Question for those still shooting film

I've been wanting to shoot the iso-3200 film from Kodak and Ilford for a long
time and think now is the time. Any preference between the two?

--

 

: I've been wanting to shoot the iso-3200 film from Kodak and Ilford for
: a long time and think now is the time. Any preference between the two?

Why wouldn't you want to try both of them yourself? It's not like choosing a
camera, where there may be important money at stake.

Bob

 

: On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:18:12 -0500, Frank Pittel <>
: wrote:
: : I've been wanting to shoot the iso-3200 film from Kodak and Ilford for
: : a long time and think now is the time. Any preference between the two?

: Why wouldn't you want to try both of them yourself? It's not like choosing a
: camera, where there may be important money at stake.

I've already bought a couple of rolls of each and am shooting them. Just checking to
see if others have any experience with the films.
--

 

My personal preference is to the Kodak. Could be because of
my developing, but I found that although Kodak seemed to
have larger grain, it had a smoother tonal range. I've only
shot 1 roll of the Ilford, and it seemed very contrasty.
Could have been my developing, but I didn't like it that
much. I prefer HP5 pushed to 1600 as a fast high contrast
film over Ilford 3200 - it's cheaper and I prefer the result.

From the Kodak, I've found optically printed 8x10 & 5x7s
from 35mm have clearly visible grain (which IMO can add to
the look), while on the other hand I've scanned, done
minimal digital grain removal, & printed to 6x4 and had
prints that look smooth and sharp.

Personally, I don't use it for times when I need 3200ISO - I
use it for the look the film gives. I've even used it in
bright daylight.

 

: On 6/07/2011 4:42 AM, Frank Pittel wrote:
: > : On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:18:12 -0500, Frank Pittel<>
: > : wrote:
: > : : I've been wanting to shoot the iso-3200 film from Kodak and Ilford for
: > : : a long time and think now is the time. Any preference between the two?
: >
: > : Why wouldn't you want to try both of them yourself? It's not like choosing a
: > : camera, where there may be important money at stake.
: >
: > I've already bought a couple of rolls of each and am shooting them. Just checking to
: > see if others have any experience with the films.
: My personal preference is to the Kodak. Could be because of
: my developing, but I found that although Kodak seemed to
: have larger grain, it had a smoother tonal range. I've only
: shot 1 roll of the Ilford, and it seemed very contrasty.
: Could have been my developing, but I didn't like it that
: much. I prefer HP5 pushed to 1600 as a fast high contrast
: film over Ilford 3200 - it's cheaper and I prefer the result.

: From the Kodak, I've found optically printed 8x10 & 5x7s
: from 35mm have clearly visible grain (which IMO can add to
: the look), while on the other hand I've scanned, done
: minimal digital grain removal, & printed to 6x4 and had
: prints that look smooth and sharp.

: Personally, I don't use it for times when I need 3200ISO - I
: use it for the look the film gives. I've even used it in
: bright daylight.

I'm assuming that the 35mm iso3200 films would have a lot of very visible grain when printed at
8x10. Depending on the composition, grain could could add a lot to the image.


--

 

Surely.

The other use of very high ISO films is abusing push.

Underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to 800) and then push process 2 or more
stops. That will give you interesting contrast, tone and grain effects
as well.

 

Ilford Delta 3200 is a push film, and actually shows fine grain under most developing conditions considering it's speed. For many, it disappoints due to its finer grain. Unfortunately, for all those wandering upon this question at this time, Kodak no longer manufactures a film rated for 3200 iso.