Delta 400 MF in ID11 (1+1) Dev. time

[chorleyjeff]

The Ilford web site and the ID11 package info. is 14 minutes at 20c for the above film/dev combination but an Ilford wall chart I have says 11.5 minutes.
I guess the web site is the best info. BUT I had assumed the wall chart was right so I used it without checking the other sources of information. I found that 11.5 minutes gave thin negatives so reduced film speed to 200 ISO and it seemed to work OK. So I'm a bit confused. Should I be pragmatic and rely on experimentation or can anyone advise whether I should increase film speed and increase development time ( 400 ISO and 14 minutes) or should I go to basics and try several different film speeds with different development times? Any advice gratefully received.
Thanks
Jeff
PS I print on Ilford multigrade in MG dev.using a meopta colourhead.

 

[joeyk49]

I recently developed a couple of rolls of D400 in ID11. I rated the film one stop slower and developed 1:1 for 10.5 minutes. I too got decidedly thin negs.

My next batch will be with Rodinal. I seem to be having better luck with the old standard and I tend to be a grainy kinda guy...

 

[chorleyjeff]

I'm thinking of going back to FX39. Don't really know why I changed!
Except it's an Ilford film in Ilford standard developer so should work well - I think.
Cheers
Jeff

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

The Ilford web site and the ID11 package info. is 14 minutes at 20c for the above film/dev combination but an Ilford wall chart I have says 11.5 minutes.
I guess the web site is the best info. BUT I had assumed the wall chart was right so I used it without checking the other sources of information. I found that 11.5 minutes gave thin negatives so reduced film speed to 200 ISO and it seemed to work OK. So I'm a bit confused. Should I be pragmatic and rely on experimentation or can anyone advise whether I should increase film speed and increase development time ( 400 ISO and 14 minutes) or should I go to basics and try several different film speeds with different development times? Any advice gratefully received.
Thanks
Jeff
PS I print on Ilford multigrade in MG dev.using a meopta colourhead.

Test and adjust. You should always assume that the manufacturer's time/temperature recommendation is only an estimate that will get you somewhere into the vicinity of where you want to be. This is true whether or not you are using ID-11 or some other developer (like FX-39).
Temperature and agitation technique are two important variables in film development that are governed by your equipment and working practices.

The current Delta 400 literature: www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/400_Delta.pdf

Recommends developing Delta 400 rated at EI 400 in the 1+1 dilution of ID-11 for 10 1/2 minutes at 20C with intermittent agitation.

Ilford says: "The development times are intended as a guide and may be altered if a different result is needed."

 

[joeyk49]

So, 10.5 min. should have given me decent densities....especially since I over exposed by a stop.


hmmmm...<scratches head> Now I'm not really sure what to do...

I'm still leaning towards the Rodinal.

 

[pentaxuser]

The Ilford web site and the ID11 package info. is 14 minutes at 20c for the above film/dev combination but an Ilford wall chart I have says 11.5 minutes.
I guess the web site is the best info. BUT I had assumed the wall chart was right so I used it without checking the other sources of information. I found that 11.5 minutes gave thin negatives so reduced film speed to 200 ISO and it seemed to work OK. So I'm a bit confused. Should I be pragmatic and rely on experimentation or can anyone advise whether I should increase film speed and increase development time ( 400 ISO and 14 minutes) or should I go to basics and try several different film speeds with different development times? Any advice gratefully received.
Thanks
Jeff
PS I print on Ilford multigrade in MG dev.using a meopta colourhead.

Like you, what I find a little worrying is that in the space of a few posts we have three different times all of which can be attributable to official Ilford sites. Yet there seems to be no explanation as to why three different times should be quoted. Have things changed since, say, the oldest quoted times and is so why?

In terms of my practical experience, all I can say is that I was a user of ID11(1+1) and Delta 400. I had learned my processing skills on an evening class course at Leamington College and used the times on the darkroom noticeboard which were, I believe, copied directly from Ilford info, although which info is now in question.

However once I had set up my own darkroom I continued to use ID11(1+1) and Delta 400. Then I used the times quoted either on the film package or the ID11 box. They at least were identical.

I never experienced thin negs. Since then I have joined APUG and learned about using other than box speed and the existence of other developers and have even tried Perceptol and Rodinal.

The saying that learning a little more has been a mixed blessing springs to mind. Using the so-called jack of all trades developer known as ID11 and following the instructions on the film or ID11 packet has certainly produced good negs.

Based on my college experience pre APUG and before learning more by being on APUG, I always thought that there was only way to develop and provided you followed instructions, nothing could go wrong.

I am now older, wiser but not necessarily better.

Pentaxuser

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Like you, what I find a little worrying is that in the space of a few posts we have three different times all of which can be attributable to official Ilford sites. Yet there seems to be no explanation as to why three different times should be quoted. Have things changed since, say, the oldest quoted times and is so why?

In terms of my practical experience, all I can say is that I was a user of ID11(1+1) and Delta 400. I had learned my processing skills on an evening class course at Leamington College and used the times on the darkroom noticeboard which were, I believe, copied directly from Ilford info, although which info is now in question.

However once I had set up my own darkroom I continued to use ID11(1+1) and Delta 400. Then I used the times quoted either on the film package or the ID11 box. They at least were identical.

I never experienced thin negs. Since then I have joined APUG and learned about using other than box speed and the existence of other developers and have even tried Perceptol and Rodinal.

The saying that learning a little more has been a mixed blessing springs to mind. Using the so-called jack of all trades developer known as ID11 and following the instructions on the film or ID11 packet has certainly produced good negs.

Based on my college experience pre APUG and before learning more by being on APUG, I always thought that there was only way to develop and provided you followed instructions, nothing could go wrong.

I am now older, wiser but not necessarily better.

Pentaxuser

"Yet there seems to be no explanation as to why three different times should be quoted."

Remember that, at best, all three of those times are only estimated starting points. Ilford does warn you that these development times, ( plus the associated temperatures, dilutions and agitation techniques) may need to be altered, based on the results.

An alternative is Development By Inspection

 

[dbltap]

I seem to recall that Roger HIcks had a post either on this forum or PN about proces-sing times. IIRC, the jist of his post was that these manufacturers do not pull these times out of thin air. They really are tested and proven. If they don't work, either due to conditions beyond our control or our own habits, then it is time to test and adjust. I can honestly say that exposing at box speed and developing per instructions has given me a much higher success rate than experimenting.
Maybe I have been extemely fortunate, or I don't know good from mediocre.
Jim

 

[Dave Miller]

On a recent workshop with Les Mclean we shared the film developing routine for three sections of film that had been exposed for speed testing. Les with one drum whilst I had another. Each drum contained the same type of film, in the same developer, and we filled and emptied in unison. Whilst my inversion routine is a gentle, affair, Les has adopted the style of a cocktail waiter, with each inversion accompanied by a vigorous shaking. The result was about a one stop difference in density between the films in his drum to those in mine. It demonstrated that all elements of the film development routine are important, and why the development time may need to vary between one person and another.

 

[johnnywalker]

The wall chart I have says 9.5 minutes for stock and 14 minutes for 1+1. I've always used the 14 minutes 1+1, and my negatives usually turn out well. If they don't, it's not the fault of the developer.

I realize that the posted times are starting points, but why so many "official" starting points?

 

[chorleyjeff]

Many thanks for all comments.
I'll revert to 400 ISO and use trial and try to establish a personal best time.
Cheers
Jeff

 

[pentaxuser]

Many thanks for all comments.
I'll revert to 400 ISO and use trial and try to establish a personal best time.
Cheers
Jeff

Jeff. Have a look at the Ilford dev times again. I tried to do this on the Ilford Harman site but could only find times for stock solution. However on the older(by 2yrs) Ilford Products site it says that 11.5 mins for 1+1 is for 24degrees C. The time for 20 degrees C is 14 mins.

So at 20 degrees C you were underdeveloping by 2.5 mins which as a percentage of 14 is substantial enough to give you thin negs.

As someone else said, Roger Hicks made the point about the manufacturer's times being well tested and worth trusting until you are in a position to try for a personal film speed.

I am not recommending that you don't do a test for personal film speed but maybe another try at Ilford's time of 14 mins might be worthwhile.

Dave Miller made good point about different agitation methods. If you follow Ilford's time then stick to Ilford's agitation of four inversions in the first 10 secs and then the same 4 inversions for 10 secs at each minute interval thereafter.

Pentaxuser

 

[kdanks]

On a recent workshop with Les Mclean we shared the film developing routine for three sections of film that had been exposed for speed testing. Les with one drum whilst I had another. Each drum contained the same type of film, in the same developer, and we filled and emptied in unison. Whilst my inversion routine is a gentle, affair, Les has adopted the style of a cocktail waiter, with each inversion accompanied by a vigorous shaking. The result was about a one stop difference in density between the films in his drum to those in mine. It demonstrated that all elements of the film development routine are important, and why the development time may need to vary between one person and another.

Is that the 3 day workshop featured in the current Black & White Photography magazine? I've got Les' book and when I feel more comfortable with developing per the instructions I will do the film speed tests. I'd be interested to know what you decided on for your 'personal film speed' and development time.

Kevin

 

[Dave Miller]

Is that the 3 day workshop featured in the current Black & White Photography magazine? I've got Les' book and when I feel more comfortable with developing per the instructions I will do the film speed tests. I'd be interested to know what you decided on for your 'personal film speed' and development time.

Kevin

Yes it is.
Personal film speed is surely that, something that suits your individual style. The point I was making here is the considerable effect that the inversion method makes on the films development; nothing wrong with either approach, as long as it is consistent. It’s also another reason for doing you own testing to find a rating that you are happy with. There is also the problem of scene contrast range to factor into the equation at some stage.

 

[Matt5791]

This is an interesting discussion for me because I keep thinking about shooting tests.

I have read the tests Ansel Adams suggests in "The Negative" and I guess this is probably a good place to start?

The only problem I have is that my film exposures are often made quickly and under pressure with little time for lots of meter readings which means often a quick incident reading if using the Hasselblad or relying on the internal meter with the Nikon FE2. Obviously I don't blindly follow those readings but try to interpret them intelligently.

The thing that occured to me with regard to the processing is I just need a happy medium because of the often variable exposures so I have been just following the manufacturers recommendation times and using a consistant agitation with each procesing.

Is this the right thing to do?

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

This is an interesting discussion for me because I keep thinking about shooting tests.

I have read the tests Ansel Adams suggests in "The Negative" and I guess this is probably a good place to start?

The only problem I have is that my film exposures are often made quickly and under pressure with little time for lots of meter readings which means often a quick incident reading if using the Hasselblad or relying on the internal meter with the Nikon FE2. Obviously I don't blindly follow those readings but try to interpret them intelligently.

The thing that occured to me with regard to the processing is I just need a happy medium because of the often variable exposures so I have been just following the manufacturers recommendation times and using a consistant agitation with each procesing.

Is this the right thing to do?

Yes, that's the right way to start. Testing and densitometry is a common way of gaining additional film/developer behavior information that will help you learn to deal with exposure variables.

Many large format photographers also Develop By Inspection for better control of the developing process.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

The Ilford web site and the ID11 package info. is 14 minutes at 20c for the above film/dev combination but an Ilford wall chart I have says 11.5 minutes.
I guess the web site is the best info. BUT I had assumed the wall chart was right so I used it without checking the other sources of information. I found that 11.5 minutes gave thin negatives so reduced film speed to 200 ISO and it seemed to work OK. So I'm a bit confused. Should I be pragmatic and rely on experimentation or can anyone advise whether I should increase film speed and increase development time ( 400 ISO and 14 minutes) or should I go to basics and try several different film speeds with different development times? Any advice gratefully received.
Thanks
Jeff
PS I print on Ilford multigrade in MG dev.using a meopta colourhead.

The development time of 14 minutes is correct for the current version of Delta 400 (3rd generation). The time of 11.5 minutes on your wall chart, is for the previous version.
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Delta400.pdf

 

[chorleyjeff]

Thanks for pointing out that Delta 400 improvements have altered recommended development times. I should have realised this for myself.
Cheers
Jeff