Written by Taylor Blanchard
The versatility of 400 ISO films also makes them the most popular – providing a wide exposure latitude for a variety of shooting conditions – morning and dusk, daylight, and flash. However, there are times when we need a faster film to capture lower light scenes.
In the shorter days of fall and winter in the northern hemisphere, as daylight becomes fleeting and darkness descends earlier, I often find myself reaching for a higher ISO film. It’s also one of my first choices for indoor photography without flash.
Currently, the highest speed films available to us are both black and white: Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak T-MAX P3200.
Find Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak T-MAX P3200 on Amazon.
An Overview of Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak T-MAX P3200
A quick reminder: the higher you progress in ISO numbers, the more sensitive the film is to light. Higher speed films are more sensitive to light because they have a greater number of the larger silver halide grains in their emulsion. These larger grains capture more light and give the film a more pronounced “grainy” look.
Additionally, higher ISO films produce less shadow detail and more contrast.
Ilford Delta 3200 was released in 1998 to replace its HPS (that’s an “s,” not a 5), an 800 ISO film. Kodak P3200 was reintroduced in 2018 after being discontinued six years earlier. Ilford Delta 3200 is available in 35mm and 120; Kodak T-MAX 3200 is available in 35mm only.
While I’d already gotten to know Delta 3200 very well, as I’ve been shooting it for many years, I’ve only been using the T-MAX P3200 for about two years, shooting it for the first time for Sara Johansen’s ‘Month on Film’ project.
While both film stocks perform exceptionally, there are a few things to know about these two film stocks as you prepare to protect, shoot, process, and print.
How Time, Temperature, Humidity, and Travel Affect 3200 ISO Film
Before you even shoot a 3200 speed film, remember that the higher you progress in ISO numbers, the more sensitive the film is to time, temperature, and humidity.
Time
For the most consistent results, shoot 3200 films before their expiration date; otherwise, you may get base fog.
You should aim to process these negatives soon after shooting; don’t stash an exposed roll and wait for a few months to develop it. Once with a roll of Ilford Delta 3200, I loaded it into my Rolleiflex, and then left it in camera for too long before shooting. When removing the film, there was residue on the camera rollers, which might have been caused by the expired film.
Temperature & Humidity
The datasheets for both Ilford and Kodak 3200 films note to store the films in cool, dry locations in their original packaging.
You can store both films in your fridge or freezer. Just make sure to give them enough time to gradually come to room temperature before shooting.
Another time I shot Ilford Delta 3200, I stored it during the summer months at room temperature before shooting, and the developed negatives were speckled with small, even spots. The most likely culprit? Humidity.
Travel
Finally, if you fly with either of these films, stash them in your carry-on bag and request a hand check at security.
These films are extremely sensitive to x-ray radiation. I often hear from other photographers that x-rays have never damaged their films, but sending a film into an x-ray is a risk I don’t want to take. (Watch Lina Bessonova’s extensive test about flying with film.)
In the U.S., the TSA posts signs stating not to put films higher than 1600 ISO through the x-ray. The newer CT scanners are even more destructive to film.
Rating and Shooting Delta 3200 and T-MAX P3200
The datasheets for both films state that their true film speed is 1000 with an emulsion designed for longer development times. That means that the emulsions on these films are designed to be pushed to and developed at 3200, which differentiates them from slower speed films that you would push to 3200.
The most important takeaway: both the 35mm Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak T-MAX P3200 films are DX coded for 3200. If you have a lab develop your film, they’ll develop it at 3200 unless you tell them otherwise.
Finally, the development times in MassiveDev are for standard stop progressions (i.e. 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400), and not for 1000.
My point: You can shoot the film at 3200 without making any adjustments. I’ve also shot and developed both of these films at 1600, which gives a wider tonal range.
I’ll opt to shoot at 3200 if I’m in a very dimly lit indoor location, or if I want the photos to have a darker look overall. I’ll shoot at 1600 if I’m outdoors or indoors during the day when there is a decent amount of window light. You will definitely get more shadow detail if you shoot at 1600 compared to 3200.
If you have an older camera where you set the ISO manually, you might not have the option to select 3200. In that case, you can choose the highest ISO available and compensate, or use an external light meter.
Given their sensitivity, both films should be loaded in subdued light.
When to Use 3200 ISO Films
There are a few situations when I love shooting these films: an indoor concert or show, a nighttime city walk, and indoors in low light.
If you can get a camera into a concert or show (depending on venue policies and security), then either of these films is a great choice. I tend to shoot medium format at a concert, so Ilford Delta 3200 is my top pick.
One night when we were in Nashville, I loaded it into the Rolleiflex MX-EVS, and we were lucky to find a bluegrass open mic and later a jazz open mic. Marc and I each took a few photos, which I later developed in the darkroom.
Both films are my go-to if I’m photographing family or friend’s children indoors, as it gives me the best chance to capture faster-moving subjects. I also love these films for street photography and outdoors street portraits. The grain is perfect for those night streets.
Metering Challenges with a High Speed Film
I often push the limits of these films with the realization that I am underexposing the films, even at 3200. My Rolleiflex is an f3.5 version, and with a 3200 film I’m often shooting at f3.5 and 1/60thor 1/30th. With those exposure settings, it’s very easy to miss focus. A camera with autofocus will often struggle to focus in dark settings.
Shooting in a very dark location challenges your light meter. If you’re using evaluative (matrix) metering, any bright spots of light can throw off your meter, leading your camera to believe there is more available light in the scene.
As in any setting, when a person or object is backlit, you will get a silhouette unless you meter for the subject. Another option is to add an extra stop or two of exposure compensation if you don’t have time to meter again and again.
If you meter for the shadows of your subject, you will get a better exposure, but may need a faster lens or a slower shutter speed.
Developing, Scanning, and Printing in the Darkroom
Since both these films have larger silver grains, you want to select a lower-grain developer. I would not recommend a development process that gives you more edge sharpness, such as stand development.
I’ve used several developers for these films including Ilford DDX, Kodak D76, and Legacy Eco-Pro, and I always follow the times listed in the MassiveDev app.
The datasheet for Kodak T-MAX P3200 explains that the film exhausts fixer more quickly; Ilford’s datasheet does not. Kodak says if you notice a magenta stain on your negatives, the fixer is close to exhaustion.
In my home darkroom, I always note how many times I’ve used a fixer (before disposing of it safely) and give the Kodak T-MAX P3200 an extra check mark, as if I’ve developed two rolls of another film.
With both negatives, it’s important to follow the recommended time to rinse the negatives, use a wetting agent to avoid streaks and spots, and dry in a location that’s as dust-free as possible. With the higher contrast and often dark scenes, dust is much more noticeable on the negatives.
I find flatbed scanning these films an exercise in patience (even more so than usual!). In addition to the dust, my Epson V800 also can have a tougher time ‘seeing’ the very dark images, and I have to manually select the image frame to scan.
In the darkroom, dust issues are also noticeable, so in addition to blowing dust and using the Ilford Antistatic cloth, I may stop down my enlarging lens more than I would with another film stock.
I also use PEC-12 emulsion cleaner on these negatives more than I might on others to help remove stubborn dust particles. Even though these films are higher contrast, my experience has found that I still use contrast filters to add contrast when printing – usually a 3, 3 ½, or a 4 filter.
Conclusion
A dark wine bar, an indoor concert, or indoors with family is the perfect place to load one of these films.
The films exhibit a noticeable amount of grain; however, I find the grain on both stocks very pleasing and not distracting. The grain, while larger, is evenly distributed. I prefer these films to pushing a film like Kodak Tri-X 400 to 3200 for the additional shadow detail.
I love the results of both films and have a tough time picking my favorite. I think Kodak T-MAX P3200 has a slight edge in 35mm with a bit more shadow detail. Of course, I am a 120 devotee and will continue to shoot Ilford Delta 3200 and will choose it for darkroom printing.
Yes, these films warrant extra care and attention compared to stock that’s super forgiving. But, I think the extended sensitivity is worth it. I’ve yet to push these films beyond 3200 and already have an idea for further testing on this topic.
What’s your experience with these films and do you have a favorite? Let me know in the comments.
Thank you so much, Taylor! Taylor is a regular contributor here at Shoot It With Film, and you can check out her other articles here, such as 7 Lesser-known Color Film Stocks Worth Trying and Intrepid 4×5 MK5 Large Format Camera Review.
You can also check out more of Taylor’s work on Instagram.
Leave your questions about shooting Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak T-MAX 3200 below in the comments, and you can pick up some for yourself here: Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak T-MAX P3200
Blog Comments
Erin
December 6, 2024 at 10:15 am
Beautiful review of these films!! I learned a lot about how I wanna handle shooting Delta 3200 in the future. Wonderful insight Taylor!
Taylor Blanchard
December 6, 2024 at 12:05 pm
Thank you so much for reading, Erin!
Walt
December 6, 2024 at 4:33 pm
Taylor, I really like Ilford HP5 pushed to 1600 or 3200 and then developed per MassiveDev for the push. Have you compared HP5 pushed to either of these two films?
Taylor Blanchard
December 7, 2024 at 6:41 am
Hi Walt – Thank you for reading! No, I haven’t yet compared these to pushing HP5+ to 1600 or 3200. I am going to try pushing several films to 6400 and comparing those, and will be sure to include HP5 in the mix.
Dara
December 7, 2024 at 7:33 am
I have a roll of Ilford 3200 I’ve been hesitant to use because it’s so different than what I’ve normally shot and I’m hesitant on my developing process. I’ve only developed BW rolls on homemade caffenol. I’ve been afraid to put the 3200 through this. Have you or anyone else attempted to develop this film with caffenol?
Also, what wetting agents do you recommend to prevent water streaks?
Taylor Blanchard
December 10, 2024 at 4:13 am
Hi Dara – what a great question! I have limited experience with caffenol but I found caffenol.org lists a time for Delta 3200 in their development chart: https://www.caffenol.org/film-development-chart/. Please report back after you try it.
For wetting agents, I’ve used a number of different ones and I think they all work well: Photo Flo, Ilfotol. Right now, I’m using Flic Films Slick 200.