Starting my B&W Photo class I've been looking at the different aspects of a lot of black and white films, one that amazed me was this T-Max 3200 and I wonder if anyone has used it like this, everywhere I've seen has said that it is 800 ISO film that is pushable all the way to 25,000 ISO, so, I'm wondering, has anybody here ever tried that, or know anyone who has? I just don't think I can quite imagine film that fast, so, I'm really just wondering what its like. Also, what types of B&W film do you use? From what I've heard/seen Ilford is apparently very good, especially the slow speeds, but I have yet to field test anything.

I'm used to shot with TMAX P3200 and it's an incredible emulsion. I've pushed it only to 6400 ISO and worked wonderfully. It's one of the best emulsion out there. Do a nice job on inversion too. Now i'm using Kodak TX400 that has a great grain if taken to 3200 ISO. I'm currently use TMAX 3200 only to shot at 6400 ISO and to 3200 only if i need a finer grain and a bit less contrast. I'm used to buy a lot of ilford the past years. When Ilford has first produced Delta400 was one of the few emulsions that had cylindrycal grain. Generally Ilford emulsions don't take too good high-escursions on ISO speed. FP4 and FP5 are good emulsions... but i prefer kodak these times. maybe a couple of FP4 125 ISO are a nice additions to every photographer trip-bag, and anyway are the most common B/W emulsions out there... very easy to find everywhere.

Excuse the nooby question, but how do you 'push' a film to a higher ISO?

IMHBACO (In My Humble But Always Correct Opinion .. hehehe) I think Ilford Delta 3200 has a better look (not as contrasty as TMax P3200) and has a finer grain. I keep 3 rolls of ID 3200 in my bag whenever I take my film camera out "just in case". I've pushed ID 3200 to 6400 and was very happy with the results. Note that neither one scans especially well (the grain aliasing can get really bad - the grain looks worse in the scan than it is on the negative). I also love the look Ilford's ACROS 100 (very rich black and bright whites).

I also like Ilford's HP5+ and sometimes Kodak TMax 400 (though I haven't gotten consistent results with it - need to shoot with it more so I can understand it).

I have a few examples in my galleries that show Ilford Delta 3200. If you want, take a look - but I'm no super expert with it, so YMMV:

The b&w Lunar New Year shots here Lunar New year Gallery were shot handheld, without flash and indoors on an overcast day at 3200.

The Trolloween shots here Fremont Trolloween Gallery were shot handheld, without a flash and outside Halloween night at 6400. The only illumination in most of these shots is either a flaming torch or street lights.

The 1st 8 b&w street shots here Street Photography Gallery were shot handheld and no flash at 6400 at night.

-=>Donald

3D - To "push" film, you select a higher ISO setting on your camera than your film is rated. You then let your developer know you pushed and by how much (if you shoot ISO 100 film at EI 400 then it's a "2 stop push") and they will compensate the developing time - more developing than normal. What this lets you do is shoot in lower light (like when I shoot ID 3200 at EI 6400 when I do night street photography). It also can allow you to set a smaller apeture to increase your DOF in a shot or set faster shutter speeds. The opposite of pushing is "pulling". And you do the exact opposite (ie. Shooting ISO 400 film at EI 100 is a "2 stop pull"). -=>Donald

I've tried the Ilford brands HP5 and Delta 100, still have that roll of Ilford 3200 still unused in the camera bag, and I have to say I've not been too impressed by Ilford at all. I've found that my BW shots tend to look washed out with the Ilford, not enough contrast for my tastes, yet I've never had a problem with the way the Kodak brands (T-Max and Tri-X) look. Unless I'm doing something wrong, I've yet to figure out why my Ilford shots look so shitty in comparison to my Kodak shots...

Michelle - Never had that problem. Here's a thought, are these all from the same lab? Maybe try another roll of HP5+ and take it to a different lab. shrug Only thing I can think of.

Yes same lab....and this lab sells the Ilford and even recommended it to me....the guys I talked to there had nothing but good things to say about it. :~/ Oh well!

i tend to use illford hp5+ most of the time because i like the contrast. the last time i shot on kodak and agfa b&w and i would like to try the kodak again. i think i'll give the agfa a miss but would like to try the fuji(? donald) acros 100. as to pushing and pulling, i'm a pacifist and don't get violent with my film ;P

Fire - Yea ... my bad, had Ilford on the brain. It's Fuji Neopan ACROS 100. -=>Donald

hummm.... Agree with Michelle. I've shoted 119 rolls of b/w films in the last 2 monts... i've developed 'em with a photographer friend of mine, with different processing and really different results. I've mixed the emulsions... shooting with kodak and with Ilford. Ilford emulsions are really washed out compared with the kodak counterpart. It's true that at 3200 ISO the IlFord Delta is very precise and has a finer grain. BUT don't mantain the quality when you have a shot under exposed of a mere stop or in some shots half stop also. Grain reveals everywhere. TMax3200 is a lot more flexible. in general i've noticed a great capacity of the Ilford Delta to mantain a great quality in High-Key images or in overexposed ones where you need a lot of intermediate tones (gray levels) but here you can notice also a lack of contrast on the deeper blacks. Dunno. Ilford is not really a bad emulsion. I love the FP4 125 coz taken to 800 ISO reveals one of the most wonderful grain you can obtain form a professional emulsion.

I dunno what to say ... I wish I could tell you how my negs were developed. I use to shoot exclusively with TMax and TriX. Then I tried the ID 3200 one day and loved it ... started using other Ilford b&w films and loved them too. I've never had my Ilford negs look washed out when compared to the Kodak. I have to believe it is all in the developing. I found ID 3200 to be far more forgiving and an all around better film in my night street photography than TMax 3200. From the above, makes me wonder if my lab is just better at developing and dealing with Ilford than Kodak? -=>Donald

Have we gotten to a point where the demand for B&W processing from commercial labs is so small that they can no longer keep up the quality control? "washed out ... not enough contrast" could be caused by too short of a developing time. Maybe they are throwing everything in the same soup and not using optimum time for the Ilford? Or, the chemicals could be old and exhausted? Almost makes me want to blow the layer of dust off my old darkroom equipmenr. Almost.

well... we do everything by hand... development i mean... not printing... maybe is what DHolman say...maybe they are better in developing Ilford emulsions. ,They are on the market since a VEEEEEEERy LOOOOOOONG time..... anyway a good method is to take out ye old dear tank and develop it yourself. You cxan choose which chemicals and time... and etc etc etc...