Developer for Ilford Delta 3200

[Roger Cole]

This is grainy film - no way around that. As such you should focus on tonality and acutance. Realize that the nominal asa is closer to 1000, not 3200. If you want good tonality, rate it at 1000. Someone has already rightly pointed out that low light scenes are inherently more contrasty than not. Attempting to squeeze more film speed with extended developer times will lead to insanely dense highlights, blocked middle tones and no increased density in the shadow areas.

I used to have a job shooting this stuff for aerial night photography. The preliminary part of the job was to test it with numerous developers. Surprise!...I discovered that compensating developers gave negs that yielded the most pleasing, easy to print results. At the time Cachet AB55 worked best(since discontinued) , followed by dilute ddx (gentle agitation scheme), and diafine. Now I prefer rodinal stand precisely for these reasons - eminently printable and razor-like acutance. There's really no point in using fine grain developers with high speed films like delta 3200. The results will look soft and blotchy.

Now, at some point you'll have to stop asking questions about the myriad developer formulas and try it out yourself - either shoot or get off the pot!

Have you actually tried it at 3200 in contrasty light or just giving the standard spiel?

Like TMZ this film is inherently low contrast, so when pushed the contrast increase is less than one would expect and tonality still looks good.

No doubt they look better at 1000, but I don't see the point in shooting Delta 3200 (or TMZ for that matter) at 1000. For that I personally like Tri-X in Diafine a lot better, unless you WANT more grain (though Delta 3200 and especially TMZ will certainly be sharper.) These films are made to push. I push the hell out of 'em. I go up to 6400 with TMZ at need and like the results. I've not tried Delta 3200 at 6400 but will have to do that.

Oh BTW, WRT Cahcet AB55: I tried the stuff once. With Tri-X at least it gave me too much contrast, or at least more than I wanted though certainly easily printable, and grain like giant golf balls. I have never, ever, seen grain like that from Tri-X. Others seem to have had very different results but it put me off the stuff. No matter since it's gone anyway.

 

[EASmithV]

Pics or go home

http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=30767964@N02&q=delta+3200+rodinal&m=text

That's Delta 3200 in Rodinal at 3200. A bit or bromide drag, i didn't agitate at all.

 

[StoneNYC]

Pics or go home

http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=30767964@N02&q=delta+3200+rodinal&m=text

That's Delta 3200 in Rodinal at 3200. A bit or bromide drag, i didn't agitate at all.

OK you made me come to my computer and do stuff....

Pics...

Look at the last 4(of the houses), the first two are Delta and Tri-x and the second two are a 1:1 zoom of the same images at the best spot on the image I could find that was in focus (apparently one of them is REALY out of focus haha). Both developed in Ilfsol 3. As you can see the Delta has slightly higher grain but MUCH better shadow detail, and the trix developed and pushed so far didn't quite hit the same level of exposure but you can also see that it isn't really all that bad in grain compared to the delta considering how far it was pushed.

These are NOT my best work just the easiest thing I could find as an example, this is a shot from one of the surviving houses hit by Hurricane Sandy on the CT shoreline.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23208896@N04/sets/72157631947042968/

 

[StoneNYC]

A lot going on here. I'll try to address some of your questions.

1. Acros: Fuji's tabular equivalent of TMax 100 and Delta 100. In terms of grain it falls in between those two, but closer to TMax (TMax has the finest grain). In terms of tonality, all three are relatively similar until you get to the highlights where Acros has high highlight contrast. Acros's other unique property is a near total lack of reciprocity failure up to at least 2 minutes.

2. Adonal is Rodinal (or something very close to it). While not a true high acutance/compensating developer, it is quite sharp (and grainy). It has been around forever and can produce beautiful negatives. It has many loyal followers (but watch out they can be pretty militant if you tell them it isn't the greatest developer of all time). Dilutions are most often 1+25, 1+50, 1+100. But it is also sometimes used more dilute, particularly by people who like to develop document-type films (Tech Pan, Adox CMS etc) in it. Beware of advice to stand-develop your film in Rodinal. Stand development can yield unique tonalities and enhance edge effects, but it has risks, and is not simply a substitute for controlled development.

3. I won't comment further on Ilfosol specifically as I have not personally used/tested it. Best to use Ilford's literature on it. Others here may have more experience to share.

4. Don't be misled by the term "general purpose". It means only that the developer is balanced to produce high quality results with a variety of materials under a wide range of circumstances, as opposed to something more specialized for a specific purpose.

So as you may have guessed, when it comes to your list of films and developers, it will mostly come down to what kind of negatives you want as opposed to one developer being "better" or "worse". It is largely a matter of personal preference and workflow.

-ID11 (D76) can work well with nearly anything. It is most often used at stock strength or diluted 1+1 (which will be slightly sharper and slightly grainier). But you can also use it at 1+3 for very sharp negatives. Diluting will also tend to lower contrast, all other variables being equal). See the other email on the general effects of diluting solvent developers. ID11 is pretty hard to beat.

-Adonal (see above). It will produce sharper looking, but significantly grainier negatives than ID11 with any film. The images will have a different overall "look".

-DDX will give you a little more film speed than ID11 and Ilford says it is a good match for the Delta films.

For Tech Pan, tougher call. Some people like dilute Rodinal with it. Alternatively you can use a special low contrast developer. There are several different options for low contrast development, everything from POTA to TD-3. They can yield very different tonalities and film speeds so experimentation is required.

Hope this helps.
Michael

Yes this does help, seeing as how Acros is also a T film, I think I'll go with DDX for ALL of the T grains, Stick with Ilfsol 3 for my Pan F+ but experiment when I can, (I was aware Rodinal was Adonol, they bought the patent for it I believe) I'll try the Adonal with my Pan-x/Plus-x/Tech Pan since it's all old anyway I won't mind experimenting.

When you say "DDX gives you more film speed" do you mean that you can push film further with it than other developers? or am I missunderstanding?

My main concern was getting the most out of the "Extreme" films (Pan F+ and Delta3200) and also not spending hours developing, my favorite part of Pan F+ in Ilfsol 3 is the 4 minute development time!

Thanks so much! where did you come from I've never seen you post before but damn you're thorough!

 

[MattKing]

Yes this does help, seeing as how Acros is also a T film, I think I'll go with DDX for ALL of the T grains, Stick with Ilfsol 3 for my Pan F+ but experiment when I can, (I was aware Rodinal was Adonol, they bought the patent for it I believe) I'll try the Adonal with my Pan-x/Plus-x/Tech Pan since it's all old anyway I won't mind experimenting.

When you say "DDX gives you more film speed" do you mean that you can push film further with it than other developers? or am I missunderstanding?

My main concern was getting the most out of the "Extreme" films (Pan F+ and Delta3200) and also not spending hours developing, my favorite part of Pan F+ in Ilfsol 3 is the 4 minute development time!

Thanks so much! where did you come from I've never seen you post before but damn you're thorough!

The rights to the name Rodinal were royally screwed up - essentially the people who now make what was once known as Rodinal aren't allowed to use the name.

A reference to a developer "giving you more film speed" means that that developer maximizes the density achieved by the film in response to normal lighting - a speed enhancing developer like X-Tol makes it more likely that you will be able to achieve good shadow detail with Tri-X when you meter at an EI of 400 (same as its ISO speed). Another developer (e.g. Rodinal or HC-110 dil B) might require you to use an EI of 320 when metering to achieve the same shadow detail.

A 4 minute development time is close to being not recommended. It is so short that you have to be very precise to achieve repeatability. I try for at least 6 minutes.

And Michael comes from up north, in Quebec, Canada, so of course he is thorough

 

[StoneNYC]

The rights to the name Rodinal were royally screwed up - essentially the people who now make what was once known as Rodinal aren't allowed to use the name.

A reference to a developer "giving you more film speed" means that that developer maximizes the density achieved by the film in response to normal lighting - a speed enhancing developer like X-Tol makes it more likely that you will be able to achieve good shadow detail with Tri-X when you meter at an EI of 400 (same as its ISO speed). Another developer (e.g. Rodinal or HC-110 dil B) might require you to use an EI of 320 when metering to achieve the same shadow detail.

A 4 minute development time is close to being not recommended. It is so short that you have to be very precise to achieve repeatability. I try for at least 6 minutes.

And Michael comes from up north, in Quebec, Canada, so of course he is thorough

Thanks Matt,

Well the nude image of the girl in bed in my gallery was developed at 4 minutes and seemed to be perfect on the exposure, am I wrong? I didn't touch it so its as it scanned and I don't have the scanner adjust for anything.

So you actually over expose slightly (roughly 1/2 stop) if you plan to use rodinol as an example?

Good to know

Wish more people used Ilfslol 3 other than me so I could hear their thoughts and comparisons, ah well, I think I have a good amount of understanding now.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

The problems with short times are:

1) it is difficult to ensure repeatability, due to factors like varying fill and pour times and inconsistent agitation procedures; and
2) you are much more likely to encounter problems with uneven development such as mottling or streaking.

Longer development times help you avoid both types of problems.

The different speed "tendencies" of different film and developer combinations are a primary reason why it is a very good idea to perform your own speed tests, using your own cameras, lenses, meters, chemistry and techniques to determine what EI works best for you when determining exposure.

 

[StoneNYC]

The problems with short times are:

1) it is difficult to ensure repeatability, due to factors like varying fill and pour times and inconsistent agitation procedures; and
2) you are much more likely to encounter problems with uneven development such as mottling or streaking.

Longer development times help you avoid both types of problems.

The different speed "tendencies" of different film and developer combinations are a primary reason why it is a very good idea to perform your own speed tests, using your own cameras, lenses, meters, chemistry and techniques to determine what EI works best for you when determining exposure.

Gotcha, thanks (on all counts).

I'm ordering some other developers to see what I like etc. I'm fairly accurate with pour and agitation techniques, I'm anal when it comes to that thankfully, but I'll certainly heed your advice.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[waynecrider]

Has anyone compared DDX and Diafine. I've shot almost a roll at 1600 and it needs development.

 

[StoneNYC]

Agree with Matt. In any case you won't get 4 minute times with most of the combos you listed anyway. For example, for normal contrast you'll likely be somewhere in the 7-8 minute range with Acros/DDX.

Understood, I accept this, I'll also be getting a later capacity Patterson haha


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk