[Leica] Report Delta 3200

[Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

The Ilford people at Photokina only gave a selected few persons samples of
the Delta3200. I too got a few rolls and used them for densitometric
analysis. As is well known by now pushprocessing is just underexposure with
subsequent longer development. In Zone system parlance we will use such a
procedure to enhance contrast in situations where the subject brightness
range is well below the 5 or 6 stops a normalfilm will accomodate. When
using high speed film like TMZ the situation is a bit more difficult. The
scenes to be recorded have inherent very high contrast (remember Marc's
jazz pictures). And then push processing does three very bad things:
underexposure washes away any detail in the darker areas and
overdevelopment boosts contrast to block out any high light detail and the
steeper curve gives the midtones a harsh look.
So what you would like from a highspeed film with a sane amount of
'pushing' is a normal behaviour: good shadow recording, finely graded
midtones and enough detail in the highlights to give a decent separation of
tones in that region.
Well: this is exactly what Delta 3200 does when exposed at EI1600!!
I used XTOL to analyse the sharpness and grain patern of TMZ en D3200 and
the verdict is well: about equal: slightly tighter and sharper grain with
D3200 and a bit more mushy grain with the TMZ. The rendition of very fine
detail (shot with my new favourite: the APO 135/3,4) in both films is
excellent. While a 100ISO film has more acutance, much finer grain and a
very crisprendition of extremely fine details,the quality of the D3200 is
amazing. It is like a HP5 but with a speed gain of 2 stops without any loss
of quality.
For sensitometric tests I used D76 (stock that is undiluted) and mind you I
gave both films the same EI of 1600 AND the same development times (10
minutes).
Results are below.
	TMZ	Dp3200
0	0	0
1	8	6
2	15	16
3	32	37
4	45	50
5	65	80
6	82	97
7	112	122
8	136	141
9	158	160
10	177	169
11	194	178
12	217	180
It shows two things: the TMZ has a very straight curve, good for exposure
latitude, but the D3200 has that famous S-curve needed for fine gradation
in shadows and highlights AND needed for use of a normal grade paper (2 or
3 in Multigrade terms).

It is clear that TMZ needs a higher grade to get the same results as D3200
and so the upshot is a clear gain for Ilford.
Both films have the same shadow detail, but the higher grade needed by the
Kodak film reduces the ability to record the finest hues of greytones.
In these circumstances the films produced an almost true 1200ISO capability
and an EI of 1600 is very usable. Thanks for the APO 135 too!.
If you are dedicated to fine pictorial photography in adverse lightning
conditions: go for D3200. The TMZ is a bit more pushable after 6400 but out
there the world is really bad.
The loser now is the Fuji Neopan 1600. The D3200 outclasses this film on
every count.
The D3200 can be effectively used as a very fine EI400, only a bit behind
the Delta 400.

My test negs were enlarged 15 times and showed a surprisingly fine grain
and recording of fine details. With careful processing and a bit fiddling
with exposure and darkroom processes high quality results can be expected.

Try it and the Leica frontiers can be pushed on a bit further.

But as always: some B&W experience is plainly needed. This is no film for
unexperienced drivers.

Erwin