Kodak Tmax P3200 vs Ilford Delta 3200
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- Thanks for watching and hope you enjoyed!!
Please feel free to discuss your results with these two films in the comments section below. I would love to hear how Tmax P3200 turned out with other developers.
Also, I'll be editing and posting some of the photos from the video to me Instagram account so feel free to follow me @jesshobbsphoto
Studio Argentique:
www.studioargen...
/ studioargentique
Like for using two exact cameras with two exact lenses for comparison, using same exposures, done at the same time. That's so rare to see these days. Call me a tech control freak, but that's the only fair way to compare films. Well done...
I felt that using the same camera/lens combo was the only was to do a true comparison. The funny thing is that just before I filmed this video I had to have one of the cameras CLAd and the light meter was off by a whole stop... so I metered with the one that I knew and trusted, and I think the results speak for themselves. If you liked this one, you'll probably like my next video when I do the same thing with three of the same camera! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Subbed
The only fault with this system is if the shutters are not calibrated and the aperture in the lens aren’t exactly the same. However compared to other channels this is the best unscientific method. Interesting to see that Delta seems a bit more sensitive, less contrasts, more shadow detail whilst Kodak is punchier. If you want prints then Kodak would be better out of the tin whilst ILFORD would be suitable for scanning.
I wonder tho. about developing each film in it's own recommended developer rather than the same kodak recommnded xtol. I realize the consistency is important but not necessarily a fair comparison where film is involved unless developing ilford film in ilford recommended developers either ilfotec ddx or microphen? Just a thought.
I agree, different developers (especially ones formulated for specific films) will definitely yield different results. I was, however, limited in my choice of developers, as the local lab that I brought the rolls to only had X-TOL left in stock (and even they were really disappointed at that!). I am really looking forward to shooting more of both of these films and experimenting with developers in the future! Thanks for your comments!
Your movies are a breath of fresh air...and no hipster wobbly crackly loop based jazz 👍😊
There are wayyy too many dudes making film photography videos, glad to see some females contributing content. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate them! I agree that there seems to be a lack of female film photographers creating content for a YT audience, hopefully more will be inspired to contribute in the future because it is another fun platform in which we can showcase our work. Thanks for watching and commenting, I promise to be back with another video in the near future!
Nice try soy boy, but you still aren't getting laid.
@@abigailsockeye1586 Jesus dude, is it really so bad to appreciate representation in a hobby you enjoy?
Are you being a feminist to film photographers?
@@abigailsockeye1586 Abigail, if you’re real, I love you.
Excellent first video, great work.
Straight from camera P3200 seems to look best while the Delta 3200 would really benefit from some post processing. Straight from camera the contrast in the P3200 is great while the Delta shows more shadow details it looks more hazy.
Look forward to more videos.
I prefer the delta 3200 for most shots, could always add in contrast, cant take it away, plus they make delta 3200 in 120 which i what i shoot, so a no brainer really if you want to eventually move up.
I'm actually quite surprised at how much I like the P3200, I wasn't expecting that! I do love how much more detail the Delta 3200 retained, it'll be fun to see how the two films measure up in post-processing/darkroom. I shoot a lot of 120 as well (I will eventually get into that in future videos), although I tend to use slow speed films... I'll pick up a roll of Delta 3200 and try it out sometime! Thanks for watching and commenting!
I have always found that the Delta 3200 is a bit of a flatter profile for the film, and the P3200 a much more contrasty film; and if you want to get Delta to get a similar look, you have to use darker contrast filters, like an orange filter to get the contrast like the P3200 gets straight out of box. I look forward to seeing home. And Hello from BC!
love the comparison!! cant wait to try them out side by side myself!!!
It was a lot of fun to shoot both films, and now I have more ideas for experimentation, both in the shooting and development processes! Thanks for watching and commenting!
By the way, thanks for being my first "celebrity comment"! Let me know if you're ever in Montreal, I'll take you out for some poutine!
This is exactly what I've been looking for! Every time I ask what the difference is, people reel of technical data and developing times - all I wanted to know was how the looks compared, and this answers it perfectly!
Got the impression the Delta was asking for more exposure at each setting. Loved the contrast on the Tmax. Thanks for sharing! Well done, more vids please :)
I like Contrast. And I purchased a few rolls of TMX3200. However it’s worth mentioning that Ilford was always loyal to film shooters, So it deserves our loyalty and not hurting its business whenever Kodak /Fuji decides to have a film removed or reintroduced on a whim (Acros, anyone?)
I absolutely agree, and I usually lean more towards shooting Ilford rather than Kodak (controversy: I prefer HP5 to Tri-X 400!). I do really like the new P3200, but I also like how much more shadow detail the Delta 3200 retains, which will be interesting to play around with in the darkroom or even through Lightroom. I'll be stocking my fridge with both emulsions for sure! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Where I live the Ilfords are more expensive, actually the Acros was the cheapest. I can’t find ilford developers. So I agree with your assessment partially because even though I love ilford films, availability/cost is sometimes an issue
I support Ilford.
Very good job! Good comparison side by side. Same camera , same lens and same shoot. I like the contrast of kodak.thank you
So excellent! This is such a amazing video comparison. Done in perfect style. Thank you.
Great video!!! Love the comparison. I’m a sucker for contrast, so I’m going with p3200
The P3200 is so punchy, I was really impressed with the results. I'm also a fan of contrast, so I think I'm giving the slight edge to Kodak on this one, but I'm excited to see what the Delta 3200 can do in Lightroom or in the darkroom. Thanks for watching and commenting!
I don't feel like I could pick a favorite. P3200 looks a bit more contrasty but has less shadow details. While Delta 3200 is a bit flatter in contrast but has more detail in the shadows. For me it would probably be dependent on subject matter as to which one I would choose.
I agree! My initial reaction was that I liked how much more contrast the P3200 had... but then I started noticing how much more detail in both the shadows and the highlights that Delta 3200 retains. I think each film has its benefits and it's a matter of knowing when to use each one, depending on your desired results. Thanks for watching and commenting!
I think ilford is technically better because of this. I can add contrast when printing but I can't just add detail.
Definitely more contrast in the P3200, but I saw something different in the shadow detail in some of the highest contrast shots. For example, @9:28 the highlights are blown out on the P3200 (e.g. the sign above the store), but you can still see details in the shadows (e.g. the upstairs windows, and the car on the right). In the Ilford, however, the highlights in the sign are preserved, but the details in the shadows are washed out. Also look @10:10 and see the side-by-side difference in shadow detail.
My observations are more in line with Barry’s. What I’m seeing in the shadows isn’t what many others seem to be describing here. However, in the subway there were shots where the Delta had more shadow detail, but it also appeared to yield a higher exposure across the board (escalator shots in particular). Looking down at tracks at 5:09, Delta holds highlights a tiny bit better while also being brighter in shadows and appearing to have more detail there too. Could it largely be a spectral response issue? The Delta is significantly more sensitive to the fluorescent light in that environment or something? This reverses in sunlight, with the Kodak exposing the statue brighter. The sculpted red columns at 7:08, they’re lit by sunlight on one side and fluorescent on the other. The Delta is exposing both the outdoor background and the sunlit-side highlights darker and with more detail, but it renders a much brighter exposure on the fluorescent-lit side of the columns. It looks like more than a contrast difference alone. Looking up response graphs for both, the difference isn’t pronounced, but it does kinda look like TMax starts to fall off around where fluorescent lights peak, while the Delta maintains more of a plateau in that range.
Given the idea that these films aren’t delivering the same effective sensitivity and exposure in these different types of light, the general impression I’m getting in these comparisons is that the Delta is good at delivering detailed and somewhat flat results when given plenty of exposure, but its shadows can fall apart in low light when exposed insufficiently for whatever reason. The TMax seems to do a remarkably good job of consistently delivering contrasty results that retain good detail across a variety of exposures and lighting types, and it appears that it often only retains less shadow detail when it’s effectively being given less exposure to work with (as in the escalators). I could be wrong, but that’s what I take from this.
The turnstyles at 5:17 is one of the shots that really makes the Delta look more refined and detailed. However, in the P3200 I can see just about as many bricks fading into shadows on the left wall, and the background shape on the wall near the center appears to have details in the Kodak shot that aren’t in the Ilford. If you watch some of the other subway shots, you can sometimes see that, going from Kodak to Ilford, the shadowed walls go from dark with texture detail to brighter but smoothed over. The shot at 10:10 is detailed throughout in the Kodak, but obliterated in the Ilford. In the shots at 10:33, look at the bricks in the deep shadows on the Kodak, then watch how those bricks simply disappear when it switches to the Ilford. The same thing happens consistently in the night shots. I think the commenters picking the Delta for its greater editability are perhaps being fooled into a false perception of shadow detail by the difference in contrast and blackpoint. The Kodak *looks* like it *should* have less shadow detail, but when you compare the same spots back to back the TMax often held shadow details that were absent in the Delta shot. So despite the talk about better shadow detail in the Delta, that generalization doesn’t seem to hold up consistently. If someone prefers the results from the Ilford, that’s totally valid, especially if their reason is that the more low-fi looking result in some of the night shots is the final look they’re going for. If the reason is that it’s recording more shadow detail, which is the reason most are going with, I think that’s valid for some of these shots but not for others, and overall I don’t think that’s actually the result we’re seeing in this comparison.
Differences in detail recording aside, it seems there’s a difference of philosophies in the comments: some like that the P3200 delivers a more finished looking image much of the time, while others perceive the Delta as being more editable, like a flat raw file they can edit with more flexibility. But how many of us go to the expense and trouble of shooting film with the goal of getting the most flexibile scan that requires the same heavy shaping as our digital images? I think a lot of us shoot film to escape exactly that, and to achieve a particular look from a film. I’m not sure I see the sense in shooting a film that doesn’t deliver a look very close to what you want in the finished product, without major changes to its character in digital post. Those looking for a good B&W film to digitally edit in a flexible variety of directions, toward an end result that looks completely different from the negative, would likely be better served by just shooting raw and applying a high quality emulation. A full color starting point is, after all, a much more flexible foundation for a digital B&W edit. Film is a lot of unnecessary trouble to add to that process, just to get a digitally crafted end result that can’t take advantage of all the standard digital conversion tools, such as color channel mixture. It’s very compromised. You can shoot a film you like the look of, or shoot digital and craft whatever sort of look you want with some effort, or you can shoot a BW film that doesn’t look like what you’re going for and get the worst of both worlds. :D
Definitely loved the contrast from the tmax p3200. That’s the amount I love in my black and white film!
Yeah, it's definitely a special film! I can't wait to go out and shoot more! Thanks for watching and commenting!
I am your new subscriber from a photographer who has been shooting film for fifteen plus years. I am glad to see more young folks like you young lady in keeping film alive. Hopefully, they would be building new film cameras despite the popularity of digital photography. I do shoot digital as well. Both the Delta and the Kodak has its plus and minuses. I do like the Kodak in most of the shots for its contrast and in some situations, it can be a little too dark that the Ilford Delta looks better. In most parts, the Delta is a bit bright in contrast but sometimes it helps in very dark places in some of the shots such as the moving escalator. If you need a camera to shoot at ISO 3200 than I would suggest to get either the Nikon F100 or the Nikon F5. I do own these cameras and after watching this video, I decided to check the ISO maximum setting. I found that the maximum ISO setting on both of these cameras are ISO 6400. Nikon manual and autofocus lenses do work well with these cameras. For a 50mm autofocus, a Nikon 50mm F1.8 D lens is a good lens. For a 50mm Nikon AIS manual focus, a Nikon 50mm F1.4 AIS lens works very well and gives very good contrast. Peace, Flood!
Great to see someone shooting the Olympus OM-1, The contrast of P3200 is beautiful!
The OM-1 is one of my all-time favourite cameras, so lightweight and fun to shoot with. I agree that the contrast on the P3200 came out beautifully, I love being able to shoot a film and getting those results right out of the box... I haven't completely edged out the Delta 3200 though, I'm intrigued to see what I can do with that film in the darkroom! Thanks for watching and commenting!
I have just purchased a roll of Ilford 3200 in preparation for a Nighttime photo shoot at a train museum. Feature is a Streamline Steam Engine. I like the Kodak film better. I may purchase a roll prior to the shoot. Will be using vintage Nikon camera.
I enjoyed the video, boarding subway and Montreal underground. Several years ago I spent time in Montreal on business. We stayed near the Airport but made several trips into the city.
P3200 for me. I prefer the contrasty image, more depth. Great video. Keep them coming.
Thanks for the comparison. Great video.
Thanks so much, I appreciate that! Thanks for watching!
super cool. i just got some ilford delta 3200 for the first time
So much more detailed contrast in Kodak. I always found Ilford a bit more foggy and slightly under exposed depending on the conditions. Anyways. Great Video! Thanks
I love the ilford and for me ilford have been supporting film photography for years now and I want to show my support to them I do flirt with other stocks occasionally for fun but I tend to stick with ilford range as there is something for most situations beautiful images and and lovely to see some OMs in actions I have mainly Nikon’s but I do own a OM 4 and OM 2n great for street photography keep doing what you do it’s great 👍🏻
P3200 was really nice. Great job.
Thank you for the comparison. The Kodak TMAX 3200 sparked!!
But I still would give the Ilford 3200 a try. More power to you!!
Thank you for the video! I watched all with pleasure. Hats off to a girl with an old film camera. Thank you for being.
Great video Jess! I especially like that you not only shot with identical cameras, but indoors as well as out, nice comparison.
Kodak is winner imo.. that contrast on first photo got me.. 🤯🤯 thank you😊
Kodak is definitely the winner straight out of the box! But I think Ilford has a few tricks up it's sleeve, I personally find the negatives are more workable either in Lightroom, or printing in a darkroom. I live that both films are somewhat similar, but each have their own characteristics!
Thanks for watching!
I really enjoyed this video! It was very helpfull! Did you put your shutter speed one step up to compensate for the ISO1600 setting on the camera?
Fantastic video very interesting I think I prefer the contrast in the Kodak film but I guess it depends on how much postprocessing you want to do very well done some lovely images 👍🏻😊
Greetings from Winterpeg. Great video. Both look nice so I suppose it is all about preference. The Delta seems to have much softer greys whereas the Kodak has really rich crushed blacks. I normally am more of an Ilford shooter but in this case I really like the look of the Kodak.
This was the video I was hoping someone would make - and you pulled it off brilliantly. Stellar first video! Subbed.
Thank you so much for the kind words, I really appreciate them! I'm definitely looking forward to providing more content, and the overwhelming response to this video has me chomping at the bit to get back out there! Thanks for watching and subscribing!
Jess Hobbs First of all, kudos for a nice video. I guess I am a veteran in b/w, having used a fair bit of HP4, KB14 and such back then.
Scanning negatives might not give the best indication of the film performance, personally I would examine the negatives on a light box and then make conventional prints. For films meant for XL work such as Tri-X and HP5, the aim is to increase contrast at the toe at the H&D curve while maintaining a low overall contrast, so that when pushed, there are more shadow details to be brought out without frying the highlights. In other words, it'd be faster in the camera, and faster in the tank.
My own tests with the TMZ (P3200) is that its true speed is 1000/31˚ but with extra contrast at the toe; so it gives great shadow details at its true speed, much better than TX pushed to the same EI; I am still convinced that the 3200/36˚ rating is the most it can be pushed as both highlights and shadows are already starting to get obviously blocked: the pictures might look eye-catching for having "good contrast" but the loss at both ends would be hard to recover, especially when printed conventionally where they are further compressed by the paper's H&D shoulder and toe.
Delta 3200 is a bit more conventional and I have not tried to establish its real speed, the higher B&F can be "printed through" but it still alters the response a little. That said, it still preserves separations at both highlight and shadow areas while keeping the overall contrast low enough, coupled with the high B&F, scanned pictures - especially if previously calibrated for something like TMZ - would certainly look "muddy" but there are huge amounts of details that can be easily brought out; it is even quite obvious in your comparison pictures.
The real test would be to make conventional prints with an enlarger after calibrating the respective negatives, that would be a lot more telling.
Kodak all the way on this one for me love the contrast delta looks a bit flat for my liking. Back in pre digi days the paper I shot for would give me a roll of Tmax 3200 to shoot winter sport in northern England very dull dark conditions always had to rate the film at 6400 at the time I hated all that grain looking back now I love it they look like real photos embrace the grain 📷 top work again Jess loving your vids ❤️
for my taste I would go with the p3200, even though I shot a roll of delta 3200 earlier this year in Paris and love the results
Kodak definitely more contrasty and Delta always so nice and flat, geared more towards portraits. I'll tell you what, whoever did your development knows what they're talking about because there's so little grain in both emolsions in your photos. A lot of the folks reviewing these emolsions needless add way too much grain in their development process which is not my personal preference. Nothing wrong if you like that look but this video shows the strength of both emolsions. Nicely done, enjoyed it.
Very helpful video Jess. I’m a Ilford guy BUT based on this video I’m definitely going to pick up some TMax 3200! Thanks! I look forward to seeing your next one with HP5 vs TriX & Street Pan!!
I have always been a fan of Ilford myself, but I think my film stock will always include a roll or two of P3200 now! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Like a lot of people I prefer the Kodak over the Ilford film but to be honest, in most of the shots there wasn't a great deal of difference. Kodak appears to be darker and has more contrast but the Ilford has softer greys. I'd love to see your comparison of Tri-X versus HP5 plus. I have a roll of tri-x and ordered a roll of HP5 plus but not used either yet. Incidentally, the Olympus OM-1 was the favoured 35mm camera of Jane Bown, one of my favourite photographers.
Great vid, exactly what I was looking for! You should 100% keep doing RUclips! Thanks a lot.
Thank you so much for the kind words, I really appreciate them! I promise to be back soon with a new video! Thanks for watching!
I like the contrastiness of the Kodak in these pictures. But when I've tried it myself, when I look a bit closer, it always comes out a bit too grainy for my tastes. I do enjoy a bit of grain but P3200 is insane! I just ordered my first Delta 3200 (which is why I ended up here).
First video and you're already off to a great start. Cheers!
I'll admit that the positive response has surpassed my expectations by a long shot, and I am definitely looking forward to producing more content! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Advice: Leave some of the ambient sounds in while on b roll shots. Music only is too dull. Great video! Hope to see more!
Thanks for the advice, I am definitely going to keep that in mind for my future videos! I'm still learning about filming and editing, so it's nice to get feedback, keeps me in check! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Wonderful video! I understand the effort you made in producing a video shooting out and about, having produced one myself, and think you made an excellent job of it! Keeep it up.
Thanks so much for your kind words, I really appreciate it! I'll be back soon with another video! Thanks for watching!
Nice video. I can’t decide which I like more. For sure the increased contrast in the p3200 means less work for me in Lightroom. I recently shot p3200 during Halloween. It worked really well where there was some natural light available and with flash. But I had trouble with recovering shadow details. I particularly love the grain structure in the emulsion. I can also reflect about the process of scanning. I develop and scan myself and found that the film is easy to lay flat on the flatbed scanner. I think I will probably buy p3200 since it’s currently going cheaper than the ilford delta 3200 but I think both are excellent and have unique characteristics.
Nice comparison. Sooc I prefer Kodak, but ilford does give u some latitude for post processing just based on the flatter image.
I like the stock look of T-Max better but I'd rather add contrast in the darkroom than have it forced on the image. Delta 3200 seems to be retaining more detail in both the shadows and the highlights. I've shot it at 6400 and it still looked decent. In any case, I have 5 rolls of Tmax 3200 on their way so I guess I'll figure it out:) Great video btw!
I have heard that P3200 is really rated at 800, which would explain the increased contrast. I also found the Delta 3200 to retain more shadow and highlight detail, and I can't wait to get it in a darkroom and see how it prints. 5 rolls, sounds like you can do lots of experimentation! Thanks for watching and commenting!
I'm the type that I like to add contrast to my shots in post production. I shot and developed P3200 which i rated at 1600 this week and I was impressed by two things: 1. Amazing shadow details as well as ability to recover them in post 2. I barely did any post production on the roll, the contrast was spot on to my taste, not too strong like TriX, not too grey like HP5. I planning on doing a video comparison against HP5, Tri-X and Tmax400 all rated at 1600. Great video by the way, nice personality and energy. Keep it up. Subscribed!
Great to watch, loved the style, please keep up the great work! As for choice P3200 v Delta3200, I'll need to make my own comparison. Probably fairer to use DDX with Delta3200 and use my own scanner and adjustments. Both Kodak and Ilford deserve all the support we can all give. Can't wait to watch the next video..
Best way to drive the film contrast is by development time
Nice comparison. It looks like Ilford is a bit faster, but not so much as to be important. The low contrast of Ilford is a matter of development, which is probably being much underdeveloped here. (You noted the substantial shorter development times for Ilford used by your lab.) I appreciate that is a factor over which you had no personal control, but it does qualify the results. Still, Ilford seems to be lower contrast generally, which with its targeted subject matter (high contrast scenes), seems appropriate. Neither film would be my personal choice, except for use in extreme situations.
Overall a decent video. But for me the main thing I wanted to see was the differences between the film, there was a lot of walking and nice music, but the pics were up for less than 1 second at times. I went back and stopped the video on some to see the differences better. The video was suppose to be about the differences between the films, I wish it showed more of that.
Jess,
Very good test methods and interesting results.
I prefer viewing the results side by side when comparing film types. I haven't used any of these films but see the Kodak as being more contrasty and sharper than Illford. Is the perceived sharpness from contrast?
Sometimes the Kodak seemed too contrasty and the highlights and shows lost detail. The Illford retained those details.
Would over exposing Illford in those situations improve contrast or just make the image denser? I personally prefer the Kodak because of the snappy contrast, lack of murky shadows and perceived sharpness.
Is there a way to increase or decrease contrast with developing?
Have you ever compared these high speed films with pushing Trip-X to 3200?
Thanks for the great video and good luck with testing 3 films with 3 cameras.
FW
I think I liked the Ilford better for the low light interior shots and the Kodak much better for the nighttime outdoor pix.
Ella E-L, I think I agree! It seems as though Ilford has a little more shadow detail, which will be fun to play around with in post, but I find the Kodak is much punchier for the outdoor shots. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Nice job! Your compression was very interesting! I believe the Kodak Tmax P3200 won the compression! Thank you for sharing!
I did my photography college course few years ago and when I took photos of any subjects I always use a RED or a ORANGE filter to get the BEST contrast from the BLACK AND WHITE films
Ha ha, I was taught to use a yellow filter as a minimum! I didn't for this video to just show the bare bones of the films, but yes, using filters is a big bonus for b&w photography! I also choose a filter according to the lens I choose to use, some have better coatings than others, so they also add nice contrast.
Thanks for watching!
Interesting video. I am not sure about the comparison though. During the scanning process (which I do a lot) not doing any correction is not the right way to treat a film scan. That is also not what happens in a dark room. What I suggest for a next video is that for each film at least a white point and/or a black point is set. That gives a better idea on the distribution of tones of both films. I have shot both films (the old Kodak TMax 3200 that is) and when going for print, I want my pictures to have true blacks and whites (unless the picture didn't have it). That is how these films have always been treated and printed from. None one wants a grey and white picture. None of the Ilford 3200 scans in the video have true blacks. It is therefore not a competely accurate representation of what that film does in comparison to the TMax.
What I think I did see in the video is that I think the Delta 3200 is not really a 3200 film. It seems a bit underexposed in some shots in comparison to the TMax.
From my own experience, I also don't shoot Ilford as a 3200, but when I do it gives me slightly more useable negative because of the detail in the shadows and highlight. It definitely has a flatter contrast than the TMax.
For most shots I preferred the contrast of the Kodak, but Ilford’s dynamic range was nice in a few shots. Great video. Loved the camera choice as well.
Wow it reminds me a lot of Tri-X vs Hp5, I love the extra contrast that Kodak gives you out of the box. I shot one roll of Delta 3200 in medium format and wasn't impressed, it was so muddy and flat. Hopefully I can find some P3200 locally to give it a try. Btw, fantastic first video! Subscribed
I'm a big fan of Ilford films, but I must say that the P3200 has something special! I actually don't have a lot of experience with high speed films, I tend to push them instead, so I was quite pleased with the results. I shoot a lot of medium format as well, but I still tend to stick with lower speed films. Thanks for your kind words, and for subscribing... I promise to be back soon with another video!
You said exactly what I was thinking. Why did I buy so many rolls of Ilford??? The contrast of the Kodak does it for me.
I agree, based on the images, Kodak has a nice contrasty image. I did notice @10:10, the grain structure of Delta looks better. Hmm....
I do think that there is a time and a place for both films, each one has it advantages and disadvantages. I, for one, can't wait to shoot and experiment more with them both!
You could always push Delta to 6400 or 12800 and get similar results contrast-wise, with a faster ISO!
Great video, got me subscribed! Would love to see more film reviews! :)
I promise to get more videos up soon! I wasn't quite prepared for the overwhelming response to this one, so I don't have anything ready yet, but I can guarantee there will be more content! Thanks for watching and subscribing!
At first I liked the Ilford, but as I saw more shots, the Kodak won me over as my favorite.
TMAX for the win. the shiny parts of the highlights :)
I suppose the lab developed with standard times for each film, or did they develop them together ?
lovering the contrast of TMX gives a shorter developing time what's not enhancing precision, boosting Delta contrast means a longer development time what's better to manage.
Knowing this I would prefer Delta that should have more flexibility.
The best way is to develop these film at home, so you can increase or decrease the time, for film contrast increase or decrease
I’ve never used either of these films. But the Kodak did seem more appealing to me. A little bit punchier. Good video.
Right out of the box I do like the P3200, it is punchier under pretty much all situations, so as long as you nail your exposure there doesn't seem to be as much work to do. But I'm still a big fan of Delta 3200 because I find it allows me more creative control either in post or in a darkroom, so I'm better able to render the scene as I saw it in my head. Honestly, both are great films, I will continue to shoot both, especially since Delta 3200 is available in 120! Thanks for watching!
The Delta gave more useable negatives. Highlights didn’t burn out and shadows didn’t block up. So from a printing and post-production standpoint Delta would make better prints. The development is important. The developer can be used to adjust tonal range. Diluting the developer more for the T-max would allow a wider tonal response. You have to experiment with film to get it to behave as you want it to. 3200 is pretty extreme and will tend towards being contrasty. Metering will allow you to use the tonal range of the film better. Outdoors on a bright day you can set the meter sensitivity 2/3 of a stop lower to keep shadow detail overcast days, set the meter sensitivity 2/3 stop higher to brighten highlights. The images you got looked good over all and were very useable. Printing-wise the films were about a paper grade apart. The Kodak needing a softer grade and more dilute paper developer.
Sometimes with low light you have to guestimate. If the kodak low light photography chart van still be found, you extrapolate from 800 t0 3200 and use the general guidelines,eg: stage light, store windows, etc.
Kodak hands down winner.
It is quite something, isn't it?! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Ohh noo
I'd rather have that shadow detail / latitude and add contrast I'm post...Tri X just gives you less to work with. I say if your shooting film and don't know how to adjust In post ie..Black levels/Contrast. Then you must not know what your doing.
I am happy to see new film shooters and I agree for most of the shots the Kodak gives better contrast but sometimes it could be a little too dark in some situations that the Ilford Delta could do better. The Delta could be edited in post for better contrast. Peace, Flood!
Yeah I guess if you adjust it you can make Ilford look like Tmax in post. Good point.
Do long exposure ( B Mode ), see how that turns out or 1/15 or 1/2 of a second a bus passing by a interesting intersection.
Thanks for the video. It's hard to compare based on the images seen on a video screen, but the Kodak seemed consistently more contrasty. That said, I have to wonder if you could offset that difference while printing in the darkroom or while processing a scanned image?
This is your first Video? I don’t believe it, fantastic job! Subscribed.
P3200 seems sharper, but Delta retains highlights better - maybe too much. Slightly increased development seems to be the norm for Delta films. Too bad P3200 isn't available in 120.
I do like the P3200 straight out of the box... it's nice and punchy, makes for some interesting images. I do like how much more detail the Delta retained, I'm really excited to run the images through Lightroom (and eventually in an actual darkroom) and see what comes of it! As for guessing exposures in low light, I did actually use a digital camera to get my exposures from... not a perfect solution, but a little easier than just taking a guess. I'll definitely look for that chart you mentioned, sounds like something handy to have! Thanks for watching and commenting (twice!)!
Thanks for the illuminating vid. I'm a Montrealer myself and recognized all those landmarks, lol.
Hey Jess! Very well made video, and great comparison. A few questions though since I’m trying to learn shooting this film without a light meter :). I kind of feel like abandoning sunny 16 for the P3200. Therefore I was wondering about how you made the decision for each aperture and exposure setting on the P3200, and how you developed the roll, especially with regards to the night photos. For example, if you take images with 1/15 at F/8 which if I’m right would be the equivalent of 1/250 at F/2, or 1/60 at F/4, then why not go with the settings with the faster aperture? Also, were all these chosen combinations underexposed deliberately and you went with pushing the film by an equal number of stops (if so, by 3?) to recompensate in development, or did you not underexpose and just had the roll developed as is? Your answer is hugely appreciated if you get a chance!
Great job! What iso did you meter for? Iso 3200? It would be interesting to see the results if you developed both rolls at 12mins. My guess is that the result would be a little more contrast in Delta 3200.... maybe a little closer to tmax 3200.
I metered for iso 3200... I know that both films are meant to be shot at lower iso's, then push processed, but I really wanted to see how they would react at 3200. I often find myself in dark situations, and I don't want iso to impact my ability to not get a shot, so I wanted to see what these films could do. As for the developing, I would definitely like to test out different times, and even different developers to see what kind of results I could get... I had to bring these rolls to a local lab, and I was very limited on my choice of chemicals, but I would really like to get myself set up for home development to to my own experiments! Thanks for watching!
Jess Hobbs thanks!
336 subscribers and 214 likes for your first video so soon after it being released, speaks volumes. Great comparison, very well balanced, to me the TMax had better contrast but the Delta 3200 opened the shadows more. My days of going out after dark are a distant memory so neither are a film I will keep in stock, but it’s great to know there is a choice out there. Fantastic first video, very well done indeed and a great introduction.
Thank you so much for the kind words, they mean a lot to me! The response has been incredible, completely surpassed my hopes/expectations! I really enjoyed comparing these two films, it was fun to see how each held their own under different situations. I have yet to try them out during daytime or portrait shoots, so there will be a lot of experimentation in my future! Glad you liked the video, I promise there will be more where that came from! Thanks for watching and commenting!
It's just because the Delta black level wasn't the same as the P3200, not necessarily more contrast. Having said that, it's hard to tell but I do think the P3200 has slightly higher dynamic range.
To my eye, it was as though each film had a split personality. In the lowest light, the Ilford opened the shadows far better, as geowal91 says, but its weak blacks relative to the Kodak made it appear to have a veiling haze in the better lit scenes. One almost needs two cameras to be ready for both levels of lighting, unless willing to overexpose the Kodak in dark scenes (and then what's the point?).
eric moss Very well put. The only part of the comparison that wasn’t equal was that both films used a Kodak developer, something they had no control over in the video. I don’t shoot very fast film at all, and can’t say I have any experience, but one wonders how the Delta would have fared in DD-X.
Jess, may I ask you? You shot Kodak at ISO800 on your camera and developed as ISO800 or did you shoot it as 3200 on camera and developed as 800 +2 stops or did you shoot it at 3200 on camera and developed as 3200? This is quite important since all those who shoot at 3200 and develop as 3200 later complain because of 1-2 steps underexposure. Yours looks amazing so wondering what was the process from technical point of view.
Great work! I shoot with Delta so I'm biased, ha ha
Waiting for the second one
Kodak is much more contrast, the Delta has much more shadow detail. Private investigators and police would prefer the Delta, but I like the Kodak much more for that punchy look.
Very very interesting comparison. Enjoyable photographs too. Thank you for your work and skills. RS. Ontario
I LOVE how you load your ultra-high speed film IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT, NOT! It PLAINLY is printed inside ALL 35mm film boxes "Load in subdued light". You basically fogged the entire rolls of each film as they are on "light piping" polyester bases.
Cool video.
Glad you liked it! Thanks for watching and commenting!
P.S. I love your cover photo, the Mamiya RB67 is one of my favourite cameras! It's my beastly workhorse!
Jess Hobbs Cool, well I have named mine Godzilla because it is such a beast of a camera... but seriously Mamiya are awesome camras. Way better than Hasselblad (and that is coming from a Swead 😆).
I thought I would prefer the Delta because I don't like too contrasted pics, but seeing your (lovely) video I tend to prefer the TMAX... and I have to choose for tomorrow when I'll go to Disneyland! thanks for this video, it was very interesting!
Hard to tell the difference . Both films are very good. Like the video. Watching in Terrassa, Spain. Subscribed already.
great video, and for your first!!, WELL DONE!!, one other way of doing this kind of comparison is to use a 35 mm magasine camera, like the Rollieflex sl-2000f or 3000 these have magasines, just like a mamiya 645 camera, so you use the same lens, etc. just a different back, and you can switch mid roll.
Delta 3200 has a triangular shape grain, for me that is more appealing, and also sharpness. Ugly flat but you can fix it later on editing. If you boost sharpness on P3200, grain will turn into little Hulks.
I watched this again. I was going to say I like the high contrast Kodak P3200 but having looked at these side by sides, I also equally like the softer Ilford Delta 3200. I once used kodak 3200 in my student days when it just came out and found it didn't handle the highlights to my liking. Canon A1 goes to Iso 12800 and the meter goes down to ev -2 and is better for low light by 4 stops compared OM1 which goes to EV2, and has the glowing red LED display as well as program mode. The FD 50mm f/1.8 and 1.4 have beautiful rendering. Something to keep in mind for low light metered photography. Om2sp goes to EV -5 and to ISO 3200 while shutter is open and metering off film. i don't like the Om2sp for low light ambient metering before shooting photos though it is one of my favourite film cameras. Also Nikon FE2 goes to ISO 4000 and down to EV1. All the cameras I mentioned are excellent for low light high ISO Metered film photography.
P3200 ftw
I found you on the episode where you got your Intrepid...I'm just going back to see where you've been.... to me, you hit the ground running with this episode...it's really good to see a nice film comparison. To me, there is no comparison...the P3200 is a clear winner.
Cool one for a first video. Btw, love the music!
Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate them! Thanks for watching!
Great shots!
Tried Delta3200 once and it looked terrible. Will be giving Kodak P3200 a try.
Great comparison! One thing though, the lenses are actually slightly different. They are slightly different optically and one is multi coated and the F. Zuiko is single coated.
Hi Jess, nice video! Two considerations: 1) what developer and time, ket us know some details on process and scanning; 2) these kind of films shouldn't be exposed as suggested by the E. I. (3200) but exposed at their effective sensibility (for the Ilford is about 1000 ISO, I don't know for the Kodak) and then developed up to 3200 or more. And both of them are intended to be printed in a darkroom, not scanned. I follow you even on Facebook! 🙂
Nice video! Kodak absolutely looks better, but that's largely because its more contrasty. Looks more like what we want with a high speed film, right out of the box. IF there is lost of highlights and shadows, its more complex than that, don't you think? How would they compare, if one adjusts contrasts in LR to pretty much match. There will always be some basic editing anyways. Coming to think of it, maybe you have already done something like that? :-)
Very good start indeed. 667 subscribers already...
P3200 it's like a Tri-x on steroids: lots of contrast (very punchy), but at the cost of losing shadows details; not for me, i'll go with Delta.
P.S. But hey, i'm the kind of guy who likes Agfa's APX "milky" tones, so it's just my taste, the Kodak still a great film if you like to have that kind of contrast straight out of camera.
It's possible the Delta is overexposed and the Kodak under which is why it looks more contrasty. Here's an article about the P3200 which argues it's not really ISO 3200. That might explain the difference.
www.thephoblographer.com/2018/04/30/kodak-no-kodak-tmax-p3200-isnt-an-iso-3200-film/
A better test would use the same lens and camera and use exposure settings which suit the character of the respective films.
Hello. Nice and useful video. You've been featured on Kodak Professional FB page ;). As for the results, I think a choice of developer could made Delta appear so washed out compared to Kodak. Developer of choice for Delta is Ilford's DD-X I think.
Tmax P3200 and Delta 3200 are both modern emulsions types with tabular grain. They have similar sensitivities and thus grain sizes. So they should be given near (if not identical) development processes. From what I have seen in your pictures, the Delta 3200 looks like to have been underdeveloped. An impression that is confirmed by the short time you spoke about. Kodak does not give data in their Xtol dev' chart for the Delta 3200. I do not know where you took the 7 minutes from, which appears low for a coarse grain emulsion. I think these films should have been compared with identical times to give a more fair comparison.
By the way, I'm discovering your channel. Thank you for the extensive comparison. It's very nice to see you chose a representative range of interesting and varied scenes for your pictures. Nice to have a girl versed into technical side of the silver-based photographic world, producing interesting content about it. Keep up the good work, cheers.
The Tmax was definitely more contrasty and lack some shadow detail. Overall, the Delta was smoother with more gradual tonal range. I shoot a lot of 120 Tmax 400, but would like to try it in 3200 as well, but unfortunately, no Kodak 120 yet. I will for sure give the Delta 3200 120 a try.
I prefer the contrast of the Kodak.
I remember discovering that the Ilford is WAY better when exposed at 1600 or even 1000.
Honestly, the P3200 is better for daylight because of the contrast, but the Delta 3200 is better for the night because of it's lower contrast.
I think ilford has a specific developer for delta 3200. The negatives didn't look very good in the xtol. Maybe 6 minutes was to little time in xtol?
Oh... I cringe when I see a camera lens down on cement. I enjoyed the video though. A small cloth in your pocket or camera bag will protect the lens cap, lens and camera body from those scratches. I will bet that almost any camera bodies (from most makers) from the 1950-60’s will quite easily last two lifetimes if well cared for.