Over Developing Delta 100 For More Contrast

[braxus]

Guys. Im about to develop some Ilford Delta 100 in 35mm. In Xtol straight (only gives times for straight), it says 7.5 minutes. Its warm in here by about 5 degrees more, so I'll have to reduce the time. But even if at 21 degrees C, if I wanted a little more contrast in the negative then normal, so how much longer then 7.5 minutes should I do it for? What do you recommend or that I should try?

 

[Ben 4]

I've found that Delta 100 builds contrast quickly (though I don't use XTOL, so it your experience may be different). Try a 10% increase in time?

 

[braxus]

I've found that Delta 100 builds contrast quickly (though I don't use XTOL, so it your experience may be different). Try a 10% increase in time?

So like maybe an extra 30 to 45 seconds?

 

[Milpool]

Probably something like 15-25% extra time.

See what the Delta 100 tech sheet recommends for XTOL at EI200. Those sheets also have temp conversion times.

Kodak pub J-109 technically has what you are looking for (Delta 100 times for different contrast indexes at different temperatures, stock or 1+1).

Maybe split the difference between the Ilford and Kodak recommendations.

Don’t overthink it. Ballpark is plenty good enough. Or better yet just develop normally and increase contrast in printing / editing.

Guys. Im about to develop some Ilford Delta 100 in 35mm. In Xtol straight (only gives times for straight), it says 7.5 minutes. It’s warm in here by about 5 degrees more, so I'll have to reduce the time. But even if at 21 degrees C, if I wanted a little more contrast in the negative then normal, so how much longer then 7.5 minutes should I do it for? What do you recommend or that I should try?

 

[MTGseattle]

The Film Developing Cookbook 1998 edition says:

Delta 100 in Xtol

asa 25/50. 6.75 min
100. 8 min
200. 9.5 min
400. 11.5 min

There are no temps in parentheses, so I assume these are times for 20 degrees celsius.

 

[Ben 4]

So like maybe an extra 30 to 45 seconds?

Yes—I’d probably go with 45.

 

[braxus]

So I went with an extra 60 seconds, which makes it 8:30 at 20 degrees C. Because its 23 degrees inside, I finally went with 7 minutes developing time which was rounded off. Its slightly more time then needed for 22 degrees and 24 degrees was a big jump and its not that hot here. Its washing as we speak. I'll scan them up after it dries this evening.

Im developing other rolls today too, as its been neglected for many months.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Guys. Im about to develop some Ilford Delta 100 in 35mm. In Xtol straight (only gives times for straight), it says 7.5 minutes. Its warm in here by about 5 degrees more, so I'll have to reduce the time. But even if at 21 degrees C, if I wanted a little more contrast in the negative then normal, so how much longer then 7.5 minutes should I do it for? What do you recommend or that I should try?

=+10-20%

 

[GregY]

Braxus, In my world it would depend on the dynamic light range of the scene. My standarad developer is Pyrocat HD.....& I've never been at a loss for contrast with either Delta 100 or Tmax 100.

 

[Ben 4]

So I went with an extra 60 seconds, which makes it 8:30 at 20 degrees C. Because its 23 degrees inside, I finally went with 7 minutes developing time which was rounded off. Its slightly more time then needed for 22 degrees and 24 degrees was a big jump and its not that hot here. Its washing as we speak. I'll scan them up after it dries this evening.

Im developing other rolls today too, as its been neglected for many months.

Looking forward to hearing how it went!

 

[braxus]

Well you guys were right. This film builds up contrast reel quick when over developed. I shot some shots already in high contrast lighting, and the highlights were blown out in some shots. Some shots looked good and the look reminded me of Delta 400 and Tri-X as far as contrast in concerned. But I think I over did it with this roll. Lesson learned. Next time I shoot some sheets of this, I'll develop as normal. It definately is a sharper film then TMAX 100, which Andy here mentioned. Some shots were quite nice, with not as flat a look as a normal roll would look like to me. But this film seems to still lack a lot of midtone definition compared to other films like Plus X and Efke 25. I'll play some more down the road with another roll. I still want to give this film a chance, but its not blowing me away either. Todays shots were better, if it weren't for the highlights being overcooked.

 

[koraks]

the highlights were blown out in some shots

That's highly unlikely, but it's common for highlights in film scans to blow out. The key to avoiding this is in better control of the scanning process.

Since you're scanning, the concept of overdevelopment for increased contrast is also kind of moot. You can make whatever contrast adjustments you need in digital space. On the negatives, the only thing you need is a full range of tones in all relevant parts of the images. This is mostly a matter of giving sufficient exposure so as to capture sufficient shadow detail, without going overboard and pushing highlights onto the shoulder so they start losing differentiation. The loss of highlight separation on a film like Delta 100 is far less likely and problematic than the loss of shadow separation.

But this film seems to still lack a lot of midtone definition compared to other films like Plus X and Efke 25.

I'd look in the direction of subject matter and lighting conditions for this.
Note that if you want to really boost midtone contrast, it will by default come at the expense of contrast in shadows and/or highlights - unless of course you selectively adjust parts of individual images (i.e. split grade printing with burning & dodging, or in digital space selectively editing using e.g. contrast adjustment layers with masks).

I have a feeling you're looking in the wrong directions for the aspects you're trying to optimize. A compounding problem is likely a somewhat fuzzy concept of what is being optimized to begin with; i.e. what objectively speaking does "midtone definition" mean to you? What does it look like, curve-wise, and/or can you show an example so we can together work out what's happening in it, curve-wise?