Ilford chemicals: choosing developer for Delta 400

[relistan]

Every film currently in the mainline manufacturers' lineup was optimized to work well with D-76. They had to be because this is what almost any commercial lab was using for a long, long time. So the answer as a starting point for any film when asked "what is a good developer?" should probably be D-76/ID-11. You will be guaranteed box speed and good all around performance. So that's one approach.

Another is: "I have this developer and I love it on all these other films and wouldn't it be interesting to see how it is with film X". In that case, use it, see what you think.

Another approach is: "I like a simple, repeatable process, and a one shot developer is my jam". And in that case, you should use one that you like and change it out if you don't like it with that film. Or use the one recommended by the manufacturer.

Another approach is: "I like the results that X got with this film and I'd like to see if I can get something similar". And in that case you should do use the same process and chems, etc.

But essentially there is no right answer. And the good news is that there is also no wrong answer. It's all about the results you want and whether or not you get them.

 

[brian steinberger]

One thing to consider is how much film are you going to be developing? ID-11 is cheap in a 5 liter box. I mix up 5 liters at a time and use it up within 2 months. I keep it in smallish glass amber bottles.

I would decide if you want powder or liquid. Liquid doesn’t keep as well once opened, unless you decant into small amber glass bottles. I can buy a box of ID-11 and leave it on my shelf for years (which I don’t) and it would still mix up just fine. Liquid has a shelf life, even unopened.

I would recommend ID-11. Dilute it 1:1 and discard after use. I think it’s the most basic way to start then you can branch out from there.

 

[250swb]

A better analogy would be: "You have a satnav that says turn left, with an alternate route turning right with an additional trip duration of 0 minutes".
View attachment 331272
Taken from the Delta 400 datasheet.

Since DD-X isn't made as a powder for mixing in bulk but the OP was asking for the 'best' it's moot point you are trying to make, he can buy the liquid DD-X. You seem to think this is something more than it is. The OP asked a question and there was a landslide of many differing opinions that the OP then has to navigate through. Such is the case in many threads on many forums about many things when an open question is asked. Using the developer developed by the manufacturer for that film (and not ID-11 that was made prior to that film) is simply a pragmatic way to to get to a starting point, nothing more.

 

[koraks]

You seem to think this is something more than it is.

No, you came down quite hard on someone who made a perfectly sensible suggestion. I pointed out his suggestion is as reasonable as the one you made. That's all.

It's a forum, of course there will be many answers. Personally, I value that multitude of insights.

 

[Steven Lee]

@250swb I seriously doubt that DD-X was created specifically for Delta. It appears to be a fairly generic speed boosting PQ developer similar to (same as?) Clayton's F76. There is no magic: you are trading grain quality for extra shadow detail. You are also getting a more straight curve, which can be a pro or a con depending on your end goal. Thinking from the first principles, one can get extra shadow detail by simply giving film a bit more light. I also will say that if you're scanning, that linear gamma means you'll be bending the curve in Photoshop, amplifying the already-not-quite-pretty grain in the lower 4 zones.

Xtol or ID-11, on the other hand, give you an S-shaped curve and better grain without having to do anything. Just expose for those shadows. In other words, DD-X is more of a specialty developer optimized for pushing. I am mildly pissed at Ilford for promoting it as "best overall quality" developer in their datasheets.

 

[John Wiegerink]

@250swb I seriously doubt that DD-X was created specifically for Delta. It appears to be a fairly generic speed boosting PQ developer similar to (same as?) Clayton's F76. There is no magic: you are trading grain quality for extra shadow detail. You are also getting a more straight curve, which can be a pro or a con depending on your end goal. Thinking from the first principles, one can get extra shadow detail by simply giving film a bit more light. I also will say that if you're scanning, that linear gamma means you'll be bending the curve in Photoshop, amplifying the already-not-quite-pretty grain in the lower 4 zones.

Xtol or ID-11, on the other hand, give you an S-shaped curve and better grain without having to do anything. Just expose for those shadows. In other words, DD-X is more of a specialty developer optimized for pushing. I am mildly pissed at Ilford for promoting it as "best overall quality" developer in their datasheets.

I've used both DD-X and Ilfosol 3. I prefer Ilfosol 3, but that's just me. No, I haven't tried either one on Delta 400. If you look at Ilfords film developers you'll see DD-X as one of their most expensive and might be a reason to try to promote it a little more heavily.

 

[250swb]

No, you came down quite hard on someone who made a perfectly sensible suggestion. I pointed out his suggestion is as reasonable as the one you made. That's all.

It's a forum, of course there will be many answers. Personally, I value that multitude of insights.

I didn't come down hard on anybody in particular, only the idea that randomly recommending anything and everything 'just because it works' is not a path to start on. Don't try to say I was picking on one person because there are many that went before that fit the bill.

Let us know how a 'multitude of insights' narrows down the question the OP asked? Is an OP asking a question supposed to make a list of the reply's and choose the most popular recommendation, even though the most popular may just be the easiest, or most cost effective, or in turn the one somebody suggests because 'I heard it on a forum somewhere'? So if you are saying Ilford didn't develop DD-X specifically for their T grain films I can see there is a problem, and a problem I didn't introduce into the discussion. You'll be saying Kodak don't recommended their T-Max developer for T grain films if carrying on down the same path.

 

[koraks]

I didn't come down hard on anybody in particular

Alright, that's fair enough. Sorry for implying this.

So if you are saying Ilford didn't develop DD-X specifically for their T grain films

I did not suggest anything along those lines. Perhaps you're confusing me with @Steven Lee above?

Let us know how a 'multitude of insights' narrows down the question the OP asked?

It doesn't. I never implied it did. I think the variety is useful because it gives options to explore, and to choose from according to one's own preferences. The choosing is then someone one will still have to do oneself.

It seems you're expecting something from a forum that it simply doesn't do. On most topics, there's not going to be a consensus, and there's not going to be an authority that can give the definitive answer that's elevated beyond any doubt or alternative. It's very much like most things in life, really. Neither you nor I are going to change this.

 

[Craig]

Lets go back to the first post. The question was: how to select the right developer for Delta 400? Not what was the best, the question was about the process of developer selection.

In that regard, what is wrong with using Ilford's recommendation that best image quality can be achieved with ID-11 if one prefers a powder developer? It doesn't say that DD-X is the best, it says that is capable of best overall image quality, if one prefers to use a liquid developer. There can be may reasons to choose a powder developer over a liquid one, and it doesn't say that DD-X is better than ID-11.

If you look at the DD-X tech sheet, it says "Ilfotech DD-X is designed to complement the features of all Ilford films" - that's a pretty sweeping generalization.

The Delta range of films were introduced a number of years before DD-X, so if DD-X was intended to be specifically for Delta, it was late to the party.

If we're being pedantic, Ilford didn't develop DD-X for their T grain films, because they don't have any. T Grain is a registered trademark of Kodak, so only Kodak has T grain film.

 

[250swb]

If we're being pedantic, Ilford didn't develop DD-X for their T grain films, because they don't have any. T Grain is a registered trademark of Kodak, so only Kodak has T grain film.

All I can say is I've been on the Ilford factory tour, and even though they may call the grain structure something else they knew what people were talking about when describing T grain or flat grain films and didn't feel the need to be pedantic about it. If instead we call Delta 400 a flat crystal film/grain film, or even a 'Core Shell emulsion', I think people will kind of know what is being talked about without needing to nit pick.

You are correct that some people will choose a powder developer over a liquid developer, not least of which is if you are running a large darkroom in a college or business. I doubt anybody would use DD-X for large volumes of film processing due to the price, together with the advantages of ID-11 when it comes to replenishment etc. So rather than assume Ilford are recommending both as equal developers think of it as recommendations for different usage.

But if you want to cherry pick words and quote Ilford try not to be so disingenuous because somebody may catch you at it. You quote Ilford and say "Ilfotech DD-X is designed to complement the features of all Ilford films". But what Ilford actually say on their datasheet is "ILFOTEC DD-X is designed to complement the features of all ILFORD films, especially the range of ILFORD DELTA PROFESSIONAL films." (my underlining).

 

[retina_restoration]

I’m sure the OP has long ago given up on this discussion, so there’s not much point in continuing to argue over minutiae.

 

[MattKing]

Speaking generally, any time the question is something like: "what is best?", the response in forums will involve minutiae.
Also in general, any question that includes something like: "what is suitable and recommended, and why?" can lead to all sorts of useful stuff.

 

[snusmumriken]

I’m sure the OP has long ago given up on this discussion, so there’s not much point in continuing to argue over minutiae.

This should probably be inserted automatically on page 3 of every thread on Photrio!

 

[retina_restoration]

Speaking generally, any time the question is something like: "what is best?", the response in forums will involve minutiae.
Also in general, any question that includes something like: "what is suitable and recommended, and why?" can lead to all sorts of useful stuff.

It can also lead to an excess of irrelevant and anecdotal "junk data" that serves to confuse rather than inform.

 

[snusmumriken]

We should probably have stopped after Ian Grant’s post #2, which answered the OP’s ‘how’ very aptly. Pretty much everything after that has been anecdotal views of what was ‘right’, or questioned the whole concept of any developer being ‘right’ for a given film.

I’m as guilty as anyone of enjoying the debate. But I often feel torn between that community enjoyment, a duty towards the OP, and a concern about how this stuff will look when archived. But I’m not sure there can be any solution, given this is a forum not an online reference work.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

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.

Before my return to the darkroom, I used HP5 @ 200 , perceptol 1:3 for 21 mins.
Glad you reminded me.
The negs were worth the wait of long developing times.
I may try it again but use a rotary processor.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Diluted Perceptol works very well with many different films if you don't mine a little longer developing times. I use it often, but I brew my own. I have compared my homemade to Ilford Peceptol /Kodak Microdol and see absolutely no difference. Plus, I have all the chemicals on hand to make it anytime I want for the next 50 years. Of course, at 73 yrs old I'm not to worried about running out anytime soon. Just a very simple developer that does an excellent job at what it's designed to do.

 

[pentaxuser]

This should probably be inserted automatically on page 3 of every thread on Photrio!

I like this idea

"What's the best" as the start of any Photrio forum thread either makes your heart soar and sends you into rapture or makes your heart sink

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Diluted Perceptol works very well with many different films if you don't mine a little longer developing times.

Yes, it's one that in most cases calls for a reduction in film speed of up to one stop or at least 1/3rd stop at 1+3 and yet there must be something about it that makes it OK for D3200 at 3200 in stock as Ilford mentions this time in the Perceptol data

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

Also in general, any question that includes something like: "what is suitable and recommended, and why?" can lead to all sorts of useful stuff.

I suspect you will get the same bunch of answers whether you ask the question "what is best?" or "what is suitable and recommended, and why?"

 

[MattKing]

I suspect you will get the same bunch of answers whether you ask the question "what is best?" or "what is suitable and recommended, and why?"

But much, much less "aggro", as some of our friends from the UK appear to say.

 

[pentaxuser]

But much, much less "aggro", as some of our friends from the UK appear to say.

Sure about that, Matt? So a comparable question along those lines you suggested but about say pre-wash might be:" What is suitable and recommended and why in terms of evidence available?

Hmm ... I confess to having my doubts about a question in this form generating less "aggro" after say the preliminary rounds

It should of course but "should" is not the same as "will"

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Sure about that, Matt? So a comparable question along those lines you suggested but about say pre-wash might be:" What is suitable and recommended and why in terms of evidence available?

Hmm ... I confess to having my doubts about a question in this form generating less "aggro" after say the preliminary rounds

It should of course but "should" is not the same as "will"

pentaxuser

Yep - I'm sure.
It avoids a lot of arguments about what constitutes "best".

 

[pentaxuser]

Yep - I'm sure.
It avoids a lot of arguments about what constitutes "best".

Maybe but I am not convinced. What is perhaps clearer is that if this site's future depended members' contributions on what constitutes "best" threads then in terms of contributions these are the winners

pentaxuser

 

[Craig]

Yep - I'm sure.
It avoids a lot of arguments about what constitutes "best".

Lets not forget the original question wasn't "What is best?". It was "how do I choose a developer?", which is a very different question.

The resposnses that followed lacked understanding of the question and instead we got a laundry list of what various people think is "best" rather than what the process is to choose a developer for a particular need.