Delta 3200 + Pyrocat HD - thin negatives ?

[Matus Kalisky]

Hello,

I developed my first 120 films in Pcat HD (uin glycol). While the First film - TMAX 400 came out nicely (Especialy the exposures at EI 200), the Delta 3200 looks thinner.

This is how it was done:

- Delta was exposed at EI 1600
- Jobo 1200 tank
- presoak 3-4 minutes
- Developed in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 for 24 min with 15 seconds inversion
evety fourth minute (4, 8, 16, 20) and cca 90 seconds constant inversions at the beginning.
- Stopped with water - 4 minutes
- Fixed in Ilford rapid fixer (1:4) for 4 minutes.
- washed in Kodak Hypo clear bath (probably not needed - TMAX seems to need this more)

As I would really like to get a 1600 speed out of this film preferably with the mentioned developer - how to improve? It seems that 1/2 - 1 stop more exposure would do the job but then I am down to EI 800 - 1000.
Should I increase the developement times or change the dillution ?

What would you propose?

thanks

 

[MikeSeb]

If your shadow areas are lacking detail, you need more exposure, period. If your highlight areas are thin, you need more development time/temp/agitation, period.

This assumes that everything else is working well and that everything was mixed properly, chemicals were fresh, etc.

I'm not sure it's realistic to expect, with PC-HD, to get 1600 out of a film that is probably more like 1000-1200. Try Xtol/Mytol or another developer and give yourself a fighting chance.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'll echo Mike's observations. D3200 really is more like an 800-1000 film. You could push develop it but you would still be lacking shadow detail.
One thing that might help you slightly to boost your film speed a hair is to use a semistand or better yet, stand development. I'm not sure it's a good idea with D3200 but you could try it.
When I shoot Tri-X or FP4+ and rate the film at box speed, the only way I can get full shadow detail is to use a semistand type development with Pyrocat. I expect it to be the same with D3200, but I'm guessing a little bit since I have only used this film very sparingly.
- Thomas

 

[TimVermont]

I've not had good luck with stand development and D3200. But I'd suggest a test of a few frames with no pre-soak ( and keep the ~90 seconds of constant agitation at the start) before you give up on the idea. In general I've had better results on Delta without the pre-soak, but am not technically knowledgeable enough to say why (developer imbibition time, wetting agents?)

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'll back Mike: use a suitable developer.

I'd also omit the presoak. Ilford used to recommend that they are never used, but given the attachment some people have to them, they now say that probably, most of the time, they do no harm. In this case I suspect that they may conceivably have leached out development accelerators in the emulsion. What advantage do you expect from presoak?

Then, though it has no relevance to film speed, there's no need for hypo clear afterwards, either.

True ISO of Delta 3200 in Microphen, DD-X etc, is 1250 or a little more; in D-76, maybe 1000; in what you used, who knows?

Edit: forget stand development. For a given usable D/log e slope, more agitation always means more toe speed.

 

[Peter Williams]

I have some negatives developed using a Pyro developer that look amazingly thin, but actually print rather easily. Others have made the same observation. You may want to try printing a couple of the negatives before modifying your process - it could surprise you.

 

[psvensson]

The common thread to the developers that are being recommended is that they are high in sulfite, while Pyrocat is not. I've found high sulfite content to be a must for developing D3200. Experimenting with low-sulfite brews, I've gotten speeds as low as 500 from that film.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Thank you all,

I am currently exposing another one - both at EI 800 and EI 1600 to see the difference. Before I would go for a different developer (Microphen or Ilfotec) I want to see what can be done with Pyrocat (amount of the chemistry bottles is increasing constantly at my home).

I will make some contacts soon to see what does the word "thin" really means. But I guess that once I see NOTHING in the shadows with a 4x loupe than there is really nothing...

Ah - and I will send a few for scanning as well. After all I will be printing digitaly, as for the time being I have no enlarger.

 

[erikg]

I've had what I've thought to be good results with this combo, just not with stand development. I rated the film at 800, however. I also got very nice results with DDX.