print Ilford Delta 3200


Status
Not open for further replies.

jpcc

New Member
Mar 29, 2004
172
0
0
:cry:
Asking for help here.

Photographed my friend's wedding dinner (I am in just for fun, not even the
backup photog) using Ilford Delta 3200.
Took it to Ruby for development and contact print.
Most photos are slightly under exposed but still quite ok (cuz I tried not
to use flash during that night. A great mistake..... :confused: ;( )
Anyway, Ruby boss had sugggested me to use paper grade to
get around with the underexposure.

I tried out my neighbourhood printing shop (a new guy using Noritsu)
for some 4R test prints. He told me it is using C41 (or digital printing?) but
with B&W results. He will adjust contrast in Noritsu.

However, the photos came out very grainy, blotchy and some suffered a loss
of detail (compared to contact print).

I understand that ASA3200 will be grainy but would it be better if we
go via traditional printing?

I am now thinking of trying out Konota (Fuji Frontier?).
Or are there any good B&W printing shops to recommend?
(Afraid I am not capable of printing it myself yet.....)
 

NashVillian

New Member
May 5, 2004
144
0
0
yes traditional printing would be better suited. Anyone correct me if i am wrong but i doubt C41 or digital prints can actually handle black and white emulsions corrected.
That is the reason for chromogenic film (eg CN), they are designed for the color workflow, to be printed on color paper.

Mr Lim ( the old bloke) from ruby probably is suggesting that u print with higher contrast.

Black and White shops? ....dunno, does ruby not do it?
 

J

jcryan55

Guest
Based on my experience, Ilford 3200 is already by itself a very grainy texture film. Ruby's agent uses D76 developer to do all the B&W film sent to them. The reason why D76 is used is becos it can be resued over and over again, but of course, cannot give u the desired result u may want la. The poor guy has a living to make and making yr film negative to produce artistic values is definitely not high on his agenda.

In such scenario, I normally process my own film with the developer from Ilford called Perceptol. it's a powder form developer and is well known for producing super fine grain or near no grainy for film.However, it's a one time use developer and the mixing ratio is 1:1 or stock so, quite high volume usage to develop per roll of film. Not a very common used developer in view of high costs per roll and the developing time is longer than normal other developers. But it works great if u want very fine grain structure for yr output.

Since it has been developed already, the developing part cannot help already. The other solution is to go to Konata, ask Mr Quck to scan the film at soft shadow setting at his Fuji machine. That may help save some shoots. Personal experience, this setting helps. Konata machine scan film at 4 different types of setting. This setting is good for rescuing underexposed B&W film, not C41, chromogenic film. Give it a try......Good luck.
 

kex

Senior Member
Oct 16, 2002
2,079
0
36
beebox
www.beebox.com.sg
i think the possibilities of getting nice prints will be a miracle.
Scanning of B&W film will not be able to extract all the 7 stops? of exposure latitude True B&W film offers,printout from such scan will mostly turn out with VERY grainy and blown out highlights.
Darkroom printing won't be able to help much,underexposure of such a fast speed film will surely gives grainy result.
IMO, it is Always better to overexpose abit for B&W.
In short, dun think of getting good prints from bad exposure.
 

tucker

Member
Jul 13, 2002
431
0
16
singapore
www.flickr.com
as mentioned by the rest that the grains are inevitable.
I guess ya're the best eye for the neg yaself, look @ it again closely and see if ya can actually see any details in the bright and dark regions. the shadow and the hightlights.
if there're, then I think ya might be able to save some shots granted the printer knows how to pull them back.


recalled that the agfa lab next to konota, (ran by the same pple) claims that her machine handles black and white very well,
but i'm a traditionalist. so i've never tried that before.... do let us know if ya've decided to give it a try then.
 

canturn

Senior Member
Sep 29, 2002
2,643
0
36
East, SG
www.lyricalmoments.com
kex said:
i think the possibilities of getting nice prints will be a miracle.
Scanning of B&W film will not be able to extract all the 7 stops? of exposure latitude True B&W film offers,printout from such scan will mostly turn out with VERY grainy and blown out highlights.
Darkroom printing won't be able to help much,underexposure of such a fast speed film will surely gives grainy result.
IMO, it is Always better to overexpose abit for B&W.
In short, dun think of getting good prints from bad exposure.
Agree that you need to overexpose Ilford 3200 of at least 1 stop. One thing I like about B&W is when in doubt, overexpose :)

For delta 3200 you need to underdevelop after overexposing it...else you get rather flat looking negs with muddy shadows. Personally, I still prefer Neopan 1600 over Delta 3200 if I need the speed. Nepan 1600 allows me to rate it at 2400 and gives me relatively fine grain when I develop it in Diafine.
 

jpcc

New Member
Mar 29, 2004
172
0
0
Thanks for all the suggestions.
I did try to scan it using soft shadow (as jcryan55 suggested) and the
Agfa shop lady beside Konota was good nature enough to print
two test shots (one normal and the other soft shadow) as sample.

The soft shadow print really has blown highlight and I think the underexposure
is too difficult to salvage.

Anyway, I am thinking of the last resort via wet traditional printing.

I have heard of KT, Fee Fee.

Pls help to recommend good printer to reduce the damage...
 

canturn

Senior Member
Sep 29, 2002
2,643
0
36
East, SG
www.lyricalmoments.com
jpcc said:
Pls help to recommend good printer to reduce the damage...
You can try for Sam (thru Ruby photo?) or Desmond Kwan....doubt the latter would do it for you tho, he inspects every negs before deciding whether he wants to do it for you :sweat:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.