Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/25

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] P3200 etc
From: "Johnny Deadman" <deadman@jukebox.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:39:51 +0100

> I'd like to try using my M6 in extremely low light conditions.  From what I
> understand, black-and-white film is the way to go for maximum sensitivity in
low
> light.  Can anyone recommend B&W negative film?  I haven't done anything in
B&W
> since I was little.  It looks like Kodak and Ilford are the ones who lead
here.
> Is T-MAX P3200 any good?  What about Delta 3200?

Anthony --

I have found the 3200 films good and bad. Good in the sense that you can get
very fine grain with the right developer (TMAX dev is great), bad in the
sense that (as I recently discovered through extensive testing -- and then
reading the datasheet) they are 'push' films and their real (ISO) speed is
actually around 1200 ASA.

This means that if you expose at 3200, much of the shadow detail you might
expect will simply disappear. In fact, my view is that they only offer about
one and a half stop's true speed increase over good old Tri-X or TMY.

I would suggest that, unless you need to be able to shoot handheld, you will
get better results by going with a tripod and a longer exposure on TMY or
TX, and pushing the film a stop or two.

The reason I say this is that I looked hard at the acutance of D3200,
exposed and processed at 3200 in D76 and D23, as compared with TX pushed to
1600, and TX very definitely had the edge. Some small writing on signs was
clearly readable on the TX negative and illegible on the D3200 neg, whose
general edge contrast was very much lower. Grain size was similar, but more
sharply defined in TX.

FWIW, I have also found that TMY pushed to 3200 in TMAX dev is very, very
good. It's a very versatile film, and may be the only one you need. My only
complaints, and the reason I stick with TX, is that (1) the emulsion is too
thin to use a two-bath developer and (2) it is very nasty when underexposed,
due to the shape of the curve at the toe of the film, which is not as
flattering as TX.

In the end, TX is the swiss army knife of films. It always comes out well in
head-to-head tests with other B/W emulsions, it is incredibly versatile, you
can develop it in *anything*, you can get almost invisible grain with stock
D23 in a two-bath process, or huge grain with dilute Rodinal, and it is
utterly consistent from batch to batch. It also, FWIW, has in the opinion of
some a 'richness' which modern emulsions may lack. I don't know if this is
true, but emotionally I feel it is, much as I feel that Leica lenses have
'something' about them that even Erwin's tests cannot measure.

My experience, that's all. I know others on this list have different
opinions. As ever, run some tests and decide for yourself.

- --
Johnny Deadman

"The secret of playwriting can be given in two maxims: stick to the point
and whenever you can, cut".