Opinion on handheld Delta 3200 shot

Chaps,

I'm wondering if I am getting reasonable results with Delta 3200.
Understand that this may be hard to see from scans. I use it at mainly
social events for hand held (mainly snaps) when the light is low. A few
issues arise, nil shadow detail, very, very high grain and not very good
tonality combined with a less than sharp result. Now, some of this may be
my technique when shooting and perhaps my processing (hence rpd & rpe35mm).

Note, its generally for snaps for myself at social events - tripods are
_not_ a welcome suggestion, the photographs are just snaps of a usually
good evening.

Some shots are better or worse than others.

A link to an example shot:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941.JPG

This shot was taken using an ME Super with 50mm @ f1.7 and I think 1/60. I
set the camera to 1600 ISO. It was processed in stock ID11 for about 9:45.

A few details about the scan (rpd lynchmod forming):

I admit that the Epson 4990 scanner is not quite as sharp as a dedicated
film scanner but I think it is good enough that it is not the limiting
factor for the above image by a fair margin. I scanned in Vuescan and did
a fair bit of level adjusting to hide much of the grain. A non-adjusted
jpg produced by vuescan is at:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/200703052...unadjusted.jpg

This is a fairer representation of the neg, but I prefer the adjusted one -
the grain is much less intrusive.

The negs look rather thin. To my inexperienced eye they might have been
more dense (underprocessed?) and regarding my comments on shadow detail
more exposure might help, I assume.

I do wonder what traditional prints might look like, from past experience
not a million miles better and my printing is not my strong point.

Now camera shake may well have been an issue on this particular shot but it
is not clear that it dominates and that should not effect grain or shadow
(ish) detail.

The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with
Delta 3200? Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light?

Though I'm somewhat adverse (and may not be technically possible on certain
cameras) I'm wondering if a weak on camera flash (depending on
circumstances) might help improve things?

Any opinions gladly sought.

Pete




--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with
Delta 3200?

No, the quality is very poor. The problems are likely multi-facetted,
processing (negs look scratched and did not pull to 1600 iso?), exposure
(it's incorrect, see processing), softness (poor technique, out of focus,
try flash, adjust aperture down)

Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light?

No, this film can go to 6400 without a bother. I have even used it at 12500
with arguably better results than you're getting at 1600 iso.

This image http://www.esatclear.ie/~sublime/ilford3200.jpg
Nikon F80 & 85 f1.8D shot handheld at 1/60 f5.6 using Delta 3200 @ 3200 iso
using fill-in flash/AF/Matrix metering the scan is from a print using a
low-end Canon flatbed, the negative was developed by an Ilford lab using
ID11.

My subject is more static than yours and on perhaps a better lit stage with
flash, but nonetheless you should not have a speed problem with this film
even with your setup. I suggest you modify your technique and or setup, then
shoot 2 rolls of Delta 3200 @ 3200 iso on the same night under equal
conditions, process one yourself (using your current method) and send the
other to a good lab for process only (ask for details), compare the
condition of both negs, scan them both and see where you're going wrong.

Goodluck.

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...
Chaps,

I'm wondering if I am getting reasonable results with Delta 3200.
Understand that this may be hard to see from scans. I use it at mainly
social events for hand held (mainly snaps) when the light is low. A few
issues arise, nil shadow detail, very, very high grain and not very good
tonality combined with a less than sharp result. Now, some of this may be
my technique when shooting and perhaps my processing (hence rpd &
rpe35mm).

Note, its generally for snaps for myself at social events - tripods are
_not_ a welcome suggestion, the photographs are just snaps of a usually
good evening.

Some shots are better or worse than others.

A link to an example shot:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941.JPG

This shot was taken using an ME Super with 50mm @ f1.7 and I think 1/60.
I
set the camera to 1600 ISO. It was processed in stock ID11 for about
9:45.

A few details about the scan (rpd lynchmod forming):

I admit that the Epson 4990 scanner is not quite as sharp as a dedicated
film scanner but I think it is good enough that it is not the limiting
factor for the above image by a fair margin. I scanned in Vuescan and did
a fair bit of level adjusting to hide much of the grain. A non-adjusted
jpg produced by vuescan is at:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/200703052...unadjusted.jpg

This is a fairer representation of the neg, but I prefer the adjusted
one -
the grain is much less intrusive.

The negs look rather thin. To my inexperienced eye they might have been
more dense (underprocessed?) and regarding my comments on shadow detail
more exposure might help, I assume.

I do wonder what traditional prints might look like, from past experience
not a million miles better and my printing is not my strong point.

Now camera shake may well have been an issue on this particular shot but
it
is not clear that it dominates and that should not effect grain or shadow
(ish) detail.

The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with
Delta 3200? Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light?

Though I'm somewhat adverse (and may not be technically possible on
certain
cameras) I'm wondering if a weak on camera flash (depending on
circumstances) might help improve things?

Any opinions gladly sought.

Pete




--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Peter Chant" wrote

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/200703052...unadjusted.jpg

The scan is sharp enough, at least the dust and grain are
sharply imaged.

I seems you are focusing about 3-4 feet in front of the
subject. Looking at the floor in the lower right, and
assuming the scratches and dirt are on the floor and not
the neg, then the scratches closest to the photog are
sharp while the rest of the pic is fuzzy.

If all your pics are this way then the camera is out of
alignment. Either the focusing screen is bumped [though that
normally results in focusing past the subject] or the mirror
isn't coming fully down [more likely].


The negs look rather thin. To my inexperienced eye they might have been
more dense (underprocessed?) and regarding my comments on shadow detail
more exposure might help, I assume

It's stage lighting, there isn't any detail in the shadows
because there isn't any light shining into the shadows. The
tone of the shadows on the dancers' faces and arms look OK,
but that maybe just because the scan is too light overall and
I can't see if there is any detail in the faces shadows because
of the focus problem.

But I think you went a bit too far:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941.JPG

Try:
http://www.nolindan.com/UsenetStuff/PetesDancers.jpg
See if you can get this sort of tonality when scanning.

There seems to be zip in the face shadows, but that
may be the scan.

The best way to have less grain is to make a smaller
print but most of the grain seems to be in badly scanned
shadows.

The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with
Delta 3200?

No.

Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light?

No. It's the light there is and there's no changing it.
It's too little exposure that's the problem.

General advice: More exposure, less development, better
focus.

Stage lighting is terribly contrasty and you really need
to pull the film to N-2 or so. D-23 as a developer can
be a good choice here because it doesn't blow the highlights.

Most people see black shadows and push the development -
this only makes things horribly worse. Develop for the
highlights & expose for the shadows is still valid.

Though I'm somewhat adverse (and may not be technically possible on
certain cameras) I'm wondering if a weak on camera flash (depending on
circumstances) might help improve things?

It would fill in the shadows and help quite a bit. But it should
only fill the shadows if you want the same 'look'. If this is a
stage performance there may be a lot of bitching with a flash, but if
Aunt Clara is there taking picks with her P&S then flash away.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Joseph Kewfi wrote:

The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with
Delta 3200?

No, the quality is very poor. The problems are likely multi-facetted,
processing (negs look scratched and did not pull to 1600 iso?), exposure
(it's incorrect, see processing), softness (poor technique, out of focus,
try flash, adjust aperture down)


Certainly pulled to 1600, ID11, 9:45 (should be 9:30, so not quite 1600!).
Neg should have been too dense but was too thin!

Hmm. Processing wise unfortunately I tried to use a new spiral and the film
kept sticking. Ended up rewinding onto a old sprial that had been sprayed
with polish (a fix I tried a while back), it seems to work. BTW that was
long ago - if it were a problem as a contaminant I would have noticed it
with my normal stuff surely.

Note, I've not spotted the scan for dust, and I've had to up the contrast a
lot which really makes the dust stand out. (did use tinned air before
scanning but have mislaid my blower brush - not good).

Exposure wise I was using my ME Super here but I have had the same trouble
with a completely different camera so I don't think it was a metering
problem.

Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light?

No, this film can go to 6400 without a bother. I have even used it at
12500 with arguably better results than you're getting at 1600 iso.


Hmm, wonder why I always make a pigs ear of it. Yes, I've seen silly speeds
quoted but I clearly can't go anywhere near there.

This image http://www.esatclear.ie/~sublime/ilford3200.jpg
Nikon F80 & 85 f1.8D shot handheld at 1/60 f5.6 using Delta 3200 @ 3200
iso using fill-in flash/AF/Matrix metering the scan is from a print using
a low-end Canon flatbed, the negative was developed by an Ilford lab using
ID11.


I think, given the quality of my image the scanning method is irrelevant.
Use of flash and aperture are the biggest differences. Can see a couple of
problems if I want to use flash - it would completely overpower ambient
with the kit I have.

Perhaps as an exercise I should, ignoring your flash, estimate the EV
numbers and try some shots at the same EV - see what happens.

My subject is more static than yours and on perhaps a better lit stage
with
flash, but nonetheless you should not have a speed problem with this film
even with your setup. I suggest you modify your technique and or setup,
then shoot 2 rolls of Delta 3200 @ 3200 iso on the same night under equal
conditions, process one yourself (using your current method) and send the
other to a good lab for process only (ask for details), compare the
condition of both negs, scan them both and see where you're going wrong.


Seems a reasonable suggestion. Obviously I could do some of the test shots
in better light as well, just to make sure I was working too far in the
dark.


Goodluck.

Probably need it. I suspect my B&W development skills are not that great.
However, I can't see why I make such a mess of Delta 3200 when my other
stuff seems passable. I'd made up the ID11 the night before and use pretty
close the recommended time and was within 0.5deg of the correct
temperature.

I'm sure I've not noticed anything untoward pushing HP5 +1. So confused
over why I only have trouble with Delta 3200.


I'm wondering, if I can't crack it I might be better off shooting Provia 400
pushed by a lab. Actually awaiting some films taken at the same time on
Provia pushed +1. Those should be correctly exposed if nothing else (in
different cameras!).

Thanks,

Pete

Joseph Kewfi wrote:

The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with
Delta 3200?

No, the quality is very poor. The problems are likely multi-facetted,
processing (negs look scratched and did not pull to 1600 iso?), exposure
(it's incorrect, see processing), softness (poor technique, out of focus,
try flash, adjust aperture down)

Oh, BTW, if the scratches you can see are on the floor its because they are
on the floor, not on the neg!

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

The film performed adequately.

Camera shake, focus error and subject movement is what makes the images
soft.

Believe this - grainy images can be sharp, but everything has to be
right. I can post examples if you wish.

Just ask.

I have an Epson 4990 scanner. I like it, but for some reason it really
seems to magnify grain w/ 35mm negatives.

Try Delta 3200 with Xtol.



I'm wondering if I am getting reasonable results with Delta 3200.
Understand that this may be hard to see from scans. I use it at mainly
social events for hand held (mainly snaps) when the light is low. A few
issues arise, nil shadow detail, very, very high grain and not very good
tonality combined with a less than sharp result. Now, some of this may be
my technique when shooting and perhaps my processing (hence rpd & rpe35mm).

Note, its generally for snaps for myself at social events - tripods are
_not_ a welcome suggestion, the photographs are just snaps of a usually
good evening.

Some shots are better or worse than others.

A link to an example shot:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/20070305211941.JPG

This shot was taken using an ME Super with 50mm @ f1.7 and I think 1/60. I
set the camera to 1600 ISO. It was processed in stock ID11 for about 9:45.

A few details about the scan (rpd lynchmod forming):

I admit that the Epson 4990 scanner is not quite as sharp as a dedicated
film scanner but I think it is good enough that it is not the limiting
factor for the above image by a fair margin. I scanned in Vuescan and did
a fair bit of level adjusting to hide much of the grain. A non-adjusted
jpg produced by vuescan is at:

http://www.petezilla.co.uk/200703052...unadjusted.jpg

This is a fairer representation of the neg, but I prefer the adjusted one -
the grain is much less intrusive.

The negs look rather thin. To my inexperienced eye they might have been
more dense (underprocessed?) and regarding my comments on shadow detail
more exposure might help, I assume.

I do wonder what traditional prints might look like, from past experience
not a million miles better and my printing is not my strong point.

Now camera shake may well have been an issue on this particular shot but it
is not clear that it dominates and that should not effect grain or shadow
(ish) detail.

The question is, does it look like I am getting a reasonable job done with
Delta 3200? Am I simply trying to shoot in too little light?

Though I'm somewhat adverse (and may not be technically possible on certain
cameras) I'm wondering if a weak on camera flash (depending on
circumstances) might help improve things?

Any opinions gladly sought.

Pete

Peter Chant wrote:

Grr, need to know why followups were set to rec.photo.darkroom. On topic
for both groups!

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Peter Chant" wrote

Can see a couple of problems if I want to use flash
- it would completely overpower ambient with the kit I have.

Cover the flash with a handkerchief, double if needed.
Experimentation will be needed, obviously.

pushing HP5 +1 ... Provia 400 pushed +1.

Do not push, do not push, do not push ... pull. The
problem is too much contrast. Pushing works well if the
subject is low contrast and evenly lit.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:


Do not push, do not push, do not push ... pull. The
problem is too much contrast. Pushing works well if the
subject is low contrast and evenly lit.


Can't pull too much or I'd be back down to ISO 400!

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk