Delta 400 developing

pecama · Dec 2, 2011

Hi everyone,

I'm wondering what are your experiences with the Ilford Delta 400 and developping it in Tetenal Ultrafin PLUS 1+4 @ 20°C?
I found so many informations and feel a little bit confused at the moment, because some say 7 min, some 8min, some even 10 or 12!

What should I do? Can you give me any good advice?

Thank you very much!

m

pecama · Dec 2, 2011

In fact when I look at the digitaltruth.com chart I get confused as it says 10min for a 1/3 stop push (ISO 500) while the chart at Tetenal says 7min for ISO 400... 3minutes are quite a lot for just a 1/3 stop of difference. :S

Right at the moment I'm inclined to develop it for 8minutes with 15seconds of agitation every minute.

NB23 · Dec 2, 2011

The digital truth charts are baloney. I could sit down one afternoon and create charts that would be more accurate then theirs.
Just look at the tri-x chart, for example.

The best way to get accurate times is on the maker's websites.

pentaxuser · Dec 2, 2011

NB23 said:
The digital truth charts are baloney. I could sit down one afternoon and create charts that would be more accurate then theirs.
Just look at the tri-x chart, for example.

The best way to get accurate times is on the maker's websites.

To be fair to digital truth most of its times reflect makers' times exactly or very closely. Yes some times are puzzling but I'd hate new users to be put off looking at Digitalthruth altogether. On balance it is still a worthwhile source in my opinion.

pentaxuser

steven_e007 · Dec 2, 2011

Some of the times of digitaltruth are misleading and are a mile off - but to be fair I have used manufacturers recommendations and got terrible results sometimes, too.

If you read Ilord's times for an Ilford film in an Ilford developer then it will be pretty close, only local water oddities and unusual agitation or other foibles will need to be adjusted for.... but often independent chemical makers give times that are a long way off the mark. I think maybe they sometimes quote data from an earlier version of the film and since then the films have had a make-over.

MaximusM3 · Dec 2, 2011

Why complicate life? Get some DDX and follow Ilford's recommendations.

pecama · Dec 2, 2011

I already have the ultrafin plus (and some fomadon lqn), so the option of buying new developer isn't the best for me.

pentaxuser · Dec 2, 2011

pecama said:
Hi everyone,

I'm wondering what are your experiences with the Ilford Delta 400 and developping it in Tetenal Ultrafin PLUS 1+4 @ 20°C?
I found so many informations and feel a little bit confused at the moment, because some say 7 min, some 8min, some even 10 or 12!

What should I do? Can you give me any good advice?

Thank you very much!

m

Have another look at Digitaltruth. If the times you quote above are from there and they seem to be or if there are not then they are coincidentally the same, they are for different speeds so there is no confusion or contradiction on Digitaltruth.

Alternatively try the Tetenal site for times to see what it says. As others have said makers' times are often the best starting points

pentaxuser

NB23 · Dec 2, 2011

The problem today is that people try to be all fancy with their developing methods: stand, semi-stand, funky inversions and so on.

pecama · Dec 2, 2011

I've been checking on the internet for hours now with no results, this means I'll go with some improvisation again 8 minutes with 15seconds of agitation every minute. Let see what will come out, I'll post some results as soon as I get to the scanner at school.

Rudeofus · Dec 2, 2011

My advice would be you use add up all the times people recommend here or elsewhere and divide the result by the number of recommendations. Use this as starting point for some not so important pics and you will most likely get some useful results. It's not like film blows up or creates completely invisible results if you over- or underdevelop by 30%. If you like the results you get well there you go. If you'd like more/less contrast, develop longer/shorter the next time. If your highlights/shadows block, expose less/more. It's not rocket science and after 1 or 2 iterations you should get pretty decent results, using your ISO rating and your dev times.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 2, 2011

pecama said:
I've been checking on the internet for hours now with no results, this means I'll go with some improvisation again 8 minutes with 15seconds of agitation every minute. Let see what will come out, I'll post some results as soon as I get to the scanner at school.

Here is the good news. Even if you were able to find one more source for developing time of your film and developer combination, how does that change anything? You still have a handful of different starting times.

The first time you develop something with an unknown variable, you have to expect a bit of a learning curve. So the suggestion of picking something right in the middle, develop according to that, analyze the results, and learning from that lesson is the best you can hope for. Next roll you expose and process the film to address any issues you saw the first time. You could get lucky and get it perfect the first time around, but that would be luck.

So, EXPECT to have to tweak the time to suit your work flow. It always takes a few rolls to get the hang of a new combination, and then it'll take a few dozen to really get it perfect.

Good luck. Have fun!

michaelbsc · Dec 2, 2011

Thomas Bertilsson said:
....
So, EXPECT to have to tweak the time to suit your work flow. It always takes a few rolls to get the hang of a new combination, and then it'll take a few dozen to really get it perfect.

Good luck. Have fun!

+1, maybe + a few dozen.

ic-racer · Dec 2, 2011

pecama said:
What should I do?

Assuming you have already determined your personal exposure index, proceed as follows:

Shoot a blank frame then shoot a frame of a uniformly illuminated object 3 stops over exposes. Fill the rest of the roll with pictures. Guess at a development time. Put a blank (clear) piece of processed film in the negative carrier and determine minimum exposure for maximum black on your usual paper (grade 2 or whatever). Put the frame 3 stops over in the enlarger. Cover 1/2 the paper and expose for the minimum exposure for maximum black time you previously determined.
You have 3 possible results:
Paper is all white = you overdeveloped so process the next roll with 25% less time.
Paper is just slightly gray on one side = you developed appropriately
Paper is very noticeably gray on one side = you underdeveloped, so process the next roll with 25% more time

pecama · Dec 17, 2011

Here I am after a long time. In the end I processed the delta 400 in Fomadon LQN 1+9 for 8 minutes and it turned just OK. Thank you everyone for your help and kindness! Surely I'll have to stick on experimenting with films a little bit more to get the optimal results for my work.

skahde · Dec 19, 2011

In case you want to try the Ultrafin Plus nevertheless:Ultrafin Plus is Tetenals formulation of TMax Developer and I never could tell anything apart between them except the packaging. Just have a look at Kodaks charts, look at up times for D400 and there you go.

John Austin · Dec 19, 2011

Try several combinations and print them on Grade 2 paper with your own enlarger - the ASA setting and dev' time that gives you the best straight print is the one to use - Or try Fomadon P (ID11/D76), when you get good results from that combination use that neg' as a comparison for your Tetenal dev' time tests

Delta 400 developing

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency