Developer for Ilford Delta 3200

frotog said:

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!

Click to expand...

EASmithV said:

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.

Click to expand...

Michael R 1974 said:

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

Click to expand...

StoneNYC said:

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!

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

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

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

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.

Click to expand...

Michael R 1974 said:

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.

Click to expand...