My experience with Ilford FP4+ and Ilford HP5+ in replenished XTOL with a Jobo processor was that I had to add 15% more time than the published times. I have processed Ilford Delta 3200 in replenished XTOL in a Jobo processor and the results were thin negatives; I have to process Delta 3200 longer. I would expect similar results with Ilford Delta 100 and Delta 400.
My experience with Ilford FP4+ and Ilford HP5+ in replenished XTOL with a Jobo processor was that I had to add 15% more time than the published times. I have processed Ilford Delta 3200 in replenished XTOL in a Jobo processor and the results were thin negatives; I have to process Delta 3200 longer. I would expect similar results with Ilford Delta 100 and Delta 400.
Most likely because the Kodak recommendations are more closely related to ISO print standards than Zone system criteriaI'm somewhat at a loss to explain the much shorter figures given by Kodak for Delta 400 film.
Most likely because the Kodak recommendations are more closely related to ISO print standards than Zone system criteria.
And speaking very, very simplistically, this means that you will probably get negatives that give you more to work with when printing in the darkroom (with the attendant ability to burn and dodge) and less satisfactory negatives if you are having a lab make machine prints for you.Maybe. I've pretty much always used the 'zone system' when spot metering.
And speaking very, very simplistically, this means that you will probably get negatives that give you more to work with when printing in the darkroom (with the attendant ability to burn and dodge) and less satisfactory negatives if you are having a lab make machine prints for you.
Actually, the ISO specifications tend to favour highlight rendition, at the expense (sometimes) of shadow rendition. I expect that is a result of those "best print" tests that form the basis of the ISO specifications - most people (as compared to most darkroom printers) are more attuned to how highlights appear than they are to how shadows appear.I certainly prefer to have a negative that gives me options in terms of printing, rather than a low density negative which is in danger of not showing good highlight definition.
I've suspended investigations of Delta 400 in XTOL-R for the time being. I suspect the film may work better in a PQ developer like Microphen / ID-68, DD-X, T-Max etc. I have also found Delta 3200 to be a tricky film to process in XTOL but haven't done sufficient work to form a firm conclusion.
I've suspended investigations of Delta 400 in XTOL-R for the time being. I suspect the film may work better in a PQ developer like Microphen / ID-68, DD-X, T-Max etc. I have also found Delta 3200 to be a tricky film to process in XTOL but haven't done sufficient work to form a firm conclusion.
For what it's worth, I adore Delta 400 in hc-110 dilution B. Deep inky shadows well articulated shadows and a great tonal range.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?