Delta 400

[sbelyaev]

I just want to find out whether I'm doing something wrong or my observations are typical for Delta 400
I've tried Delta 400 several times in different developers and dilutions but could't get the look I wanted.
In general I like look of APX100, APX400 or HP5+, but I'd prefer smaller grain.
I developed delta 400 in rodinal special (different EI). The grain was fine, but the images looked gray (like digital).
HC110 was not much better.
Rodinal - very grainy.
IL-11 - (1+1) grain was as big as it of HP5+ in Ilfosol 3, but the contrast was to high (highlight were not blown). Images looked very harsh.

Where did I go wrong?
A useful advice will be appreciated.

Thanks
Stan

 

[Ian Grant]

Sounds like you should use the film at a lwer EI, say 200 and cut your development times. I us Delta 400 and it's an excellent film.

Ian

 

[sbelyaev]

I've tried, but it completely ruined the highlights.

 

[sbelyaev]

this is an example of delta 400 in IL-11 (14 min)

http://flickr.com/photos/90094587@N00/3331726899/sizes/o/

 

[Shangheye]

I have found it works great in DDx up to EI-800. Wonderful tones at EI-200. It is a wonderful versatile film that allows you to operate between 200 and 800 on one film type with excellent tone rendition. I always have rolls because of that>K

 

[Ian Grant]

Sounds like you need to do some proper testing to find your best effective EI and development times, Steve Simmond's has an excellent free article on the View Camera site.

Ian

 

[Aurum]

I like Delta 400, and I usually rate it at 400ASA and develop at standard times in Ilfosol 3

It isn't a traditional emulsion film like FP4 or HP5, as it uses "Core shell Crystal" technology so it will look a little different. I personally prefer the more contrasty look compared to HP5 which I find a little soft.
However there are a lot of people on here who would probably disagree with me, to which I say use the material that gives the result you like.

For finer grain if you want to stick to Delta, there is the Delta 100 instead. I must admit I haven't noticed any particular abundance of grain, but I shoot this film in 120 at 6x9

 

[waynecrider]

Love the film and usually develop it in Xtol. Too bad they stopped making it in 4x5.

 

[Morry Katz]

I tried Delta 400 in Perceptol 1:1 but did not like the look. It looks just fine in D-76 1:1 with agitation once per minute. Delta 400 lives in my "walking around" outfit - a Rollei 35RF.

Cheers
Morry Katz
Lethbridge, AB

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I have used Xtol 1+2. Looks fine with some subjects but it has a modern look to it and I suspect this is the issue you have with it. it looks nothing like APX100/400/TriX and never will no matter what you do to it. Works great for some images (especially high key or images where subtle greys are important) but works less well for a lot of people looking for a very traditional look. You might like to keep experimenting and then throw in some Neopan 400. This has much finer grain/higher resolution than Hp5+ and TriX and a look closer to the latter with a slightly modern twist. Its not a fine grained as D400, but not a million miles off. horses for course, as usual

 

[sbelyaev]

Thank you all!
I'll try delta 400 again.

 

[john_s]

When trying different developers in order to compare results, you need to ensure that the development time is giving identical (or at least similar) negative contrast.

Otherwise, one developer will give "grey" results and another will give harsh contrasty results. But the difference will be more about the degree of contrast (development time) than difference between the developers' characteristics.

 

[pgomena]

I tried Delta 400 4x5" sheet film a few years back and found I needed to rate it at around EI 160 or 200. I developed in X-tol and in PMK. As the others have said, finding the right exposure/development varies by developer. I stopped using it after initial tests since it was no faster than - and offered me no advantages over - other films I was testing. This was about 10 years ago, and it is likely that the emulsion formulation has been changed over time. Some people love it, so, obviously, it works for them. I happen to love Delta 100. I wouldn't give up on it just yet.

Peter Gomena

 

[DaveOttawa]

...In general I like look of APX100, APX400 or HP5+, but I'd prefer smaller grain...
...Where did I go wrong?...

Maybe you didn't use a big enough negative? If you are shooting APX100, APX400 or HP5 in 35mm and like everythng except the visibility of the grain have you tried a medium format camera with those films? If not that will most certainly get you the same look (curve & contrast) with less grain (or print smaller from 35mm).
Sorry if this sounds obvious but it is true.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I tried Delta 400 4x5" sheet film a few years back and found I needed to rate it at around EI 160 or 200. I developed in X-tol and in PMK. As the others have said, finding the right exposure/development varies by developer. I stopped using it after initial tests since it was no faster than - and offered me no advantages over - other films I was testing. This was about 10 years ago, and it is likely that the emulsion formulation has been changed over time. Some people love it, so, obviously, it works for them. I happen to love Delta 100. I wouldn't give up on it just yet.

Peter Gomena

Its much faster since being reforumlated about three or four years ago. It is in my experience, now faster than TriX and gives me box speed in dilute Xtol. In direct comparison to Neopan, it makes about the same speed, possibly a hair more. the new version apparently pushes well to 800.

 

[Tom Duffy]

Delta 400 in XTOL 1:1 gives a very nice negative that prints with a good tonal range on Ilford warmtone fiber base.