Experience with ILFORD Delta 400 development time in XTOL replenished?

[Tom Kershaw]

I've recently started using XTOL replenished in my Jobo over the 1+1 dilution scheme, and for the most part everything has worked very well. However, my first roll of Delta 400 (400 EI) processed in XTOL-R for 7 minutes @ 21ºC looks slightly under developed. My educated-guess process time for TMY-2 of 9 minutes - 400 EI seems to be about right. Kodak gives 6 1/4 minutes as the time for Delta 400 @ 21ºC, which I was a little suspicious of, hence the longer time. If anything the D400 film doesn't really seem to be operating at "box speed" which is not a problem I've ever had with the TMY-2 / XTOL combination.

Anyone here with experience / data for Delta 400 & XTOL-R?

Tom

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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.

Thanks. Most of the 400 speed film I have to processes is TMY-2. I only have 4 more rolls of Delta 400 to do (of important negatives) so perhaps I'll try a test roll and a longer dev time. I've not yet managed to successfully process Delta 3200 in XTOL. ID-68 / Microphen works perfectly however. I suspect 7 minutes 30 seconds to 8 minutes may be a better bet for Delta 400 / XTOL-R. In the past with the 1+1 dilution, my experience was that Delta films required slightly less development than T-Max, but not in the order of several minutes difference.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

So I've now had a chance to process and print another roll of Delta 400 / XTOL-R and 7min 30secs does look better. I think this film & developer combination needs some more work on my end for me to be totally confident of good results.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

If one looks here (page 4 of 7) - https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1915/product/685/ - takes the time for replenished XTOL in a dip and dunk machine, adjusts for rotary processing and my operating temperature of 21ºC, a development time of 8 minutes is arrived at, which is a recommendation much closer to my own findings.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I checked my notes: I added one minute to the 20 degrees C/ 68 degrees F time for Ilford FP4+ and Ilford HP5+ in replenished XTOL with a Jobo processor.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I've now had a chance to make a few test prints and suspect that Delta 400 - 8 minutes @ 21ºC is slightly too long, so 7min 30secs is probably about right, which is the time Kodak give for Delta 100. The timings of the slower film seem to be okay, so I'm somewhat at a loss to explain the much shorter figures given by Kodak for Delta 400 film.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Have just processed some more Delta 400 and it looks as though a revised time based on 7 min 30 secs @ 21ºC is at least a good starting point / not too long.

 

[MattKing]

I'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 .

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Most likely because the Kodak recommendations are more closely related to ISO print standards than Zone system criteria .

Maybe. I've pretty much always used the 'zone system' when spot metering.

 

[MattKing]

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.
Similar observations if you are using a scan and post-process and digital print workflow.
The "best print" analysis that the ISO standards are based on is predicated con using machine prints.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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.

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

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.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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 have to review my past development time, then shoot some Delta 3200 and do some development at longer times.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

There is nothing wrong with Delta 400, the problem is development times for Delta 3200.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

To update this thread, I have just revisited this combination and 7min @ 24C seems to work well in the Jobo.

 

[Steven Lee]

Just to add a data point: my Xtol-R time for Delta 400 is 8:30 at 24C but I use Ilford agitation: continuous first 30 seconds, followed by 2 inversions every minute.

This may be of limited value since everyone's Xtol-R operates at different activity level.