How to develop Delta 3200

[markbau]

A friend has given me a few rolls of 120 Delta to develop. (I’ve never had anything to do with this film) It was exposed at EI 1600. Some scenes we in sunny daylight others indoors. I have D 23 mixed up at the moment but have no idea where to even start at guessing a develop time. I also have the chems to mix up most of the common developers. I’m think Thorntons 2 bath might be a good idea, but again have no clue as to times (7 minutes in each?) Any help much appreciated

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've developed it in D-23 1+1 at EI 1000 for 11 minutes. I'd probably do 12 minutes at 1600. 20C. Agitation constant for first 30seconds, followed by 3seconds every minutes.

 

[markbau]

I've developed it in D-23 1+1 at EI 1000 for 11 minutes. I'd probably do 12 minutes at 1600. 20C. Agitation constant for first 30seconds, followed by 3seconds every minutes.

Thanks so much Andrew, I’ll go with 12 minutes.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks so much Andrew, I’ll go with 12 minutes.

My pleasure! Do let us know how it turned out with a few pics, eh!

 

[ooze]

I used Thornton 2 bath once with D3200, 10 minutes in both A and B. The negs turned out horrible. I would never use it again.

Just two days ago I developed a 120 roll of D3200 in Adox MQ Borax stock, 13 minutes at 20 degrees Celsius, and the negs are beautiful. If you have hydroquinone at hand home-mixed D76 (I presume you mix your chems from scratch) would be equally fine.

Can't comment on D23.

 

[pentaxuser]

My pleasure! Do let us know how it turned out with a few pics, eh!

Yes +1. I'd be keen to see how it goes as well.

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

Don't use something weak. It really needs to be stock strength D-76/ Microphen/ Xtol etc. You need the activity (and solvency) to get the (rather clever) emulsions to do their job - and they'll be plenty sharp. 1+25 Rodinal works too, but don't expect a lot of speed - and it produces a very different curve shape (not enough solvency to release the large amount of iodide that restrains highlight density - the release of the iodide will also boost sharpness). The way that Delta 3200 is engineered, development to 'normal G-bar 0.62' really means the shadows go to about 0.7, the highs to 0.5 (ie contrastier shadows, softer highlight contrast) - so really do bear that in mind. Rodinal seems to produce a more normal curve shape without the highlight restraint.

 

[Moose22]

Don't use something weak. It really needs to be stock strength D-76/ Microphen/ Xtol etc. You need the activity (and solvency) to get the (rather clever) emulsions to do their job - and they'll be plenty sharp. .

I did xtol 1:1 with normal with my first few tries at Delta3200 (and kodak P3200) it worked great. Full strength also worked great... I'm not sure if I got a large benefit out of 1:1 and at 1600 the original poster will have less worry about grain than I did. I will experiment more, of course, but I find it interesting you say this. Makes me more prone to doing my next couple of rolls of 3200 at full strength to see.

Also interested to see OP's result with d23.

 

[markbau]

My pleasure! Do let us know how it turned out with a few pics, eh!

I'm quite happy with the negs. My friend admitted to being a bit drunk when he took the photos so exposure is all over the place but this is probably the best one. Nice highlights which could have easily blown out and decent shadow detail. This is a quick scan, will be interesting to see how they print. Thanks again Andrew.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well, the photog caught quite a range of highlight to shadows quite well. It has given me real hope that D23 is more than just a box speed developer

Thanks, markbau

pentaxuser

 

[markbau]

So I got a roll of 3200 from my friend and put it through my P67. Like him I rated it at 1600, I mainly wanted to see how it performed in full sun. I developed in D 23 1:1, 12 minutes, 60 second inversions. The negs are horrible, waaaay underdeveloped. Strangely the negs on which I used an incident meter on were really bad, the negs I used a spot meter on, putting shadows on zone IV, (Barnbaum method) were 1/2 decent. IMO. Accounting for the massive underdevelopment I think this film is at best an EI 800 film but it's really hard to guess given how underdeveloped it is. Then again, maybe Delta 3200 and D23 1:1 are just a bad combo. What are people rating it at for outdoor use?

 

[Donald Qualls]

You're approximately correct, in that the true speed of Delta 3200 is ISO1000, according to Ilford's data. To get 1600 or 3200 out of it amounts to a stop or two of push -- but this film is formulated to push very well (some push it as far as EI 12500 and get nice images with the right scenes).

D-23 isn't a great developer for pushing, first, and second 12 minutes in1+1 is in no way a push development (that's close to normal even for slower films). I don't even find data for Delta 3200 in D-23; I'd suggest either altering your mix (adding borax will at least shorten development times, and is close to D-76H, the no-hydroquinone version of D-76) or using an entirely different developer, one with two developing agents and one of them phenidone or dimezone.

 

[ruilourosa]

diluted d-76 or diluted x-tol can be a direction

anchell and troop changed a bit their opinion and they recommend ilford dd-x now for push processing

they also say that potassium salts can give you a bit more speed tha sodium...

 

[pentaxuser]

So Markbau your negs at the same speed as your friend's and in the same developer and time came out OK -ish but your film was way underdeveloped. It suggests that something was in fact different on the two occasions. Is there any detail in the shadows on the neg in his shot of the 2 ladies. It is difficult to judge from a scan and exposure-wise it looks as if the film was having to cope with a massive range of light

I am not sure that from what I see that D3200 at 1600 in D23 is necessarily a bad combo although it may be that diluted 1+1 is pushing its boundaries a bit

If Andrew O'Neill is willing to show us his negs/prints that may tell us more about the danger of using it at 1600

pentaxuser

 

[markbau]

So Markbau your negs at the same speed as your friend's and in the same developer and time came out OK -ish but your film was way underdeveloped. It suggests that something was in fact different on the two occasions. Is there any detail in the shadows on the neg in his shot of the 2 ladies. It is difficult to judge from a scan and exposure-wise it looks as if the film was having to cope with a massive range of light

I am not sure that from what I see D3200 at 1600 in D23 is necessarily a bad combo although it may be that diluted 1+1 is pushing its boundaries a bit

If Andrew O'Neill is willing to show us his negs/prints that may tell us more about the danger of using it at 1600

pentaxuser

I can only guess that the image I scanned of the two ladies was given much more exposure (effectively rated at 400 perhaps) than the 1600 I gave my film. That's the only conclusion I can come to based on the decent shadow detail in that image. The two films were developed identically. I would be interested in finding out how people are exposing and developing their film to produce good negs in daylight conditions.

 

[mooseontheloose]

I wish I had read this thread last week, before I developed my Ilford 3200 (shot at 1600)*. Negs are underdeveloped, even though I added 15% more time to the development. Plus the film looks fogged (at least the base fog is stronger than most films, don't know if that's normal). I don't shoot this film much, but would like to get a handle on it for when I really need the extra push. That said, I seem to have better luck pushing Tri-X or HP5+ to 1600 than using this at 1600. I guess I need to do a proper test of all three in different lighting conditions and different developers to see what really works best.

*Shout out to @Andrew O'Neill, I was shooting at the Miike mine in Omuta (inspired by your work there). I didn't have a tripod with me (although I think it would have been allowed) so was pushing all of my films in the interiors while there. I just now need to organize my darkroom so I can get some printing done, even if it's just work prints for now.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I wish I had read this thread last week, before I developed my Ilford 3200 (shot at 1600)*. Negs are underdeveloped, even though I added 15% more time to the development. Plus the film looks fogged (at least the base fog is stronger than most films, don't know if that's normal). I don't shoot this film much, but would like to get a handle on it for when I really need the extra push. That said, I seem to have better luck pushing Tri-X or HP5+ to 1600 than using this at 1600. I guess I need to do a proper test of all three in different lighting conditions and different developers to see what really works best.

*Shout out to @Andrew O'Neill, I was shooting at the Miike mine in Omuta (inspired by your work there). I didn't have a tripod with me (although I think it would have been allowed) so was pushing all of my films in the interiors while there. I just now need to organize my darkroom so I can get some printing done, even if it's just work prints for now.

I can NOT wait to see your images! Were you at Manda? That's the main one, near the museum. How did you get around? I know Omuta like the back of my hand. Wish I could have shown you around...

 

[pentaxuser]

I can only guess that the image I scanned of the two ladies was given much more exposure (effectively rated at 400 perhaps) than the 1600 I gave my film. That's the only conclusion I can come to based on the decent shadow detail in that image. The two films were developed identically. I would be interested in finding out how people are exposing and developing their film to produce good negs in daylight conditions.

My instinct and that is all it is i.e. based on a feeling only, is that I doubt if it was exposed at 400. That's nearly a stop and a half down on its "true" speed, assuming that is 1000 and not a little higher. I'd have expected the shadow to be more open at 400 and the highlights to be more blown than they are in your friend's shot of the 2 ladies

Anyway when I used DDX at 1600 in good daylight conditions I followed the adage that says expose for the next speed up so I used the 3200 time for 1600 and the results were good. If by good daylight conditions you mean Australian sun then I confess my daylight shots were in hazy U.K. sun only so maybe quite different but my shadows were always pretty open

When I switched developers to Xtol I used it at 1+1 for 21.5 mins and again that produced OK nags from which OK prints under an enlarger were possible

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

I have not used Delta films much, for the most part prefer Tmax. When I looked at the Kodak Data Sheet for Tmax 3200 only D76 stock and HC 110 B is recommended for 3200. On the other hand ILford does not recommend ID 11 for Delta, at 3200 DDX or Micophen at 400 and 800 Perceptol (Microdol X) stock. Are the films that much different?

 

[McDiesel]

Accounting for the massive underdevelopment I think this film is at best an EI 800 film but it's really hard to guess given how underdeveloped it is. Then again, maybe Delta 3200 and D23 1:1 are just a bad combo.

The latter. D23 is the problem. Try Microphen at EI3200 and you will not be complaining about underdeveloped negatives, but you may be unhappy with the grain, depending on your expectations.

 

[mooseontheloose]

I can NOT wait to see your images! Were you at Manda? That's the main one, near the museum. How did you get around? I know Omuta like the back of my hand. Wish I could have shown you around...

I was at Manda and I also went to the Miyanohara pit as well, though not nearly as big or interesting. I had a car for 2 weeks as I explored Kyushu (all 7 prefectures) so that definitely helped me see more things than I could have by public transportation. The only place I didn't get to was Ikeshima, due to rainy weather and gale force winds on the 2 days I had allocated for a possible trip there. Ah well, next time.

What I did learn from this trip is that I need to do some proper testing about what is possible in low light with different films and develoopers, and if, in fact, I do get better results out of pushed Delta 400 or HP5+, rather than Delta (or I suppose Tmax) 3200.