amazingly grainless and has a beautiful, 'lazy' 1940/50's look.

Here are some samples http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97642

Hope this helps

Al

 

[s162216]

Ilford Delta 3200 is actually about 1000 ISO 3200 is an EI recommendation based on what Ilford call "practical speed"

But if shot at ISO 1000 you must tell the lab as its DX coded for 3200 and designed to be push developed as standard.

 

[Rolleikin]

But if shot at ISO 1000 you must tell the lab as its DX coded for 3200 and designed to be push developed as standard.

You misunderstand. Ilford Delta 3200 is a film with an ISO of 1000 (according to Ilford)
I'm not advocating setting your meter to 1000 (although this will give you the best shadow detail if processed correctly) rather set it to 3200.

Ilford have given this film a very long shoulder (low contrast) in order that those who wish to push can do so without blocking the highlights.

The film is nominally rated at EI3200 to give the best pictorial results, although its actual tested ISO rating is lower.
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201071394723115.pdf
Quote:
DELTA 3200 Professional has an ISO speed rating of ISO 1000/31º (1000ASA, 31DIN) to daylight. The ISO speed rating was measured using ILFORD ID-11 developer at 20°C/68ºF with intermittent agitation in a spiral tank.
filters.
It should be noted that the exposure index (EI) range recommended for DELTA 3200 Professional is based on a practical evaluation of film speed and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO standard.

Hope that clears up my point for you.

 

[donut]

But if shot at ISO 1000 you must tell the lab as its DX coded for 3200 and designed to be push developed as standard.

this is still right though ,,if you shoot it at iso 1000 the developement time will be different to shooting it at iso3200

 

[Rolleikin]

this is still right though ,,if you shoot it at iso 1000 the developement time will be different to shooting it at iso3200

Yes it is correct, but it's NOT what is being suggested in this thread.

Possibly I'm not explaining this well.
The OP has a camera that only goes to 1600, he/she needs to under expose by one stop and devlop normally.

What I'm suggesting though is Delta has a nominal ISO rating of 1000. Ilford correctly state this film has an EI of 3200 as the target gamma of the output and developer times are stated to reflect that.

What Delta has though is a curve type that allows for pushing, it will look good pushed, it doesn't look so good at say 400-800EI (pull).
For that TMax 400 would be a better choice.

Phew:bang:

 

[donut]

your still not explaining yourself very well Mark
first of all it was you that brought up the fact that delta 3200 is nearer iso 1000 fine no problem then you said you were not advocating setting the meter to iso 1000 ,,,so why bring it up in the first place ?
all that Sasmual said was if it is used at iso 1000 and sent off for developing then they need to know what iso it weas exposed at ,,,which is correct
so now you can tell us what is being suggested in this thread ,because i thought the thread started with a question about how to expose an iso 3200 film in a camera that only metered up to 1600

 

[donut]

phew :bang:

 

[Rolleikin]

your still not explaining yourself very well Mark
first of all it was you that brought up the fact that delta 3200 is nearer iso 1000 fine no problem then you said you were not advocating setting the meter to iso 1000 ,,,so why bring it up in the first place ?
all that Sasmual said was if it is used at iso 1000 and sent off for developing then they need to know what iso it weas exposed at ,,,which is correct
so now you can tell us what is being suggested in this thread ,because i thought the thread started with a question about how to expose an iso 3200 film in a camera that only metered up to 1600

No that's wrong.

What I am stating was in reply to knikis post where it was stated that Delta is better a rated speed.

You seem incapable of clear thought on this one, and possibly you don't understand the kinetics of film development so please read the links I posted from Ilford.

But here it is simply for you.

The OP has a camera that only goes to 1600 therefore he needs to compensate -1 or underexpose the metered reading by one stop- he can do this easily.

Ilford Delta IS a 1000 ISO film that Ilford intentionally rate at what we call an exposure index (EI) of 3200 for pictorial reasons, it is not essentially a 3200 film.

In other words it has a flat curve that is best served by underexposing and over development giving a more 'S' type curve for easy printing on photo paper.

It is important to understand this characteristic of Delta 3200, if you don't you'll get sub optimal results-I'm presuming that the OP understands the concept of a push type film and will be processing it themselves so the lab comments don't apply as neither does the DX comment as the OM2 has no DX system.

Mkay?
:bang::bonk:

 

[donut]

so when you were replying to knikis post why didnt you say who you was replying to instead of putting a qote from s221622 and telling him he misunderstood
and could you point out what part of post ten is wrong please
and i dont believe ive said anywhere that delta 3200 is better rated at 3200 or 1000
all ive said is that if the op wants to set his camera to iso 1600 and then under expose by one stop ,its the same ( as he thought ) as exposing it at 3200
and if delta 3200 is exposed at 1000 it needs a different developement time

 

[Knikki]

SORRY my fault :nuts:

I run multiple virtual machines from my host machine, this is the one I surf internet and write into forums, because of this I had not noticed that Num Locks was off when moving from one machine to the other.

So back to my original post I meant to say "works better when it is rated at ISO1600 from...."

And as usual I did not read back what I had written before hitting the Post button. :bang:

 

[Rolleikin]

so when you were replying to knikis post why didnt you say who you was replying to instead of putting a qote from s221622 and telling him he misunderstood
and could you point out what part of post ten is wrong please
and i dont believe ive said anywhere that delta 3200 is better rated at 3200 or 1000
all ive said is that if the op wants to set his camera to iso 1600 and then under expose by one stop ,its the same ( as he thought ) as exposing it at 3200
and if delta 3200 is exposed at 1000 it needs a different developement time

I told him he misunderstood because.....he did.
He said if you rate it at 1000 you need to tell the Lab-no where did I say rate it a 1000!!!! I'm suggesting the opposite (hence my links!!!!)

I think you have SEVERE comprehension problems a poor attitude to boot.:bang:

I repeat no where have I advocated exposing at 1000!!!!

 

[donut]

I told him he misunderstood because.....he did.
He said if you rate it at 1000 you need to tell the Lab-no where did I say rate it a 1000!!!! I'm suggesting the opposite (hence my links!!!!)

I think you have SEVERE comprehension problems a poor attitude to boot.:bang:

I repeat no where have I advocated exposing at 1000!!!!

sorry what post did i say you said rate it at 1000 ??dont think i did
and he is correct ,,if you rate it at iso1000 the developer needs to know ,,,because as i said in an earlier post the developement time is different

note when i use the term developer above , i dont mean the id 11 or the microphen needs to know but the person who developes the film

 

[s162216]

Ilford Delta 3200 is actually about 1000 ISO 3200 is an EI recommendation based on what Ilford call "practical speed"

The above quote is the reason for what I said in my post, if you choose to shoot it at 1000, you need to tell the lab as when processed then it will automatically assume its at 3200 as thats what the barcode and DX code say for that sort of film.

 

[donut]

:bang:

 

[donut]

not your fault at all Nick ,,it has nothing to do with if it works better at 1600 or 3200 ,,
the question was ,can i use an iso 3200 rated film in a camera that only meters to 1600 ??i believe it was answered in post two
whether delta3200 is really a 3200 or a 1000 is neither here nor there ( in fact it was designed to be used at iso 3200 )
and the fact is , if a film is rated at something other than its marked iso , it will need a different developing time

 

[swanseamale47]

To avoid any confusion. Yes set the camera to 1600 iso and under expose by one stop.

 

[Knikki]

not your fault at all Nick ,,it has nothing to do with if it works better at 1600 or 3200 ,,
the question was ,can i use an iso 3200 rated film in a camera that only meters to 1600 ??i believe it was answered in post two

HMM I am lost now but I would say, yes, you can use the film if your camera only meter up to 1600.

whether delta3200 is really a 3200 or a 1000 is neither here nor there ( in fact it was designed to be used at iso 3200 )
and the fact is

Fair point but then it is down to personal preference, what you want to use the film for, if you want a specific effect etc etc

if a film is rated at something other than its marked iso , it will need a different developing time

Yep I agree with that as I often use films rated at different ISO (usually lower) and then adjust my development time, accordingly. I suppose if you were to send it to a lab then they to would need to know so they could adjust there development times.

However You could always shoot at 1600 then develop it for the same time as you would a 3200 film which kind of gives it a nice grain effect

Ilford Delta 3200 shot at 1600 and deved in ID11 as if it was a 3200 film, all times from the Ilford Data Sheet for the film

 

[White Rose]

Thanks to everyone for the advice and the alternate film recommendations. Fun and a bit of experimentation are the object of the excercise so I'll definitely be giving it a go.

Cheers

Richard

 

[zeugma]

Have fun with Delta 3200, enjoy.
Q. Will you have to compensate for a hot climate? East Ang-u-lar being abroad and all that ;-) With apologies to Jade Goody.