Having used Ilford Delta 3200 from time to time in the past I was considering to give Kodak P3200 a try. No need to do that after your video. So you actually saved me some money (and emotional stress, haha). Thanks a lot for the effort you put into this video!
Nice testing structure, very well laid out! I’m impressed with how well you controlled the variables, shot a variety of scenes and lighting conditions, and it’s only then that we can make a good comparison. Developing each in their own respective developers sounds the most fair too.
Thank you! Yes, the only wildcard between the films is the developer. I was extremely surprised how close the two films were. I'll probably continue using Delta 3200 since I use Ilford chemistry for my other films and since it is also available in medium format. I find it is better to stick to a few film stocks and developers and get to know them very well.
This is a fascinating side-by-side, and it hits close to home for specific reasons. Both my kids were born at home and, at the time, I was dabbling in photography. I didn't pursue it because, perhaps predictably, having two small children got in the way! That said, part of the reason my wife chose a home birth was to have control over the environment, including light levels - no blinding fluorescents when our kids entered this world. For that reason, I decided to use a high-speed film to capture their first moments. I bought some Kodak P3200 B&W from a local photography store, and the pictures I took of each of our children when they were minutes old still adorn our mantel 20+ years later. In each case, there was the lowest of background light, and no flash. I stop and look at those pictures every single day - they glow with memories. Now that the children are grown, flown, and living their own lives, time to order some more high-speed film - back to photography!
Good comparison ! I think Ilford performed better. Shadows are too dark in Kodak. This Kodak film is not very forgiving. I really like Ilford 400 and Kodak TriX, but at that speed, TriX is a better film.
I shot both side by side and developed on dd-x. I also got more contrast on Kodak. And I've decided to make it my new go to bw high speed film. as for the lost of shadow details, I rate it a stop lower than what i will develop it as. My fav is rated at 1600, dev as 3200. can't complain. I shoot maternity, newborns and portraits. Great video, you just earned a subscriber.
Thanks for your valuable insight and for the subscription! I'm still testing the Kodak film. I've used Ilford for so long for most of my film needs that it would be hard to make a switch at this point since I know their films so well. I do like Kodak's film though, and the more choices in the film market the better we all are.
Hey Cyrus you you to a lot of effort and are very professional in your videos and in a way that is easy to duplicate. So thanks, I have watched several of your Kodak P3200 vlogs and I am very glad Kodak has brought this back to the market. From what I saw, both films were similar and very usable. =I do shot film and digital, although I lean more to film. Have pushed another ISO 400 film to 3200 and got OK results. Will need to try hese, as I have shoot a lot of Ilford and Kodak,
I haven't gotten around to printing any of it yet, but the general wisdom I've heard about Delta 3200 is that it looks better to develop it N+1 for your chosen EI. As much as a basic visual inspection can say, shooting it at 1600 and developing for 3200 gives negatives with good contrast and acceptable shadow detail (at night).
You're absolutely right. I've been processing Delta 3200 for years and the best results I find are metered at 1600 and developed at the 3200 time. For the sake of comparison I wanted to do box speed results as this would be most people's starting point and the fact that this is only my second roll of P3200.
A definite "step-up" from 99% of u-toob "comparisons", of almost anything, but especially of films. You did a good job. I'm old enough to have used a lot of Kodak Royal-X ISO 1250 120 roll film and 4X5 sheet film. I equally praised and cursed it everytime I had to use it. It was a &$#*@ to print, no matter how it was processed, and wildly varied from batch-to-batch in REAL film speed. My Zone System tests of Ilford Delta Elite 3200 has shown a true ISO of 3200 in both 35mm and 120 roll sizes, with excellent consistency so far. I find it's grain structure better than P3200 and much sharper and more acutance. Where the Ilford film is far better is high contrast, low-light situations, where it holds much better shadow detail, without blowing the highlights out. Frankly the Ilford emulsion is much more modern and it shows. I haven't be able to get samples of Formapan 1600T and Fujifilm Acros 1600 yet. Mainly due to US patent restrictions on them. I'll look for your u-toob videos instead of avoiding them. Thanks for the effort-
What I saw is that Ilford gave up the details for lighting limits, while Kodak are doing excellent job in details and contrast, yet the objects tends to be dimmer in similar lighting environment
Kodak P3200 when it was released, was promised by Kodak to be a "low inherent contrast emulsion of ISO 1000 easily developed in TMax developer to a gamma of .7 giving an effective rating of 3200". I have the press release in my hand from 1988. Ilford Delta 3200 on the other hand is a true 3200 ISO film. If you want more contrast on Delta 3200, develop it for a longer time. I have run tests on both, and shot llford 3200 in my 120 Mamiya 645. In real "available darkness" situations like a nightclub where the lighting contrast is beyond the range of any digital medium, or film emulsion, the Ilford has a definite advantage. Not scanned and looked at on a monitor, but printed on bayarta based paper.
Great video ! My fav is the ilford, i finally should use the 3200 thats already lying around some time ;-) I occationally had a "comparison" these days, as i first had a pushed Delta400 (to 3200, DDX 18min 20C) and then the P3200 (also DDX, 11min 20C) - and sorry ... the Kodak totally failed in my eyes ... while the D400 gave much better texture, more and nicer grey steps, and less grain !!!
You would need to overexpose to get more shadow detail. If you are going for contrast I would actually suggest the Ilford film because by starting with a more flat image you have more to work with. It is easier to add contrast to a flat image than take it away from an already high contrast image.
The whole story of what contrast is the best depends also on the type of enlarger head used ! Color heads with mixing box give less contrast and cope well with high contrast film Optical condenser heads give more contrast and will have troubles with high contrast films The best practice is to calibrate film developpment for the best print result with a given enlarger + lens brand and normal print paper grade
Hi, really helpful video. I just bought some Delta 3200 for a night photography project where retaining some detail in the shadows will be important, so your test has confirmed I made the right choice - the Kodak seems to get blocky blacks very quickly compared to the Ilford. I’ll be developing in DDX, too, as it’s my developer of choice anyway, so it’s all good news for me. Out of interest, what ASA did you shoot the Delta at? My intention is to shoot at 1600 as it’s only nominally a 3200 film and is actually ASA1000. I’m hoping that will help me keep grain under control. Thanks!
In this test it was exposed at "Box Speed" of 3200. However I use this film a lot I feel like the best results come from metering at 1600 and using the 3200 development time (DD-X 1+4 for 9:30). Good luck!
You're welcome! Honestly its extremely hard to tell I think Ilford shows a little bit more grain, but I'd like to so some actual prints in the darkroom to be sure.
A lot of people have been saying that they like the higher contrast of the Kodak film, but It's always easier to add contrast to an image with greater mid tonal range than take it away from an image that is already high contrast.
One point I'm not clear on: I assume you used two Pentax K1000 cameras. Were the shutter speeds of both cameras verified to be close to one another at any nominal dial speed?
Yes, two K1000's were used. I haven't specifically tested the shutter speeds of the two cameras, but we use the cameras regularly with no exposure issues so the are assumed to be accurate or at least comparable to each other. The same settings were used on both cameras.
The Kodak blocked up the shadows more than the Ilford. I think Kodak would benefit from a +1 stop exposure and I'd like it more than the Ilford, but with the box speed, the Ilford gives better shadow detail.
I agree, one stop more yields better results with Kodak. However, it looks like its exposure latitude is not as forgiving as Ilford so you need to be careful.
Yes, I find your content very helpful, informative and presented in an entertaining way. I shot a role of Ilford Delta 3200 a couple months ago @ the szczecin philharmonia in Poland (flickr.com/photos/62909681@N02/sets/72157691963596605). It was developed in a lab. So I assume they used a standard process with rodinal. Hopefully I will have everything together to do my own developing by the end of the year.
Thank you very much! And thank you for sharing your Delta 3200 pictures, you have a very keen eye for leading lines in your compositions. Very nice! Good luck with the home development. Black and white isn't too difficult and you can save a lot of money by developing yourself.
I'll bet $1000 USD your lab DIDN'T use Rodinal. Rodinal isn't a "sink line" developer a lab would use. Rodinal is "one shot" developer and would be prohibitively expensive to use in a commercial lab. Kodak HC-110 dil B (1:31) is an excellent sink-line developer. It has excellent tank life, can be replenished effectively and cost per roll is low and gives acceptable results with most B&W emulsions made today. I've worked in a commercial photo-lab and in a corporate lab and have my own lab at home. The commercial lab days of processing 2000+ rolls a day of B&W film in a "deep tank" dip and dunk machine (a Pako twice as old as me!) are gone, but a 3 1/2 gallon sink line can easily pump out 400 rolls daily. There are numerous other developers with replenishers a lab can use, but one usable with MOST films is a requirement. That or go broke.
Good comparison ! I think Ilford performed better. Shadows are too dark in Kodak. This Kodak film is not very forgiving. I really like Ilford 400 and Kodak TriX, but at that speed, TriX is a better film.
I saw more contrast in the Kodak, I mostly preferred it but Ilford was better in some circumstances. Great testing
Having used Ilford Delta 3200 from time to time in the past I was considering to give Kodak P3200 a try. No need to do that after your video. So you actually saved me some money (and emotional stress, haha). Thanks a lot for the effort you put into this video!
You're welcome and I agree Delta 3200 is the way to go. Everything Black and White - Ilford; everything Color - Kodak is what I go with.
Very helpful, especially having the full size comparison image! Thank you!
Nice testing structure, very well laid out! I’m impressed with how well you controlled the variables, shot a variety of scenes and lighting conditions, and it’s only then that we can make a good comparison. Developing each in their own respective developers sounds the most fair too.
Thank you! Yes, the only wildcard between the films is the developer. I was extremely surprised how close the two films were. I'll probably continue using Delta 3200 since I use Ilford chemistry for my other films and since it is also available in medium format. I find it is better to stick to a few film stocks and developers and get to know them very well.
This is a fascinating side-by-side, and it hits close to home for specific reasons.
Both my kids were born at home and, at the time, I was dabbling in photography. I didn't pursue it because, perhaps predictably, having two small children got in the way! That said, part of the reason my wife chose a home birth was to have control over the environment, including light levels - no blinding fluorescents when our kids entered this world. For that reason, I decided to use a high-speed film to capture their first moments. I bought some Kodak P3200 B&W from a local photography store, and the pictures I took of each of our children when they were minutes old still adorn our mantel 20+ years later. In each case, there was the lowest of background light, and no flash. I stop and look at those pictures every single day - they glow with memories.
Now that the children are grown, flown, and living their own lives, time to order some more high-speed film - back to photography!
Good comparison ! I think Ilford performed better. Shadows are too dark in Kodak. This Kodak film is not very forgiving. I really like Ilford 400 and Kodak TriX, but at that speed, TriX is a better film.
Extremely interesting comparison
I shot both side by side and developed on dd-x. I also got more contrast on Kodak. And I've decided to make it my new go to bw high speed film. as for the lost of shadow details, I rate it a stop lower than what i will develop it as. My fav is rated at 1600, dev as 3200. can't complain. I shoot maternity, newborns and portraits. Great video, you just earned a subscriber.
Thanks for your valuable insight and for the subscription! I'm still testing the Kodak film. I've used Ilford for so long for most of my film needs that it would be hard to make a switch at this point since I know their films so well. I do like Kodak's film though, and the more choices in the film market the better we all are.
Agree
Hey Cyrus you you to a lot of effort and are very professional in your videos and in a way that is easy to duplicate. So thanks, I have watched several of your Kodak P3200 vlogs and I am very glad Kodak has brought this back to the market. From what I saw, both films were similar and very usable. =I do shot film and digital, although I lean more to film. Have pushed another ISO 400 film to 3200 and got OK results. Will need to try hese, as I have shoot a lot of Ilford and Kodak,
I haven't gotten around to printing any of it yet, but the general wisdom I've heard about Delta 3200 is that it looks better to develop it N+1 for your chosen EI.
As much as a basic visual inspection can say, shooting it at 1600 and developing for 3200 gives negatives with good contrast and acceptable shadow detail (at night).
You're absolutely right. I've been processing Delta 3200 for years and the best results I find are metered at 1600 and developed at the 3200 time. For the sake of comparison I wanted to do box speed results as this would be most people's starting point and the fact that this is only my second roll of P3200.
what a great comparison video!
thanks for sharing this with us!
Absolutely! Thanks for stopping by.
A definite "step-up" from 99% of u-toob "comparisons", of almost anything, but especially of films. You did a good job. I'm old enough to have used a lot of Kodak Royal-X ISO 1250 120 roll film and 4X5 sheet film. I equally praised and cursed it everytime I had to use it. It was a &$#*@ to print, no matter how it was processed, and wildly varied from batch-to-batch in REAL film speed. My Zone System tests of Ilford Delta Elite 3200 has shown a true ISO of 3200 in both 35mm and 120 roll sizes, with excellent consistency so far. I find it's grain structure better than P3200 and much sharper and more acutance. Where the Ilford film is far better is high contrast, low-light situations, where it holds much better shadow detail, without blowing the highlights out. Frankly the Ilford emulsion is much more modern and it shows. I haven't be able to get samples of Formapan 1600T and Fujifilm Acros 1600 yet. Mainly due to US patent restrictions on them. I'll look for your u-toob videos instead of avoiding them. Thanks for the effort-
I'm a big Kodak guy but this convinced me that Ilford is way better in my opinion
I agree. I use Ilford for all my black and white, but I'll take Kodak over Fujifilm for color.
Superb video!
What I saw is that Ilford gave up the details for lighting limits, while Kodak are doing excellent job in details and contrast, yet the objects tends to be dimmer in similar lighting environment
Kodak P3200 when it was released, was promised by Kodak to be a "low inherent contrast emulsion of ISO 1000 easily developed in TMax developer to a gamma of .7 giving an effective rating of 3200". I have the press release in my hand from 1988. Ilford Delta 3200 on the other hand is a true 3200 ISO film. If you want more contrast on Delta 3200, develop it for a longer time. I have run tests on both, and shot llford 3200 in my 120 Mamiya 645. In real "available darkness" situations like a nightclub where the lighting contrast is beyond the range of any digital medium, or film emulsion, the Ilford has a definite advantage. Not scanned and looked at on a monitor, but printed on bayarta based paper.
What where the camera settings?
I assume you pushed the Kodak by 2 stops in dev since it is 800 film by default, right?
Yep, he didn't shoot either of these films at box speed.
Great video ! My fav is the ilford, i finally should use the 3200 thats already lying around some time ;-) I occationally had a "comparison" these days, as i first had a pushed Delta400 (to 3200, DDX 18min 20C) and then the P3200 (also DDX, 11min 20C) - and sorry ... the Kodak totally failed in my eyes ... while the D400 gave much better texture, more and nicer grey steps, and less grain !!!
Yeah I'm liking the 3200 from Kodak for the higher contrast, is in thing you could under expose of you need more shadow detail
You would need to overexpose to get more shadow detail. If you are going for contrast I would actually suggest the Ilford film because by starting with a more flat image you have more to work with. It is easier to add contrast to a flat image than take it away from an already high contrast image.
Thanks
The whole story of what contrast is the best depends also on the type of enlarger head used !
Color heads with mixing box give less contrast and cope well with high contrast film
Optical condenser heads give more contrast and will have troubles with high contrast films
The best practice is to calibrate film developpment for the best print result with a given enlarger + lens brand and normal print paper grade
Brilliant video. Thank you.
You're very welcome. Thanks for stopping by!
Hi, really helpful video. I just bought some Delta 3200 for a night photography project where retaining some detail in the shadows will be important, so your test has confirmed I made the right choice - the Kodak seems to get blocky blacks very quickly compared to the Ilford. I’ll be developing in DDX, too, as it’s my developer of choice anyway, so it’s all good news for me. Out of interest, what ASA did you shoot the Delta at? My intention is to shoot at 1600 as it’s only nominally a 3200 film and is actually ASA1000. I’m hoping that will help me keep grain under control. Thanks!
In this test it was exposed at "Box Speed" of 3200. However I use this film a lot I feel like the best results come from metering at 1600 and using the 3200 development time (DD-X 1+4 for 9:30). Good luck!
Thanks for your help man! Just subscribed. Can you tell us which film was grainer?
You're welcome! Honestly its extremely hard to tell I think Ilford shows a little bit more grain, but I'd like to so some actual prints in the darkroom to be sure.
They’re both beautiful films. Kodak is more boosted in contrast for sure- i prefer the kodak
A lot of people have been saying that they like the higher contrast of the Kodak film, but It's always easier to add contrast to an image with greater mid tonal range than take it away from an image that is already high contrast.
One point I'm not clear on: I assume you used two Pentax K1000 cameras. Were the shutter speeds of both cameras verified to be close to one another at any nominal dial speed?
Yes, two K1000's were used. I haven't specifically tested the shutter speeds of the two cameras, but we use the cameras regularly with no exposure issues so the are assumed to be accurate or at least comparable to each other. The same settings were used on both cameras.
The Kodak blocked up the shadows more than the Ilford. I think Kodak would benefit from a +1 stop exposure and I'd like it more than the Ilford, but with the box speed, the Ilford gives better shadow detail.
I agree, one stop more yields better results with Kodak. However, it looks like its exposure latitude is not as forgiving as Ilford so you need to be careful.
Apart from the fact that Kodak is a little bit more contrasty, call me crazy but I could bet that those two films have different colour sensitivity...
Interesting observation!
Yes, I find your content very helpful, informative and presented in an entertaining way.
I shot a role of Ilford Delta 3200 a couple months ago @ the szczecin philharmonia in Poland (flickr.com/photos/62909681@N02/sets/72157691963596605).
It was developed in a lab. So I assume they used a standard process with rodinal. Hopefully I will have everything together to do my own developing by the end of the year.
Thank you very much! And thank you for sharing your Delta 3200 pictures, you have a very keen eye for leading lines in your compositions. Very nice! Good luck with the home development. Black and white isn't too difficult and you can save a lot of money by developing yourself.
I'll bet $1000 USD your lab DIDN'T use Rodinal. Rodinal isn't a "sink line" developer a lab would use. Rodinal is "one shot" developer and would be prohibitively expensive to use in a commercial lab. Kodak HC-110 dil B (1:31) is an excellent sink-line developer. It has excellent tank life, can be replenished effectively and cost per roll is low and gives acceptable results with most B&W emulsions made today. I've worked in a commercial photo-lab and in a corporate lab and have my own lab at home. The commercial lab days of processing 2000+ rolls a day of B&W film in a "deep tank" dip and dunk machine (a Pako twice as old as me!) are gone, but a 3 1/2 gallon sink line can easily pump out 400 rolls daily. There are numerous other developers with replenishers a lab can use, but one usable with MOST films is a requirement. That or go broke.
Kodak is original an 800 film
Yes, the native speed for these films is in the 800-1000 ISO range, but they are specifically engineered to be push processed beyond that.
Smiling is also quick, easy and free - try it next time when telling that you enjoy making videos :).
Good comparison ! I think Ilford performed better. Shadows are too dark in Kodak. This Kodak film is not very forgiving. I really like Ilford 400 and Kodak TriX, but at that speed, TriX is a better film.
I think Ilford gives a flatter image which is a great starting point to add contrast in the darkroom, but I'd be happy using either film.