on November 9, 2008
Shot at 1250, developed in Diafine. Night shoot, high contrast. No blown highlights, great shadow detail, grain like Kodak Tri-X Pro shot at same ISO. Actually, at 1250 with Diafine, it is just like Tri-X...
on November 5, 2012
Delta 3200 has the best shadow detail I've ever seen in any film. Film is notorious for easily losing shadow detail while retaining highlights. When I pulled the first roll out of the tank, the negatives looked super-thin, however once on the scanner I was blown away by what was actually there. The dynamic range is unmatchable.
on January 31, 2013
Depends on developer you use, its a iso 400 film that CAN BE pushed to 3200. In Caffenol its iso 400, in Diafine its 1250. I had to change my review 3 times, at first I shot it at 3200 no images, then found that wasn't 3200 and tried to develop at different isos and found it to be 400 and 1250 in diafine but couldn't make a decent comparison with Trix 400.
Now comparing both very well Let me tell you this, with diafine delta 3200 is pure bliss the tones are amazin silvery with caffenol is also amazing amazing comparing with Trix 400 I noticed this one wins because Trix 400 is very hard to fix and the image will have a green cast on the shadows that delta 3200 doesn't have, now days if I'm not shooting super resolution like rollei atp my favourite roll is delta 3200 at ISO 1250 with diafine or ISO 400 with caffenol.
Do yourself a favour buy diafine and shot this at 1250 or get a tripod and try it at 400 the grain is very very nice looking the greens also look great this is a roll to shot when you want to have that vintage film look, the eyes will look clear and the skin looks amazing, if you want digital super hd look go buy rollei ATP or adox.
on June 17, 2014
Impressive film. The Ilford data sheets give recommended developing times for a wide range of ISOs from 400 to 12500. I've been shooting it recently at 1600 and developing in Xtol with a water rinse (no stop) - it performs great. I've also shot at 3200, but the grain is much more prominent. That's a matter of taste, though - I think the development times are accurate for both ratings.
As for usability, it's nice that there is a pull tab to unravel the film during loading so you don't have to dig under the tape with your fingernails. Also, the foil opens on using tear-guides on the ends rather than in the sides as with Kodak 120 film. This can make it easier to keep the foil intact and re-use it to protect the exposed film. Also, the box helps with this, but having them individually packaged in little boxes makes it harder to pack them in small pockets sometimes.
I'm not sure if it's something I'm doing or a problem with the film, but I think the emulsion might scratch more easily than the Tmax that I typically use - as if it's a little softer after washing. I use a cheap-o rubber squeegee, but I haven't had this problem with my other film. I don't see this as a reason to discontinue use of the film at all, though. Besides not having another good option at this film speed, it's easy enough to modify my behavior to address the differences between films.
I will definitely continue using this film and recommend it to anyone for medium to low-light situations.
on May 31, 2015
I've tried a lot of films, but this is one of my favorites. At 3200 ISO, it's easy to use it indoors, but I have also shot with it outside with great success. One of the most versatile films I've used if you don't mind the grain, which I like. I bought a bunch of rolls before the price went up. Now I'll have to be more conservative with my shots.