Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Guy Bennett wrote: > > It seems to me that it is easier to get good results from Delta 3200 than > from Fuji 1600, which is a finicky film, IME. and George Lottermoser wrote about D3200 and DDX: > This combination especially impresses > me with its ability to pull printable tone out of the deepest > shadows. > > Far surpasses Kodak's high speed film in terms of grain, > tonality, sharpness, et al. Which really just goes to show there's no substitute for shooting all 3 films and seeing what works for you. My experience of the 3 is that Neopan 1600 has been easiest to process, T3200 a little more finicky, D3200 positively a pain in the ass. For me, "easy" means good results at close to the recommended times and with different developers. I've also found T3200 to have the best shadow detail, followed by Neopan, then D3200. D3200 craps out really quick with underexposure. I like D3200 at 1250, but not as much as T3200 at 1600. My T3200 results are definitely sharper then my D3200 results. The grain of neopan seems more obtrusive to me, so I don't use it. Guy and George's results are valid. Lots of folks like D3200. OTOH, lots of folks like T3200. Some folks like Neopan. You can get good results with any of them, but the best results for you depend on, surprise, you. If you use a lab to process your b+w, this is simple enough. Go shoot some film and drop it off. If you do it yourself you have a couple of weeks of work in front of you. tv