Delta 400 development, any suggestion?

[Thomas71]

Hi folks,
I used Tri-x in 120 format a lot but, due to Kodak's price increase, I'm thinking to try Delta 400 as a substitute (here in Italy Delta 400 is 25% cheaper than Tri-x).
I have the following developers: XTOL, HC110 and Rodinal Special (Studional). Which of these do you recommend me to use with Delta 400?
Thanks in advance for any suggestion
Cheers from Italy

 

[Tom Kershaw]

XTOL. What system are you using to process the film?

Tom

 

[Thomas71]

XTOL. What system are you using to process the film?

Tom

Hi Tom,
I use manual development in a Paterson Tank

 

[awty]

My experience xtrol will give a smoother more creamy look (nice for faces), Rodinal will be more contrasty and grainy and hc110 will be somewhere in between......either way they will have a nicer tonal range than yucky trix.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Hi Tom,
I use manual development in a Paterson Tank

Suggest diluting the XTOL 1+1. The Kodak documentation is a good starting place. http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/j109.pdf

Tom

 

[Thomas71]

My experience xtrol will give a smoother more creamy look (nice for faces), Rodinal will be more contrasty and grainy and hc110 will be somewhere in between......either way they will have a nicer tonal range than yucky trix.

Hi Paul, do you really find trix' tonal range "yucky"? In my opionion it's its strenght; trix shows a beautiful micro contrast in the middle tones...

 

[awty]

No, sorry I dont see that, shadows seem blocked up, higlights blown out and mids are dark and dinghy. I don't mind dark and dinghy sometimes, but not all the time. Maybe its just me, most other films I can give or take, trix is not for me.
Delta is nice if you expose correctly and dont have a huge exposure range to deal with. Xtrol is better for a lower contrast image, say when there is good lighting and rodinal would be better for low even light and hc110 for in between. I usually go for in between for 35mm and do with it the way I want in the darkroom. For scanning you maybe happier with xtrol. Depends on taste.

 

[jimjm]

Haven't shot a lot of Delta 400, but I'm happy with results I've gotten in HC-110 Dil B.
This one was printed at grade 3.5 as I was looking to get a starker feel in the print, but a grade 3 print showed every bit of detail in the trees. Also, the 11x14 print doesn't appear as grainy as this scan does. I hate scanning stuff, never does the original print justice.

 

[GLS]

DD-X is also very good for the Delta films. It's quite expensive though if used at the recommended dilution of 1+4. However you can use it at 1+9 without much quality loss and make it last twice as long, but you will have to find your own development times.

 

[Lachlan Young]

ID-11, 1+1, 10m at 20c, exposed at an EI of 200. It's all there in the data sheet.

 

[Thomas71]

Very impressive image, Jim!!! Beatifull contrast and very rich in tonality.
Delta 400 souped in HC110 dil B deserves a try. I usually skip the digital scan as I prefer darkroom job and print on RC paper (one day I'll try FB paper, but at present I haven't enough time to spend in the basement)

 

[Eric Rose]

Delta 400 and PyroCat-HD is a match made in heaven.

 

[warden]

Hi folks,
I used Tri-x in 120 format a lot but, due to Kodak's price increase, I'm thinking to try Delta 400 as a substitute (here in Italy Delta 400 is 25% cheaper than Tri-x).
I have the following developers: XTOL, HC110 and Rodinal Special (Studional). Which of these do you recommend me to use with Delta 400?
Thanks in advance for any suggestion
Cheers from Italy

25% is a noticeable difference and you'll not suffer performance issues with any Ilford products. Have you considered HP5? It's a bit closer to Tri-X than Delta 400 if that matters to you.

Since you're switching to Ilford film why not consider their developers too? I like DDX for the Delta films, and Ilfosol 3 for FP4 and other slow films.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Have you considered HP5? It's a bit closer to Tri-X than Delta 400 if that matters to you.

HP5+ & TXP have similarities, not TX. Quite different curve shapes. Delta 400 has a curve more in the direction of TX. The difference is quite obvious when compared side by side.

 

[warden]

HP5+ & TXP have similarities, not TX. Quite different curve shapes. Delta 400 has a curve more in the direction of TX. The difference is quite obvious when compared side by side.

I don't know the difference between TX and TXP. My suggestion of HP5 was because like Tri-X it is a 400 speed traditional grain film, unlike Delta 400. (Assuming that it might matter to the OP, as it does to me)

 

[Thomas71]

Jaw, yes I've considered HP5 too because it's very dependable and cheaper than Delta400 (here in Italy HP5 120 is offered at a very attractive price, only a little more expensive than Fomapan 400). I would stay with Ilford because of its reliable products, good QC and competitive prices; on the opposite of Kodak which has increased prices and showed several quality issues on trix and tmax.
The only thing is that HP5 never convinced me due to its coarser grain and IMHO its worst tonal scale in the middle tones (I prefer trix over HP5 in this field).
I feel that, as Lachlan said in a previous post, Delta 400 is more in direction of trix. The beautifull image posted by Jim confirmed Delta 400 virtues in terms of non obtrusive grain, good tonal range and a snappy contrast.
About developers I would stick with what I know: XTOL (good allround), HC110 (lasts forever), Rodinal (a great classic with low sensitive film).

 

[Lachlan Young]

I don't know the difference between TX and TXP. My suggestion of HP5 was because like Tri-X it is a 400 speed traditional grain film, unlike Delta 400. (Assuming that it might matter to the OP, as it does to me)

TX has a shorter toe & a definite shoulder - TXP has a softer toe & little (or much later) shouldering. Tonally, these differences are pretty significant & clearly visible in a print - Kodak F4017 has the curve for TX upper left on p.8 & TXP bottom left on p.9 when both are developed in D-76. Assuming one cubic grain 400 speed film is tonally almost exactly like another is completely erroneous but unfortunately popular - and it can result in people getting in a mess/ upset when the tonal difference becomes clear.

 

[warden]

I see the issue now, Tri-x 320 isn’t available in 35 mm or 120 where I live as far as I can see. I’ve not tried it.

 

[JWMster]

Plus 2 to whatever the received wisdom is.

For my bit as an amateur using a Jobo, I've done fair amount of Delta 400 in XTOL and switched to ID-11 after an untimely XTOL death in the tank. Talked with Omer up at CatLabs after that and he recommended Bergger Berspeed - which I tried and found VERY much sharper than ID-11. This has become my B&W combo of choice: Delta 400 and Bergger Berspeed. I do want to give the other Bergger developer (Ber49) a shot some day.... but now I'm caught up in a move and the darkroom is closed for a few months.

 

[mooseontheloose]

I know this isn't one of the developers you've mentioned, but I've had really good success with Delta 400 in Moersch Finol. In that developer its effective speed is 640 (per Moersch's own testing), so I tend to use for lower light situations. HP5+ is 250 in the same developer, I use that for brighter scenes.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Jaw, yes I've considered HP5 too because it's very dependable and cheaper than Delta400 (here in Italy HP5 120 is offered at a very attractive price, only a little more expensive than Fomapan 400). I would stay with Ilford because of its reliable products, good QC and competitive prices; on the opposite of Kodak which has increased prices and showed several quality issues on trix and tmax.
The only thing is that HP5 never convinced me due to its coarser grain and IMHO its worst tonal scale in the middle tones (I prefer trix over HP5 in this field).
I feel that, as Lachlan said in a previous post, Delta 400 is more in direction of trix. The beautifull image posted by Jim confirmed Delta 400 virtues in terms of non obtrusive grain, good tonal range and a snappy contrast.
About developers I would stick with what I know: XTOL (good allround), HC110 (lasts forever), Rodinal (a great classic with low sensitive film).

Since you already have Xtol you are half way some superb negatives and all you have to do is add HP5+. Xtol Replenished is my main developer and HP5+ is a perfect combination. I made two separate 6x9cm negatives, one with HP5+ and the other with FP4+. I developed both in Xtol Replenished and enlarged each equal to a 20" x 30" print. To my surprise I much preferred the HP5+ shot. It just had more bite and was less soft/mushy compered to the FP4+ shot. Now, for the amazing part. I could barely see any grain it the HP5+ negative and more or less had to focus on a high contrast edge in the negative instead of trying to focus on the grain crystals. Please, don't rule out HP5+ with Xtol as I think you will have a very pleasant surprise. You don't use the Xtol replenishment regime so I'd suggest 1+1 or 1+2.. Oh, another benefit is that I got real, real close to box speed. Try it I think you will really like it, but I think you'll like Delta 400 as well. Ilford has some really great products that are tried and true. Best of luck, JohnW

 

[Thomas71]

Thanks for your advice, John. I'll try a side by side comparison between Delta400 and HP5 in a tipical light condition that I usually prefer for my b&w works (cloudy day or light shadows) both souped in XTOL 1+1 and in HC110 dil B. The final judge will be based on darkroom prints, obviously.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

I see the issue now, Tri-x 320 isn’t available in 35 mm or 120 where I live as far as I can see. I’ve not tried it.

Tri-X 320 is currently only available in sheets. It was never available in 35mm (that I know of), and was discontinued in medium format some years ago. I still have one roll of 220 in the fridge that I am saving for something special. You still see the 120 version for sale online, "secondhand," every so often.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thanks for your advice, John. I'll try a side by side comparison between Delta400 and HP5 in a tipical light condition that I usually prefer for my b&w works (cloudy day or light shadows) both souped in XTOL 1+1 and in HC110 dil B. The final judge will be based on darkroom prints, obviously.

I haven't used HC110 since my college photo class 101, but it worked great with Tri-X back then. I think you can probably get each film to do what you like by varying time, temp, exposure and agitation. I hope you have a hard time deciding. That will mean that you have reached more than one goal. Have fun, John