Delta 3200 and Rodinal ?

crimbo · Oct 4, 2016

Hello from Shetland
I am bouncing back into analogue and will take time to work out a direction.
So I have a couple of 35mm rolls of Delta 3200 exposed on an OM 2 at 1600 at a music gig with lots of contrast.
So I was thinking push the shadows and pull the highlights I only have Rodinal so was thinking a stand development variant
Any thoughts?

Chris

baachitraka · Oct 4, 2016

Go for normal development. Rodinal should give a sharp grain and outstanding print.

Svenedin · Oct 4, 2016

I know you said you only have Rodinal but Delta 3200 is very nice in Ilfotech DD-X. I think grain will be very apparent with Rodinal, especially from 35mm. I appreciate that you are not on the mainland so shipping of chemicals may be an expensive business. I have never developed anything using stand developing and I would not do it (but there are many opinions on this).

Athiril · Oct 4, 2016

If you cant stand the grain from that combination, 1.4g/L of working developer solution of potassium thiocyanate makes it as fine grain as the best fine grain developers.

john_s · Oct 4, 2016

I think the grain will be prominent using Rodinal. That can be good but it depends on the size of the subject. If the shots are taken at a distance and the people are not occupying a large part of the frame I have found that the grain is obtrusive and detail-destroying. If they (the subjects) are large though, the effect can be marvelous.

The first roll of black and white I ever developed was in Rodinal. I naively tried photographing indoor skating in a rather dingy rink, using Agfa Isopan Record which promised 1000 ASA which was super fast in those days (around 1970). The man in the shop said "use Agfa developer for Agfa film" so he sold me Rodinal. I had no idea that the grain would obliterate detail in my too-distant subjects. I realise that Delta3200 is superior to my old roll of Agfa, but I wanted to make the point about subject size. Personally I would go for a less grainy and more speed enhancing developer.

crimbo · Oct 4, 2016

Yes... if I want to order another developer carriers charge around £25 ... So Rodinal it is
I got in close to the band so I am not worried about a bit of grain.
So, standard dev or a stand variant to control contrast?
Thanks

Lachlan Young · Oct 4, 2016

crimbo said:
Yes... if I want to order another developer carriers charge around £25 ... So Rodinal it is
I got in close to the band so I am not worried about a bit of grain.
So, standard dev or a stand variant to control contrast?
Thanks

I'd suggest using Ilford's time for 1+25 at 1600, depending on your metering. Delta 3200 is pretty good at controlling contrast - the bigger question is whether you gave adequate shadow exposure. It'll be gritty but potentially quite beautiful.

Stand development is not worth it 90+% of the time. Delta 3200 needs a fairly aggressive developer, so lower dilutions of rodinal would just leave you with very flat/ seriously underdeveloped negatives. As I recall, Rodinal at 1+100 ceases all activity after around 20 mins dev time anyway.

I'd add that my own approach with Rodinal would probably be to start in the EI800 range, 7 mins @ 1+25 & adjust from there.

Svenedin · Oct 4, 2016

If you are just getting back to analogue I wouldn't go off piste. Just use standard development. When you print on multigrade paper you can cope with a wide range of contrasts.

PS: given your circumstances, Rodinal makes a lot of sense because it keeps for ever. You might find that powder chemicals that you mix up also make sense. They have a finite life when mixed but last a long time unopened e.g. ID11, Xtol film developers and the print developer Bromophen. Packets of powder are also lighter than bottles of liquids.

(For those outside the UK, Shetland is 110 miles North of the mainland and is a 216 mile, 12 hour sea crossing from Aberdeen).

Leigh B · Oct 4, 2016

Rodinal has been my standard developer for decades. It handles over 90% of my film processing.
The other is Diafine, which I use for oddball situations.

Rodinal is already a compensating developer, and impliments that feature quite effectively.
I would suggest maybe one inversion every minute or two just to equalize the temperature and mix the liquid.

The Massive Development Chart lists several different times and associated ISO speeds:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Delta+3200&Developer=Rodinal&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C

- Leigh

pentaxuser · Oct 4, 2016

Svenedin said:
(For those outside the UK, Shetland is 110 miles North of the mainland and is a 216 mile, 12 hour sea crossing from Aberdeen).

You make some fine points in your post but at least if the OP finds the grain to be criminally large with Rodinal he can always call on the services of Jimmy Perez

pentaxuser

crimbo · Oct 5, 2016

Thanks folks
I think I will go for the massive dev chart I +63 and minimize the agitation
The subject will stand the grain
... and for the fans of Jimmy P , a new series is being recorded next year.

Svenedin · Oct 5, 2016

9 minutes at 1+25 for EI 1600 according to Ilford. http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2015416153431192.pdf

Lachlan Young · Oct 5, 2016

crimbo said:
I think I will go for the massive dev chart I +63 and minimize the agitation
The subject will stand the grain

Before racing after the myths of stand development, please read (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and michael_r's other contributions to that thread. He shows fairly conclusively that stand development is almost always a waste of time. Adjusting agitation intervals may have useful effects, but we're talking no more than an absolute maximum of 5 minutes between agitations.

Stick to what Ilford recommend & you'll get better results to begin with. Adjustments to EI & process time will follow

Svenedin · Oct 5, 2016

Lachlan Young said:
Before racing after the myths of stand development, please read (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and michael_r's other contributions to that thread. He shows fairly conclusively that stand development is almost always a waste of time. Adjusting agitation intervals may have useful effects, but we're talking no more than an absolute maximum of 5 minutes between agitations.

Stick to what Ilford recommend & you'll get better results to begin with. Adjustments to EI & process time will follow

You put that so much better than I could but said exactly what I wanted to say. I can't understand why anyone just coming back to film photography would want to stray from the manufacturer's instructions.

crimbo · Oct 5, 2016

Thanks Lachlan and Svenedin
The post you directed me to appears to show that there are many opinions but little consensus.
I spent 30 years souping films by the book so now I have a little more time I want to explore the methods I did not try in the past.
Eventually I may settle down to a 'style'

Lachlan Young · Oct 5, 2016

crimbo said:
Thanks Lachlan and Svenedin
The post you directed me to appears to show that there are many opinions but little consensus.
I spent 30 years souping films by the book so now I have a little more time I want to explore the methods I did not try in the past.
Eventually I may settle down to a 'style'

OK, I'd suggest you carefully look at the contrast/time graphs & the characteristic curves on pp.5-6 of the Delta 3200 datasheet, they'll tell you far more than a single random number from the massive dev chart.

The key point is that Ilford regards 'normal' development to be a Gbar of 0.62, which under a reasonable flare model will place 7 stops on to G2 paper - Delta 3200 is designed to comply with this model, not at its actual ISO speed (1000 in ID-11), but pushed to an EI of 3200. A development time in the low-mid Gbar 0.5 range may be more useful under contrasty light & Ilford suggest this will give an effective EI in the 800-1000 range going by the EI's on the development time table on pg.3. It should be noted that the graphs are given for DD-X & Microphen which can give up to 2/3 stop boost speedwise, but a great deal of the data extrapolates across.

Note too that Ilford don't give times for ID-11/Perceptol/Microphen at anything other than stock dilution - at the most essential level, this is because the film needs a decently aggressive developer to build contrast in a reasonable amount of time before the developer runs out of steam.

I hope this gives a more useful starting point for experimentation than expensively wasting your time & film on questions of agitation.

crimbo · Oct 5, 2016

Thanks Lachlan
Food for thought
Just been down to finish off the roll with a couple of images of 'Jimmy Perez's' house so I will have to make my mind up and will develop them at the weekend

Svenedin · Oct 5, 2016

Hope your photos turn out well. I've had a lot of fun with Delta 3200. I've pushed it to 12,500 and used it to take photos in ambient light indoors using an old Zeiss folder (6x4.5, pre-war, pocket sized)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

jeztastic · Oct 7, 2016

Have you checked out some 35mm Delta 3200 on flickr? It is SO grainy. I use it in 120 but wouldn't in 35mm, let alone with Rodinal. If you are going to use it again I would recommend you bite the bullet and stump up for a bottle of Ilfotec HC or similar. You will get better results and HC will keep for ages. Even with postage it should work out not too bad per roll.

Lachlan Young · Oct 7, 2016

jeztastic said:
Have you checked out some 35mm Delta 3200 on flickr? It is SO grainy. I use it in 120 but wouldn't in 35mm, let alone with Rodinal. If you are going to use it again I would recommend you bite the bullet and stump up for a bottle of Ilfotec HC or similar. You will get better results and HC will keep for ages. Even with postage it should work out not too bad per roll.

Most of the time the reason they look so grainy on Flickr is down to incompetent technique or the horrific grain aliasing most cheap scanners create - I've made 12x18" prints from 35mm in XTOL where the grain is more than acceptable - certainly no worse than Tri-X from the 60s/70s.

Rodinal used competently will be fine.

Furthermore, HC and Rodinal are both low sulphite developers - XTOL/ID-11/DD-X etc are the potentially finer grain developers. Don't forget that HC-110 (and HC for all intents & purposes) was aimed at the DK-50/DK-60a market where fine grain was not the key consideration.

john_s · Oct 8, 2016

Interesting comments from Lachlan. Combining the wisdom of the above posts, if it has to be Rodinal, then it looks like 1+25 and maybe a little less agitation than every minute (I always use 3 min intervals after a decent agitation to start). A problem with weak dilutions is developer exhaustion and if I were to try it I would ensure a generous amount of dilute developer (maybe 3x what is needed to cover the film).
Please let us know how it goes!

Rich Ullsmith · Oct 10, 2016

Push the shadows and pull the highs with Rodinal and D3200? Rotsa ruck, Raggy. You are asking for Perceptol or Microphen.

crimbo · Oct 11, 2016

Okay, so one image is the end of one film and the other the first of the next - both Ilford Delta 3200
Appears the old scanner only works on XP so these are photographed and the black and white point set and cropped to full negative.
Both films developed at in 20C Rodinal with rotary agitation and both given agitation for the first minute.
One was developed in 1+25 for 11mins with 10 sec agitation every minute
The other was developed in 1+63 for 1 hour with 5 sec gentle agitation every 5 minutes
In context of the situation and subject there are no gross differences to my eye

Delta 3200 and Rodinal ?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency