• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Ilford chemicals: choosing developer for Delta 400

I think if you have to ask the question 'what developer' you should stick with the one Ilford made to go with its T grain films, DD-X. You then have a technical datum point which none of the other recommendations involving opinion can give you. After you've used DD-X then make the leap and ask for opinions given you now have something to compare with.
 
i am kind of feeling giggly here...

going through the ilford developing guides,,, the STOP BATH is a 1 shot use?

Seriously... how is stop bath a one shot use when it has a color indicator in it to show when to replace? This is based on how the text conveniently doesnt mention reusing chemicals until they discuss the fixer..
 
redbandit said:
how is stop bath a one shot use when it has a color indicator in it to show when to replace?
Click to expand...

The same stop bath product is sold for paper and film. It's suggested for one time use for film, but as a reusable bath for paper. The reason is possibly because of iodide contamination of the stop bath, which will slow down fixing rate in subsequent materials that go through the same stop bath. Since B&W paper contains no iodides, reuse is OK. Film does contain iodide, so reuse is a bit more doubtful as iodide buildup in the stop bath (with some of it carrying over into the emulsion and fixer) can reduce subsequent fixing speed. Delta emulsions fix with relative difficulty to begin with.

Having said that, if you insist on reusing your $0.01 batch of working strength stop bath, there's very little harm in doing so within reason (you decide how often is still reasonable). Keep in mind that depending on the developer used, the indicator may not be as easily visible anymore due to oxidization of developing agents, which can also have a distinct color. Staining developers are noteworthy in this respect.

redbandit said:
This is based on how the text conveniently doesnt mention reusing chemicals until they discuss the fixer..
Click to expand...
Of course, the lack of specificity in references such as 'the ilford developing guides' and 'the text' makes it difficult to address your remarks.

Refer to the datasheet for the specific chemical for information on reuse. E.g. from the DDX datasheet:

Reuse is discussed in a separate section on page 6 as well, with an initial mention on the very first page.

Just one example of how Ilford in particular is quite clear on the issue of reuse. Perhaps you're just not looking in the right places, even though they seem fairly obvious places to look in...
 
Ian Grant said:
If I didn't use Pyrocat HD for all my films I would go back to Xtol replenished, or use Ilford's recommendation DD-X.

I would not do a Google search to misinform me

Ian
Click to expand...

I would use D-76 1:1 because I use that for everything.

But you have been compiling a book’s worth of developer formulas.

If you wanted to mix your own developer from one of the ones you checked… Which one would you try?

Suppose full speed, good shadow detail, good tonality and fine grain were the goal.

And maybe reasonably safe chemicals.
 

I am kind of feeling giggly here...

Please refer to the 15+ year old thread on whether you need to use stop bath at all. There is a split of opinion. If you decide to use a water rinse, you can save money if you reuse the water. It is also a nice gesture toward saving the planet.
 
Last edited:
The amount would depend on several factors. But it's not really relevant; my remark was a bad joke. I don't recommend reusing a water stop bath as the wash water for film.
 
koraks said:
The amount would depend on several factors. But it's not really relevant; my remark was a bad joke. I don't recommend reusing a water stop bath as the wash water for film.
Click to expand...

I switched to holy water from Lourdes as stop bath, all pictures turned out excellent ever since
 
koraks said:
You don't have inexplicable apparitions in your images that weren't there when you took the photo?
Click to expand...
Yeah, there was this old woman in one picture. I would swear that she was sitting in the wheelchair that her son was pushing.
 
The only way you will know if a developer is appropriate for you is to try them out. Personally, Pyrocat-HD, 510-Pyro, XTOL-R, all work well.
 
There are really no "bad choices" for developers - the film's inherent characteristics are baked in and the developer plays a modest role in the outcome. However, every developer behaves a bit differently and you will do well to approach any developer + film combination as something that you need to explore and adjust to meet your own needs. Its a lot like cooking: "season to taste".
 
Red, You've gotten a list of about every developer under the sun. You can either experiment and compare until the cows come home, or pick a developer (& a film) and really get to know it.). As retina restoration and others have suggested....it is a lot like cooking. Many pro &/or famous photographers have used a film or two and one developer to get those iconic images that have burned themselves into our collective psyches.
 
Tsubasa said:
Considering that the differences between developers are slim, to say the least, I'd suggest Ilford Id-11.
Click to expand...

So given best practice in darkroom work is knowledge and consistency, and then the first thing you throw out without trying it are the film manufacturers recommendations for the best developer? Yes, it's that sort of forum.
 
Xtol
 
As others said, pictures at web resolution, of which you do not know how they were digitalized and whether the screen to process them had even been calibrated, tell very little about the original negative.
I settled with Ilford Perceptol because Barry Thornton, who was a very experienced photo instructor, recommended this developer in his books. Also in a brochure published by Ilford comparing their developers, this one showed the best resolution and acutance (but only if diluted). It has the disadvantage that it is rather expensive, diminishes film speed and takes quite long development times – but these are factors I do not see in my final pictures.
 
@Tsubasa indeed, I'm not really sure what @250swb was referring to in his response to your post. In the Delta 400 datasheet linked to earlier in this thread, on page 2, Ilford specifically includes ID-11 under the heading "Choosing the best Ilford developer for the job". Your suggestion to use ID-11 is literally what Ilford, the film manufacturer recommends for "Best overall image quality" for a powder developer (quote from the datasheet, page 2), with DD-X for those who prefer a liquid concentrate.

From a moderator's viewpoint, I also have to say that I found 250swb's comment unfortunate in its formulation, especially the final phrase.
 

What you say is true and I have used Perceptol 1+3 for HP5+ and it works superb. Diluted it gave me very near full film speed, but you have to remember to use more volume of developer than stock. Also, I make my own Perceptol/Microdol X and it's much, much cheaper that way. I haven't tried my home-brewed Perceptol with Delta 400 since I don't usually shoot Delta 400, but I see no reason it wouldn't give excellent results. Like I said, I don't have much experience with Delta 400, but Delta 100 sure doesn't seem too dependent on any one developer for getting good results.
 

Ilford make a developer called DD-X for the T grain films they make, presumably they think in their eyes this is the best developer. But it does not stop them recommending other developers given not everybody will have DD-X or even in the long run like it. So to make an analogy, you have a map that says turn left, your satnav is saying turn left, and the road sign is saying turn left, but you say 'nah I've never been here before so I'll turn right'. Choosing the deveolper specifically made for that type of film is called a datum point, the place you refer back to, but not necessarily the place you end up.
 
I think it’s worth pointing out that there is no absolute ‘best’ choice. Every developer available will develop your film, some with speed loss but fine grain, some with full speed but soft image, etc etc. When Ilford says ‘best overall image quality’, they mean it gives a decent compromise of all these characteristics. So it’s a sensible place to start.

In time, you may decide you would be willing to sacrifice some speed for slightly finer grain, or want to pursue high acutance at the expense of all else. That would be the time to try something different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register