Delta 400 -- Rodinal or HC110?

brofkand · Jun 27, 2012

I have a 100-foot roll of Delta 400. I have shot 2 rolls so far in HC110-B. So far they seem to be just OK; not amazingly sharp, good tones but not striking, not very fine grained. I think I may be doing something wrong, or this developer just doesn't work well with Delta 400.

Acros does very well in HC110 and Rodinal, so I keep these 2 developers. Does anyone have any hints with using Delta 400 with either of these developers? I also have a 100-foot roll of Kentmere 400, and that film does well in HC110 (OK in Rodinal too). I don't use D-76/ID-11 as I always threw away a quarter gallon (I suppose that would be a quart) every 6 months since I don't use it fast enough.

I've shied away from using Rodinal with it as I have heard horror stories elsewhere on the internet about Rodinal and Delta 400. But if others on APUG have had good success with it, I'd love to hear about it. Thanks!

Chris Lange · Jun 27, 2012

I used to push Tri-X to 1600 or 3200 in Rodinal 1:25.

Delta 400 in it at 1:50 is not grainy.

Paul Howell · Jun 27, 2012

The last I shot Delta I used Microdol X 1:3 with good results, I think I would stay away from Rodinal and use HC 110 or DDX.

brofkand · Jun 27, 2012

It isn't that I want the film to be grainless, I just expected more from it. I'm going to shoot more and try Rodinal as well. Won't know unless I try.

The first roll with HC-110 was bad. The second was better. I'll keep trying. Hopefully by the end of this 100-foot roll I will have a good combination to keep using.

waynecrider · Jun 27, 2012

It seems to me that with the new technology tabular films, if they even call them that anymore, it would probably be smarter to get a different developer then what you have, not that they won't work in some way. I always knew Rodinal as a middle of the road developer good with the older emulsions and HC110 as a solvent developer. With Delta 400 you don't really need a solvent developer. I've shot alot of Delta and always had sharp negs out of Xtol and FX2. Xtol is considered solvent but gives sharp grain and FX2 is definitively not solvent.. Since Xtol comes in 5 liters it may be too much to deal with so maybe consider one of the Ilford developers which someone else can comment on.

PhotoJim · Jun 27, 2012

If you really want to play with D-76 some more, mix it from scratch instead. That way you won't have to throw any away; you'll only make what you want.

I find Rodinal really shows the grain on smaller format films, so I tend to avoid it on films >ISO 100. For larger formats it probably doesn't much matter.

Experiment and see what you think.

brofkand · Jun 27, 2012

I have access to D-76 at a communal darkroom at the local art gallery (obviously I can't take any home, but I can take my film there to process). I don't need to buy it as long as I remain an active member there. I will try it in D-76 soon. Benefit of this is I can make contact prints of the film as soon as I process it. I am open to trying Xtol, but sometime later.

In the meantime, I'll keep testing it with HC110 and Rodinal. Hopefully I can get one of those to give me decent results, or I will spend more time at the art gallery than I anticipated.

Thanks for the input!

Robert Hall · Jun 27, 2012

I might suggest that HC-110 is convenient, but has lower performance in the accutance/sharpness/speed arena.

One might try, as previously mentioned, D-76, X-tol.

While I like Rodinal I don't use it much and like it for other reasons than luminance and sharpness.

Perry Way · Jun 27, 2012

The best results are with Ilfotec DD-X

Uncle Bill · Jun 27, 2012

I'd go with Ilford Ilfotec DD-X 1+4. It's their version of Tmax developer for their Delta films. If you can't find DDX, then try Tmax Developer.

This was shot on Delta 400 back the first week of May in New York City on a drizzly day with an Olympus OM-1.

Along the High Line by Bill Smith1, on Flickr

Leigh B · Jun 27, 2012

I've been a Rodinal disciple/cheer leader for well over 50 years. It's the only developer I use other than Diafine.

However, IM(-H)O it's not well-suited to fast films. I haven't shot anything faster than ASA 100 in decades.

I think HC-110 or Ilford DD-X would be good choices.

- Leigh

brofkand · Jun 27, 2012

How does DD-X compare to TMax developer? LegacyPro LMAX is half the price of DD-X. If DD-X is much better than TMax, I'll go with it, but I'd rather go with TMax as it will work well with Acros as well.

Leigh B · Jun 27, 2012

brofkand said:
LegacyPro LMAX is half the price of DD-X.

You get what you pay for. Always has been true; always will be true.

When will people learn that these low-ball prices are designed to drive the competition out of business.

Once that's done, the remaining manufacturers can charge whatever they want, and we'll pay or go without.

If you buy cheap... you're part of the problem.

- Leigh

trojancast · Jun 27, 2012

Don't disagree with any of the above, but I use ID-11 to process Delta film. Works well for any speed.

jcoldslabs · Jun 27, 2012

I'm an HC-110 devotee, but I shoot mostly LF. I have had good luck with variants on the A. Adams compensating formula for just about all films, Delta and T-Max included: dilution G (1:119) with two gentle tank inversions every five or seven minutes for a total of 25 minutes of development time at 68 degrees F. Of course, this works for my own exposure and E.I. settings and may not work with yours. The only time I use stronger dilutions (B or H) is when I need a contrast boost based on scene brightness range.

Jonathan

Richard S. (rich815) · Jun 27, 2012

I've gotten great results using either.

brofkand · Jun 27, 2012

Leigh B said:
You get what you pay for. Always has been true; always will be true.

When will people learn that these low-ball prices are designed to drive the competition out of business.

Once that's done, the remaining manufacturers can charge whatever they want, and we'll pay or go without.

If you buy cheap... you're part of the problem.

- Leigh

Kodak is doing quite a fine job going out of business themselves without me buying knockoff chemistry. I buy name-brand film, only because Acros and Ilford films aren't available under house brands (I bought tons of Acros when it was still available under LegacyPro). The solvency of Kodak does not depend on everyone buying "genuine" HC-110 or D-76. It depends on them not being stupid and squandering their resources.

I suppose the box of macaroni and cheese in your pantry is made by Kraft? And the salt made by Morton's? I could go on; off-brand items are generally produced by the national brand manufacturer, just re-labeled. How many posts on APUG prove that Arista EDU film is Foma, or Arista Premium is Tri-X? Kodak's chemicals are made by Champion, and I wouldn't be surprised if these knockoff chemicals are Champion as well, just in different bottles and with different labels.

To get back on topic, I am going to shoot a few rolls of Delta 400 and process them in D-76 soon. And yes, it is genuine D-76. I'll also keep trying with HC-110. I don't really want to buy another developer right now; I'd honestly rather get rid of Delta than try to learn another developer. I got Rodinal pretty well figured out then threw in HC-110 and that is taking time to master. Thanks everyone for the responses.

seadrive · Jun 27, 2012

I've successfully developed Delta 400 in Rodinal (1:100), T-Max Developer (1:9) and Formulary's BW-2 (1:1:8). It came out fine in all of them, but I prefer the look of the TMD and BW-2.

Perry Way · Jun 28, 2012

Uncle Bill said:
I'd go with Ilford Ilfotec DD-X 1+4. It's their version of Tmax developer for their Delta films.

Hello Uncle Bill, I think Ilfotec DD-X is their preferred developer for all of their B&W films excluding the one processed with color chemistry.

Vincent Brady · Jun 29, 2012

I used stock ID11 to develop Delta 400, and once you store it in the dark it should last a year.

jthacker43 · Jun 29, 2012

Reading Chris Johnson's "The practical zone system". His answer to "What film/developer combination gives the fastest speed with the least grain? is Delta 400 and XTOL. He rates the speed at 400 using XTOL 1:1 for a normal development time of 10min at 20 deg C.
I pick up on this and I'm getting excellent negatives and his recommended expansion and contraction times (in terms of %) I find to be right on the money.
Extra plus with XTOL using it with 1:1 the cost is less than $10 for 10 liters. The only other developer I've found to be less expensive is pyrocat HD

brofkand · Jun 29, 2012

Thanks everyone for the input. I just ordered a few pouches of D-76 from Freestyle. While I'm waiting for it to arrive I'll shoot some stuff so I'll have some film to test.

I decided to go with D-76 instead of XTOL for a very simple reason: I can't find 1 gallon pouches of XTOL, and all I have are 1 gallon bottles.

PhotoJim · Jun 29, 2012

5 1-litre bottles are perfect - even better than using one big bottle since all but one bottle will always be full.

Funny, I avoid the big packages of Dektol and D-76 from Kodak precisely because I do all my work in metric and storing and mixing 3.8 litres is awkward.

David Allen · Jun 29, 2012

I have used Delta 400 with a personal EI of 200 for many many years and am totally satisfied with the results using Thornton's two bath at 5.5 minutes in each bath.

Bset,

David
www.dsallen.de

brofkand · Jul 15, 2012

I followed a popular suggestion in this thread and got some D-76 again. I swore it off a year ago because I was tired of pouring out a half gallon of brown developer. I think this may be a different time, as the results I got with Delta 400 weren't bad. I'm going to do more test rolls, and some outdoors shots (this was with a strobe). This is worlds better than the results I got with HC-110. In fact not many of my films work well with HC-110 (Or I just don't know how to harness that developer yet); I'm starting to think it was a bad purchase.

Delta 400 -- Rodinal or HC110?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency