Rating + Processing for Available Light Portraits – EI 3200 ISO

It bears repeating:

International Center of Photography shooter James Mignogna once told me that a good photographer matches their light, lens, film and developer. Nowhere do I think these decisions are more critical than portraits in dim lighting.

That was the intro I used in my previous entry: Rating + Processing for Available Light Portraits – EL 1600 ISO and it’s as relevant to the entry you’re reading now, which will center around 3200 ISO films. Of which, there are only two currently available.

SHOOTING IN THE DARK: KODAK TMAX P3200 AND DELTA 3200

Okay, so what happens when the sun goes down? 1600 and a 50/2 lens will not cut it anymore so you have to go faster. Ilford Delta and Kodak TMAX 3200 films are here to the rescue!

Armchair available light photographers delight in pointing out that Delta 3200 has a native ISO of 1000 and TMAX P3200 has a native ISO of 800. On a technical level, this is not misinformation. However, I am of the opinion that the constant restating of this as well as some incomplete, inaccurate tutorials about how to shoot these films has spawned not only an inaccurate belief that these films are “best” shot at their native ISO but even a bit of FEAR of shooting them at their box speed or higher.

I say, forget about this native ISO stuff!

For all intents and purposes, 3200 ISO is the NORMAL speed of Delta 3200 and TMAX P3200.

The DX codes printed on their canisters read 3200 by cameras and minilabs. Therefore, this is how Ilford and Kodak want these films to be rated and processed.

The films are not called Delta 1000 or TMAX P800, they’re called 3200. This is not just marketing as people will lament on the interwebs.

These films are intended by their designers, to be rated at 3200 and processed for 3200. They are also designed to function as “multiple ISO films,” as has been worded in older Kodak literature.

I don’t personally see the point of paying for higher priced 3200 ISO films and, rating them well within the range of what 400 ISO film can handle, without a more specific reason than because a few influencers have told followers that this is how these films “should” be used.

To be clear, I’m not discouraging anyone from exploring what these flexible films can do, I’m denouncing boxing oneself into this native ISO rating.

If you are shooting a brighter scene but enjoy grain, yes, go ahead and under-rate your film. Rate it at 1600 and process normal (at EI 3200) This will give you richer contrast, you don’t have to pay your lab extra money or separate or mark your film.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is johnnymartyrkodaktmaxp32001600jillsantopolo.jpg
Jill| Kodak TMAX P3200 rated at 1600 ISO and processed normal at EI 3200

I was on a Nikkormat kick for some time and the meters on these and other classic cameras top out at 1600, so this guided how I shot and processed my 3200 films. In the example above, I was shooting in flat light that needed the under-rating to bring contrast to the scene. Some Nikkor lenses are not very contrasty at full aperture, so under-rating the film helps balance this out too.

If you like grain and tonality and shooting at wider apertures (a dreamy look, if you will), you can rate 3200 films at box speed to achieve this.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is johnnymartyrlauriekodaktmaxp3200normal.jpg
Laurie | Kodak TMAX P3200 rated at 3200 ISO and processed normal at EI 3200

In fact, you can always rate your film at 3200 and process normal at EI 3200. This is what Kodak and Ilford designed the film for and is it’s “normal” look. No pushing, no pulling, no over- or under-rating. This will give you a flatter, more tonal image which is perhaps a less popular look currently and the reason that you see people recommending against EI 3200. But look, it’s all about assessing the quality of the light you’re working in and deciding what style you want. You may also just NEED that extra stop because the light is too dim to shoot at 1600 handheld.

I encourage other photographers not to assign subjective judgement such as presuming more contrast is “better” or less grain is “better.”

In truth, everything’s about balancing what you are working with and what you are trying to achieve. Under-rating (overexposing) your film may increase contrast but it also reduces tonality and shadow detail. It also gives you fewer apertures from which to choose. A detail-oriented shooter is going to be ready to shoot/process these films several ways depending on what the scene is giving them, as oppose to prescribing one method or film for every situation.

What I do most of the time is rate my film at 6400 ISO and process for EI 6400 by pushing one stop. This is critical of shooting in low light and night time without a flash or camera support and slow shutter speeds. It’s how I shoot weddings and concerts and pre-pandemic bar hopping with friends. My reasoning is multi-fold. One being that the light meters of my best cameras top out at 6400, so I can operate them without a shred of guess work. Another being that I’m using these films to do what they were intended. The higher sensitivity allows me to stop down if there’s ample light, so I can control my DoF more. The tonality I get from not under-rating gives me more “information” to work with when editing. And the final one being that I very seldom encounter a situation worth photographing where ISO 6400 with a 1/60th shutter speed and a 1.4 aperture are not adequate at bare minimum. Yes, these films can be rated even faster and you may use a lens faster than 1.4. But in these conditions, even with current digital cameras, one encounters some insurmountable (in my opinion) aesthetic concerns.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is johnnymartyrchristiwekerkodaktmaxp32006400.jpg
Christi | Kodak TMAX P3200 rated at 6400 ISO and push processed in Kodak HC110b by one stop for EI 6400
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is johnnymartyrlauriekodaktmaxp32006400.jpg
Laurie| Kodak TMAX P3200 rated at 6400 ISO and push processed in Kodak HC110b by one stop for EI 6400

Aside from how to expose and process, the other big question is which to use, Ilford Delta 3200 or Kodak TMAX P3200. In HC110b, I find the Kodak to be softer and more tonal, whereas the Ilford is sharper and more contrasty. So, just as I recommend under-rating or push processing to bring contrast to a scene with flatter lighting, I would also recommend choosing Delta. The opposite would be true for a contrasty scene, reach for the TMAX to quell that contrast. OR, if you want to emphasize a contrasty scene, use Delta and to emphasize a flat, dreamy scene, use TMAX. And within each model of film, you can rate and process to add or calm contrast.

Is your head exploding with options?

Don’t worry! My recommendation is to start at box speed and normal processing and learn what works and doesn’t work with your particular lenses and your usual scenes. I DO NOT recommend starting out by under-rating these films as many influencers will encourage. These films are not simply one-size-fits all solutions. They’re not meant to be. They’re SUPPOSED to be personally tailored. Just doing whatever you’re told to do with them is negating the entire point.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is johnnymartyrstephanieilforddelta6400.jpg
Steph | Ilford Delta 3200 rated at 6400 ISO and push processed in Kodak HC110b by one stop for EI 6400
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is johnnymartyrlipsticklamarrilforddelta6400.jpg
Lipstick Lamarr | Ilford Delta 3200 rated at 6400 ISO and push processed in Kodak HC110b by one stop for EI 6400
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is johnnymartyrsummaritdevon.jpg
Devon | Ilford Delta 3200 rated at 6400 ISO and push processed in Kodak HC110b by one stop for EI 6400

Another important thing to keep in mind, which I’ve talked about but maybe not explicitly enough, is not to confuse quantity and quality of light.

Just because a scene has a lower QUANTITY of light and necessitates a higher ISO, this does not mean that you can ignore the QUALITY of the light just because you are shooting at 1600 or 6400. I see so many available light portraits at high ISO’s with shadows on faces or other important elements of the scene. I think photographers forget this because in 100 and 400 ISO conditions which are often sunlit, one needn’t pay a lot of attention to the quality of light in order to return acceptable photos. A shadow on a face may not turn into a grainy mess in the same way it does at 6400. In fact, I find that the less and less light you shoot in, the more critical the quality of that light becomes. And maybe this is one of the main reasons that shooting in these conditions is so challenging.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is tricia1015688346027_3efc75ea36_b.jpg
Tricia| Ilford Delta 3200 rated at 6400 ISO and push processed in Kodak HC110b by one stop for EI 6400

Notice in all these photos, both in this and the 1600 blog, regardless of how dark/black the surrounded area, highlights are generally on the faces. The inclination with candid portraits sometimes is to squeeze the shutter release during the peak of action. But with available light photography, not only must you consider the peak of action but also, this moment has to agree with where the light falls on your subject.

So when working in EI 1600 and 3200; it sounds cheesy and maybe even obvious but… let the light be your guide!

Don’t choose your film, rating and process because someone who takes great photos said something is “the best,” or because you saw some photos at those specs that look good. Ask these photogs about the quality of light they were shooting in and assess the quality of light you’re shooting in. Consider the character of your lenses. Make judgement calls based on those points and your desired outcome. Film responds different ways in different situations. That’s why digital can never fully copy it. And it’s also why there’s a lot to learn in order to get the look you’re after. It’s very possible that of all my examples, you still don’t see something that’s right for you. And that’s okay. The concept is there. From 1600 to 6400 ISO/EI, hopefully I’ve given you a springboard from which to find combinations that work for what you are trying to do. Go out and find your own method for shooting portraits in low, available light!

Thanks for reading and happy shooting!

Follow, Favorite, Like, Add, Insult, Contact Johnny Martyr 

     

 

26 thoughts on “Rating + Processing for Available Light Portraits – EI 3200 ISO

    1. Really glad to hear that you love the grain! People seem to love it or hate it. I use the “swizzle stick” and, I think it’s about 10 minutes at 68 degrees – whatever the Kodak B&W Darkroom Dataguide says!

      Like

    1. Glad everything’s been useful. Sadly I have to admit that I’m probably not a great person to talk about metering extensively, though maybe it does warrant another blog. I’m a bit haphazard because I largely just verify my guesses on exposure settings with my meters. And what I meter off of and expose for can vary depending on the quality of the light and things I want exposed for in a particular scene. Wider lenses and tighter lenses of course need to be metered a little differently too. Generally, I look for mid-tones to meter off of, but in dimmer situations or just flat lighting in general, I’ll meter off something between mid-tones and complete shadow. I also usually overexpose by half a stop to a full stop. It’s been said by others that this might negate my push processing, but maybe it’s just a matter of shooting at settings and metering off tonal value that I’m personally familiar with. See? I told you I’m not a great person to talk about metering with! Thanks for your comment!

      Like

  1. Everything you say is wrong. Exposing these films at their ISO speeds and developed for ‘normal contrast’ yields spectacular results. I have been testing them recently.

    Like

    1. Just read this thread. You write and sound like you are the dictator of a small country. “My way or your life”. I’ll go with Johnny. He has made a successful career shooting the films as he described, not as you command.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ll be sure to let my dad know that you know when he was born. I am positive that he will be as surprised and delighted that you know his age as I am.

      I’d be curious to see examples of your TMAX and Delta images, because as is the thrust of this blog, I’m not trying to dictate to anyone how they should shoot their particular film in their particular lighting, I’m interested in the different ways of using these films based on more information than just what is currently trending. I imagine that you might agree with me on this concept.

      Like

      1. Well, the films are suitable for ‘pushing’, but the quality of the negatives at ISO exposure and development is great! I do have some test images I can send you. How can I do that?

        Like

      2. You’re more than welcome to post links here. Thing is, I’m not arguing that overexposure and pull processing (which is what you’re doing if you’re shooting Delta or P3200 below box speed) can yield beautiful results.

        I find that there is an recent insistence in forums and by influencers for not shooting these films at the speeds they were designed to be shot at (box speed or higher) and incessantly reminding everyone the meaningless and confusing detail of what their “native ISO’s” are as a justification for the practice. The people who seem to make these comments the most, I seldom see any evidence that they even shoot these films with any regularity.

        As a photographer who is routinely paid to photograph dimly lit wedding receptions on film, without a flash, I would be highly amused watching someone else try to cover events the way that I do at a mere EI 800 or 1000. Additionally, I’m not clear as to why someone would buy $13 film to do what an $11 film can do with less grain. And if the reason is for more grain, which is just as easily gotten at 3200.

        I feel like I’m re-writing the blog here but I don’t understand this trend and it has yet to be justified to me. But I am not denying that overexposing and pull processing is one of the many ways one can enjoy these films. I’m saying it is just that – one of MANY ways.

        Like

  2. I suggest using Adox FX-39 developer 1 + 9 dilution for Delta 3200 (10 minutes), and 1 + 14 for T-Max 3200 (for 10 minutes). They will have nearly identical contrast if so developed.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There is no such thing as ‘box speed’. There is ‘ISO’ and ‘EI’.

      ISO (formerly ASA) was doubled in 1960. In my experience, the old numbers were more accurate. I can explain why the change occurred, but it was wrong.

      These ‘3200’ films have been designed to allow extended development without becoming too contrasty (see below). The faster a film is, the bigger the silver halide crystals are, and the bigger the range of crystal sizes is. Slow films have smaller crystals, and a narrower range of crystal sizes. This makes them develop almost ‘all at once’. I have been testing a lot of films lately, since some modifications to the materials have been made since I was last active. Delta 3200 is an ISO 1000 film, and it works best at that ‘speed’. T-Max P3200 is an ISO 800/1000 film, and it works best at that speed. ALL super-high speed films have more latitude in developing, and build contrast slower than moderate-speed materials. They also need more energetic developers.

      I have found that most if not all B&W films work best at about 1/2 to 2/3 ISO (except the super-speed ones).

      Also, note this:

      ” I have made the observation, that Delta 3200 needs a lot more developer than other films. If you look at instructions for liquid film developer concentrates, quite often higher concentrations are listed for Delta 3200 than for other film. I have the impression, that Delta 3200 releases massive amounts of iodide during development. This released iodide strongly restrains high density areas, while allowing weakly exposed areas to fully develop. The result is a high speed rating and great pushability without runaway highlights. At the same time it makes this particular film very unsuitable for dilute developers.”

      From: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/getting-density-with-delta-3200-in-pyrocat-hd.179108/

      The ‘new’ Delta 400 combines the ‘slow’ component of Delta 3200 with the ‘fast’ component of Delta 3200. Formerly, it had it own production line.

      As I mentioned before, I have been doing B&W 35mm photograph since I was 14, in 1964.

      Like

  3. Well, I am sure you have invested a great deal of time in your craft. That is obvious. My interest is in obtaining the highest quality from the great films we have today.

    You may want to look at a small sample of my (mostly recent) work here:

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/page1
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/page2
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/page3

    I have worked professionally, but didn’t care for it. It was studio work with industrial subjects.

    Like

    1. Mr. Hoxha,

      Please let me explain how effective debates and conversations between two or more disagreeing parties work.

      Party One makes a point. Party Two makes a counterpoint.

      It’s as simple as this. And it can go on as long as both parties wish so long as they continue to directly address one another’s points and counterpoints.

      I find that the sure path to an ineffective debate or conversation between two or more disagreeing parties is when one or more parties continually introduce new and/or irrelevant points without providing direct counterpoints to what has been previously stated by another party.

      Would you agree?

      So please, let me start by reiterating some of the points that I made in my blog and have alluded to and restated in my comments that you have chosen to ignore while introducing irrelevant points and no effective counterpoints. I would like very much if you’d please respond to my points with counterpoints and avoid going off topic on other tangents.

      Me: “The DX codes printed on their canisters read 3200 by cameras and minilabs. Therefore, this is how Ilford and Kodak want these films to be rated and processed.”

      Please explain why Kodak and Ilford have applied the incorrect (as I understand you) DX codes to their products. Please explain what the results of exposing and processing these films will be if the manufacturers’ recommendations, as they appear on the products themselves, are followed.

      Me: “I don’t personally see the point of paying for higher priced 3200 ISO films and, rating them well within the range of what 400 ISO film can handle, without a more specific reason than because a few influencers have told followers that this is how these films “should” be used.”

      Please explain the point of paying for higher priced 3200 ISO films and then rating them well within the range of what 400 ISO film can handle.

      Me: “To be clear, I’m not discouraging anyone from exploring what these flexible films can do, I’m denouncing boxing oneself into this native ISO rating.”

      Please acknowledge that I am not discouraging anyone from rating their film how they see best but am simply telling you to explore instead of do things only the way you’ve been told to do them.

      Me: “What I do most of the time is rate my film at 6400 ISO and process for EI 6400 by pushing one stop. This is critical of shooting in low light and night time without a flash or camera support and slow shutter speeds. It’s how I shoot weddings and concerts and pre-pandemic bar hopping with friends. ”

      Please explain to me how one can take photos effectively without a flash in dimly lit wedding receptions, concerts and bars at 800 or 1000 ISO as ones maximum speed rating? Please tell me what is “wrong” with the images I’ve shared here.

      Now, since you’re going to kindly provide direct replies to my blog instead of going off on tangents, allow me to respond to some of your points.

      You: “Everything you say is wrong.”

      My counterpoint: Factually, everything I say is not and cannot be wrong. Just as everything you say is not and cannot be wrong. We can’t both be wrong all of the time about everything, can we? This was a most aggressive and unfriendly way to introduce yourself and you have yet to acknowledge how rude or inaccurate a statement this is, nor have you actually demonstrated how I was wrong in just one way, much less all ways.

      You: “Exposing these films at their ISO speeds and developed for ‘normal contrast’ yields spectacular results. I have been testing them recently.”

      My counterpoint: Please site where I stated anywhere in this blog or anywhere online that you can find, where I said anything comparable to “exposing these films at their ISO speeds and developed for ‘normal contrast’ DOES NOT yield spectacular results. If you can find such an instance, then maybe the remainder of your meandering responses to me would have some degree of relevancy. But the sentiment that I’ve stated both in my blog and in direct responses to you has consistently been that, as quoted above “To be clear, I’m not discouraging anyone from exploring what these flexible films can do, I’m denouncing boxing oneself into this native ISO rating.”

      You: “There is no such thing as ‘box speed’. There is ‘ISO’ and ‘EI’.”

      My counterpoint: You’re free to make this argument all that you like but I believe you understand very well what is being communicated with these terms and that I’ve used them as accurately. If you’d like to provide lessons to young photographers about the history of these terms and if you personally agree with the International Organization for Standardization and millions of other photographers over accepted conventions of language, you are free to start your own blog. But this is irrelevant to my blog which is an effort to provide practical and experiential knowledge to those who are interested in learning my technique. Because such arguments/history have very little to do with what is being discussed here, much less disprove anything I’ve stated.

      You: “Well, the films are suitable for ‘pushing’, but the quality of the negatives at ISO exposure and development is great! I do have some test images I can send you. How can I do that?”

      After I told you that you’re welcome to post links, you posted the following in two separate responses:

      “https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/page1
      https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/page2
      https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/page3

      https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/page1
      https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/page2
      https://www.flickr.com/photos/ornello/page3

      My counterpoints: I have taken time away from my family to view the 256 photos that you provided needlessly redundant links to and I’ve checked each link to be sure that I am not missing anything.
      What I’ve found is that ZERO of these 256 images were taken on either of the two films that we are talking about. ZERO of these 256 images were taken in dim or difficult lighting conditions. 100% of these images are totally random and have absolutely nothing at all to do with what we’re talking about.

      But even if you shared 256 photos taken on Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak TMAX P3200 that were all overexposed and pull processed for which you advocate, while I’d enjoy seeing the work, they would not prove that “everything [I] say is wrong.”

      Finally, you said you have “some test images.” Frankly, I don’t care much about test images. I do this for a living. I put food on the plates of my children with the money that I make from shooting Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak TMAX P3200 at 6400 and processing at 6400. If I didn’t know how to use these films to make images people enjoyed, my children would have that much less food to eat. The images that I have provided in my blog, that you are arguing over are not tests, they are applications of well known (at least to me) principles and processes. So why are you trying to counter demonstrably successful images with tests? What would that prove?

      You: “Well, I am sure you have invested a great deal of time in your craft. That is obvious. My interest is in obtaining the highest quality from the great films we have today.”

      My response: “I wasn’t looking for a hand-out compliment. But even here, you reverted to a criticism of my work by extrapolation, as something other than “the highest quality” – whatever that means anyway.

      If you continue to respond to my points with completely different points and irrelevant comments and implied or express criticisms while not effectively explaining exactly what I have stated incorrectly, I will have kindly remove myself from your unilateral conversation. But if you’d like to support your statements and debate mine, I’m always open to discuss.

      Like

  4. 1) Exposing these films at their ISO speeds is not ‘overexposing’ them, despite what you claim.
    2) I did not read carefully enough what you said about exposing these films at their ISO speed. What you wrote seems confusing. Read point 1 again.
    3) I posted links to my recent color photos to show the kind of photos I like to take. Most were made on ISO 400 color film. I also wanted to show you I am no beginner, especially at photographing people.
    4) The practice of using the DX bar codes at 3200 is one I disagree with vehemently, and may be controversial. I don’t know who else opposes it, perhaps no-one. But in any case such films are intended for advanced users who more likely than not should be using manual exposure controls, not depending on automatic cameras with DX bar codes.
    5) I don’t ‘push’ film, though I did in the distant past (1966-1970). Tri-X and HP5+ look best when exposed at about 1/2 to 2/3 ISO. I found this out by trial and error. Almost all B&W films look best when given such treatment. The ISO standard is wrong; you will find many, many others agree with this opinion. Even the zonites follow this practice. (See: https://www.alexbond.com.au/film-speed-test/)
    6) Extremely low light-level photography is difficult; I know, because I used to do a lot of it.
    7) I hope you understand that I have been there, done that, with regard to many photographic situations. I was born in 1949, took up photography in 1964, in high school. For what it’s worth, I won a couple of state-wide photojournalism contests for high school students in my state. I was just a teenager at the time.
    8) You may find a market for the kinds of images you get with these super-high speed films. It appears that you indeed have. That does not, however, in itself interest me in your methods. I wish I had more material available to show on the internet, but much of the low-light photographs that I took are long gone. 50+ years is a long time!
    9) Today’s films are superb. I find no reason to treat them in a way that diminishes their quality. I don’t shoot Tri-X/HP5+ at EI 800; I shoot them at EI 250. The results are stunning.
    10) I tried professional photography and didn’t like it.

    Like

    1. 1) Exposing these films at their ISO speeds is not ‘overexposing’ them, despite what you claim.

      –Ilford Delta 3200 is a 3200 speed film. Kodak TMAX P3200 is a 3200 speed film. Rating these films at 800 or 1000 is overexposure. Processing them for 800 or 1000 is pull processing. If you want to argue philosophy, shoot a roll of either film at 800 and ask a lab to process it. See if they are willing to argue what ISO the film “really is” when they charge you for pull processing.

      2) I did not read carefully enough what you said about exposing these films at their ISO speed. What you wrote seems confusing. Read point 1 again.

      –If you are confused about something I’ve written, a wiser and kinder approach would be to ask a question, not assume that I am wrong.

      3) I posted links to my recent color photos to show the kind of photos I like to take. Most were made on ISO 400 color film. I also wanted to show you I am no beginner, especially at photographing people.

      –Yes, but what relevance are “the kind of photos [you] like to take” if they are in color and below EI 1600? Did I ever claim that you are a beginner?

      4) The practice of using the DX bar codes at 3200 is one I disagree with vehemently, and may be controversial. I don’t know who else opposes it, perhaps no-one. But in any case such films are intended for advanced users who more likely than not should be using manual exposure controls, not depending on automatic cameras with DX bar codes.

      –You appear to have a habit of making controversy where there is no need for any. You don’t accept the term “box speed.” You don’t accept DX codes. You don’t accept the change from ASA to ISO. I’m quite sure you can make compelling cases for each of your unconventional beliefs. Publish your own blog about this. It’s not appropriate to use my blog as your pulpit.

      5) I don’t ‘push’ film, though I did in the distant past (1966-1970). Tri-X and HP5+ look best when exposed at about 1/2 to 2/3 ISO. I found this out by trial and error. Almost all B&W films look best when given such treatment. The ISO standard is wrong; you will find many, many others agree with this opinion. Even the zonites follow this practice. (See: https://www.alexbond.com.au/film-speed-test/)

      –If you don’t push film and you can’t even agree on the measuring standard I’m talking in, why are you reading my work and arguing with me about it?

      6) Extremely low light-level photography is difficult; I know, because I used to do a lot of it.

      –If you’d like to learn how to shoot in extremely low light more effectively, lo and behold, I’ve written a blog above, with numerous examples, on how to make it easier. 🙂

      7) I hope you understand that I have been there, done that, with regard to many photographic situations. I was born in 1949, took up photography in 1964, in high school. For what it’s worth, I won a couple of state-wide photojournalism contests for high school students in my state. I was just a teenager at the time.

      –Yes sir, I understand. This is, what? The fourth time you’ve told me about 1964? I’m certainly very impressed by your high school prizes.

      8) You may find a market for the kinds of images you get with these super-high speed films. It appears that you indeed have. That does not, however, in itself interest me in your methods. I wish I had more material available to show on the internet, but much of the low-light photographs that I took are long gone. 50+ years is a long time!

      –If you’re not interested in my proven and demonstrated methods, what is it that makes you think that I would be interested in your non-existent ones from 50 years ago as counterexamples?

      9) Today’s films are superb. I find no reason to treat them in a way that diminishes their quality. I don’t shoot Tri-X/HP5+ at EI 800; I shoot them at EI 250. The results are stunning.

      –I’m very happy that you think your own work is stunning. Unfortunately, you can’t shoot EI 250 inside a bar after the sun goes down without a flash or camera support, so what relevance is your comment to this blog?

      10) I tried professional photography and didn’t like it.

      –Why doesn’t that surprise me?

      Like

  5. Johnny: Please read the Kodak data sheet on their film.

    Click to access F4001.pdf

    “The nominal speed is EI 1000 when the film is processed in KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Developer or KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX RS Developer and Replenisher, or EI 800 when it is processed in other KODAK black-and-white developers. It was determined in a manner published in ISO standards. For ease in calculating exposure and for consistency with the commonly used
    scale of film-speed numbers, the nominal speed has been rounded to EI 800.”

    Like

    1. Did you see that I backlinked to a similar PDF from Kodak in the following comment from my blog?

      “Armchair available light photographers delight in pointing out that Delta 3200 has a native ISO of 1000 and TMAX P3200 has a native ISO of 800. On a technical level, this is not misinformation. However, I am of the opinion that the constant restating of this as well as some incomplete, inaccurate tutorials about how to shoot these films has spawned not only an inaccurate belief that these films are “best” shot at their native ISO but even a bit of FEAR of shooting them at their box speed or higher.”

      Please stop wasting my time.

      Like

  6. Hello! I realise you made this post a year and a half ago! I’ve been surfing a lot this last week, won’t bore you with the details. I used a roll of Ilford 3200 a while back, simply as I’d never tried it before. My intention to shoot at 1000asa as that’s what it is, and process accordingly. As Ilford published no times for 1000, I went with 1600 which they did. Despite giving it a further 30 secs in the dev for good luck, I still got very thin negs and poor results. Having now read your post, and indeed the comments that followed – (wow!) I’ve decided to try another! This time I’ll use at 3200 and process according to Ilford. Your post has pointed out to me that, rather obviously this film is intended to be used as such – hence the name. Thanks for the inspiration! Cheers and all best wishes Andy

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s