Can I develop Tmax 100 and Ilford 100 together?

[NancyO]

Hi-- sorry if this is answered somewhere but it's not coming up on a search for me.

I just shot a roll each of Tmax 100 and Ilford Delta 100 and would like to develop them together in D76. Is this possible? I'm returning to B&W photography after a number of years and I'm very rusty on a lot of things!

Thanks for any input.

 

[cjbecker]

I develop hp5 and trix together. Give it a test, see how it works.

 

[mopar_guy]

Welcome to APUG!

 

[Mackinaw]

Yes you can develop both films in the same tank at the same time, but be aware the the development times for the films may be different. Take a look at the Massive Developing Chart for each film in D-76 and see what time will work best (or you may have to use a "compromise" time).

Jim B.

 

[Vaughn]

They can be developed together, but the times give in the Massive Development Chart:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php

are different for Tmax and Delta100 -- at ASA100 in D-76 1:1, 12 min and 11 min respectively. I think it would be wise to develop them separately, determine the best times for each, then decide if you want to cut corners by developing them together.

 

[NancyO]

Thank you very much.... you've been very helpful indeed!

 

[derwent]

I have developed different films together before but only if the times are the same.

 

[Rick A]

What Vaughn said.

 

[Steve Roberts]

I've no experience of D-76, but in my experience with other products (and I'll probably be jumped on for saying this!) a minute here or there makes little difference in B/W film development. Variations of temperature, exposure, time taken to pour out developer and pour in stop bath all make it rather less precise than we may like to think, try as we might to make it otherwise. If you really want to develop the films together, I'd aim in the middle and neither should be very far out. Of course, it depends on the importance of the subject material - if it's your daughter's wedding or the flying saucer that landed in the back garden last night, then develop them separately......
Best wishes,
Steve

 

[2F/2F]

Nothing bad will happen chemically if different products of the same basic type (the type being b/w negative film in this case) are developed in the same tank. Obviously there will be a compromise on time somewhere unless the two films happen to share the same development time. If films are within a minute of each other, I will develop them together. I use the shorter time, or halfway between the two times if a little extra contrast won't hurt the roll with the shorter time.

 

[vpwphoto]

I have tried "crazy" stuff like this... something always turns out "thin" or "overcooked"... Images taken arn't worth the risks of this sort of thing.

What I HAVE done and it has obvious risks is add a rool wound on a reel "later" to the mix, I agree if things are in the ballpark and it's photojournalism deadline time do it (as I have) otherwise it is a false economy to do this on a basis of cost.... the economies of time are another story.

I have done this when I have a couple rolls that are being "pushed" with a couple rolls normal, the hazzaards of fogging the film or mixing up the pour in the dark are issues too.

 

[bdial]

One way to deal with this is to put the developer in the tank before loading. Load the reels, put the one in that needs more time, and start the timer. Put the second reel in at its time put the lid on, turn on the lights and continue.
Just make sure you can keep track of what's what in the dark.

 

[TareqPhoto]

if each has about 1 minute difference, then why not split to the half for each? I mean for 11min film make it 11.5min, and for that 12min make ir 11.5min, so it is like one is a bit 30sec overdeveloped and the other is 30sec underdeveloped.

 

[vpwphoto]

I never find the optimal time for most of these "mixes" to really be a minute appart...

Again... I think some of the folks chiming in have never DONE it. I have and I posted my impression of REAL results.
APUG makes me nuts with folks guessing about stuff that they have no experiance with.

That massive dev chart is like the Wikipedia of processing. I have doubts about real testing and situations. For ME I have always found HP5 to be an ISO 250 film if developed by the ilford chart... and that's from Ilford, not some Wiki developemt chart.

 

[NancyO]

This is a great forum with active, helpful people. I'm sure glad I joined.

Thanks again for the ideas. These two rolls aren't *that* important but I'm leaning toward the idea of putting the longer-timed one in first, then after a minute, put in the other.

 

[Vaughn]

Hello NancyO!

My first post just stated what one "should" do. What I probably would do (and have done!) is probably develop both at the same time, using the longer time if the scenes photographed have normal contrast, and the shorter time if the the scenes were of slightly higher than normal contrast. What is important is how the negatives print . By keeping notes on the time, temperature and agitation method, you'll be able to better determine the time that you should use the next time you develop these films, together or separately (when photographing similar contrast ranges in the scenes).

If you find you are needing a 3 filter or higher for most of the negatives, then you will want to increase your development time to increase the contrast of the negatives. If you are needing a filter lower than 2 all the time, then decrease the dev time to decrease the contrast of the negative. Use the strength of the shadow detail to determine if you are exposing well.

All this is instead of doing exposure/development tests -- which are not a bad idea at all...just one I have refrained from doing these past 30 years or so...

 

[removed account4]

hi nancy

i would do each roll separately the first time
find out what time/temp/ combo worked best for each roll
and if they were the same the 2nd time i would do them together
if not ... its not worth negatives that don't turn out the way you want them.

you exposed the film, the exposures must mean something .... why waste them with bad processing ...

 

[hpulley]

A funny combination I shoot from time to time is FP4+ @200 and Delta 3200 @3200 which I develop @6400. In DD-X 1+4, the FP4+ @200 is 12:00 while the Delta 3200 @6400 is 12:30 and I find the :30 is not that critical for the FP4+ after 12 minutes so I develop both for 12:30 and they turn out great. Just odd that one is 200 and the other 6400 EI in the same tank for the same time! Delta 100 @100 is 12:00 so I can toss that in too. HP5+ @1600 is 13:00 so OK to do with the Delta 3200 at least

 

[Roger Cole]

Diafine. Same times for all films - well some want a minute more but that minute will make no difference in those that are "done" sooner. You'd have to experiment to find the right exposure index for each film though. It likely will not be box speed.

 

[Steve Roberts]

Again... I think some of the folks chiming in have never DONE it. I have and I posted my impression of REAL results.
APUG makes me nuts with folks guessing about stuff that they have no experiance with..

Surely it's of no importance as long as contributors make it plain whether their comment is a considered opinion or based on first hand experience?

Though I've never personally shoved my hand into a vat of boiling acid, I'm sure you'd agree with my supposition that it would hurt a bit and wouldn't do me any good!

Steve

 

[removed account4]

I never find the optimal time for most of these "mixes" to really be a minute appart...

Again... I think some of the folks chiming in have never DONE it. I have and I posted my impression of REAL results.
APUG makes me nuts with folks guessing about stuff that they have no experiance with.

That massive dev chart is like the Wikipedia of processing. I have doubts about real testing and situations. For ME I have always found HP5 to be an ISO 250 film if developed by the ilford chart... and that's from Ilford, not some Wiki developemt chart.

vpwphoto --

a lot of what is posted here and other places
is opinion not based on experience or facts. someone heard of doing something
that someone they know's friend might have done, but not
with the same chemistry ... &C ..

apug is all the richer of a traditional photography website because people folks like YOU
have experience doing things and post the results of your findings.

apug drives me crazy sometimes too, but so do a lot of things

john

 

[vpwphoto]

This is a great forum with active, helpful people. I'm sure glad I joined.

Thanks again for the ideas. These two rolls aren't *that* important but I'm leaning toward the idea of putting the longer-timed one in first, then after a minute, put in the other.

I've done that to... again from experience, in the end I usually regretted it too.
I find T-Max works best with T-Max developer.
HP5 and Tri-x with Rodinal or D-76
Ilford Delta films with the recommended developers.

 

[MattKing]

They can be developed together, but the times give in the Massive Development Chart:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php

are different for Tmax and Delta100 -- at ASA100 in D-76 1:1, 12 min and 11 min respectively. I think it would be wise to develop them separately, determine the best times for each, then decide if you want to cut corners by developing them together.

What he said

From the OP's perspective, if he/she does develop the two together, he/she only gains experience with what happens when the two are developed together (likely a relatively rare event) and not with what happens when the films are developed separately.

And again from the OP's perspective, it may be that the most valuable benefit he/she will gain from processing this film is knowledge and experience (rather than the shots themselves).

 

[2F/2F]

I have tried "crazy" stuff like this... something always turns out "thin" or "overcooked"... Images taken arn't worth the risks of this sort of thing.

What I HAVE done and it has obvious risks is add a rool wound on a reel "later" to the mix, I agree if things are in the ballpark and it's photojournalism deadline time do it (as I have) otherwise it is a false economy to do this on a basis of cost.... the economies of time are another story.

I have done this when I have a couple rolls that are being "pushed" with a couple rolls normal, the hazzaards of fogging the film or mixing up the pour in the dark are issues too.

It is not crazy; it is efficient. 30 seconds in difference could not possibly make film thin or overcooked unless the developing time was very short (under 5 minutes). Something else ruined your film. Not metering/exposing properly, using a mis-calibrated thermometer, not testing your film to find it's optimal development first, etc. There is no logical reason that developing for 11:30 will make or break negatives that are "supposed" to be developed for 11 and 12 minutes.

 

[JohnArs]

I really do this very often, just today I take a roll Ilford Pan F and a roll of Delta 3200 at 1600 exposed. It has on XTOL full strengs very similar times not exatly but not to far away, booth are looking fine!
So what's the problem, in huge labs they do the same;--0

Cheers Armin