Ilford Delta 100 + HC-110 Something went wrong

[Kirks518]

Looking for some armchair quarterbacking here.

Today I shot and developed a roll of fresh (exp in 2016) Delta 100 Pro 35mm, and in was very thin/underdeveloped. The writing in the rebate was very thin, almost illegible. I used Ilford's data sheet* to come up with a time of 6 mins at 68°F, and I actually was at 69-70°F when I started, so I almost cut the time by a few seconds, but didn't. I used dilution B (1:31). Before developing this roll, I had just finished a roll of Delta 400 (120) in dilution B, and that came out fine (one shot on that developer, not reused for the Delta 100). I do 5 mild agitations (inversions) every 60 seconds, and those 5 agitations take me exactly 10 seconds to do.

Mass dev says 9ml of HC-110 for 300ml of working solution, but Covington says 9.4ml for the same 300ml. I went with the Mass Dev of 9ml. Could this 0.4ml of syrup have made the difference? IIRC, I may have even put in 9.1-9.2ml.

Ilford's data sheet on the Delta 400 says not to do a presoak, but it doesn't say anything about a presoak for the Delta 100, so I went ahead and did one. Possibility?

I use a Paterson tank*, if that means anything.

*on the data sheet it gives times for spiral tank, deep tank, dip and dunk machines at 68°F/20°C. Is the Paterson tank not considered a spiral tank?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Science fiction. If both the image area and the film edge markings are thin, it's likely to be at the processing stage. I just processed a roll of Delta 100 and it has strong edge markings.
Especially if you just ran a Delta 400 and it was fine...

Some possibilities:
1. Could the water you used have been contaminated somehow?
2. Maybe the beaker you used was previously used to measure stop bath or fixer, and just somehow didn't get washed properly as normal?
3. Can you be 100% sure that there was no possibility for contamination in the tank, or was that washed properly?

Just some thoughts.

 

[MattKing]

Yes the Paterson tank is a spiral tank.

1 + 31 means 9.375 ml concentrate diluted with water to 300 ml - there really is no significant functional difference between 9 and 9.375 ml in your procedure (there would be in a higher volume commercial lab).

Did you mix up a large batch of working solution, divide it in two, develop the Delta 400 in the first batch, and then the Delta 100 in the second?

Or did you perform two different mixing procedures - one before the Delta 400, and then the second before the Delta 100?

If the latter, I would guess that something distracted you or otherwise caused you to end up with something either more dilute than dilution B, or something that is contaminated.

 

[Kirks518]

Hmm. Good thoughts Thomas. Numbers 1 & 3 I can rule out. Same water was used from jugs, as my tap runs too hot. Tank was used for a 20 minute rinse of the 120, then rinsed and dried.

I think you may have something with #2 though. While I would like to believe I'm mindful of rinsing/washing between uses, I may not have, as I just can't remember. I did do the rolls one right after the other, so I may have inadvertently missed it.

Thanks. That's what I was looking for, some things/steps I may have overlooked or did incorrectly so I can avoid the same mistakes.

 

[timor]

I had lately problem with Delta 400 (120 format). Streaks and uneven development.
I don't do much inversions, usually two in the mid-time and usually everything is good with Kodaks or HP5. But looks like Delta 400 doesn't like agitation by spinning.
0.4 ml of sirup should not make any visible difference. My guess would be, that you misread the scale in your dosing device and used significantly less or, that you used water of very low pH. Maybe in the mixing container previously you had a stop bath and forgot to rinse. Low pH will cut activity of developing agents.
Olly Molly, 4 replies in 5 min.

 

[Kirks518]

Olly Molly, 4 replies in 5 min.

Yup, and I missed some.

I've been thinking about it some more, and I really only use 2 chemicals - developer and fixer. The fixer is kept in a 2 liter pop bottle, and goes from the bottle to the tank and back into the bottle. I don't measure it, I just pour enough in until it gets to the bottom of the funnel, which is plenty for one roll. I also test my fixer before a session.

As for measuring, I'm 99.99% sure I measured correctly, as I recall double checking the quantity on mass dev before I dosed it.

I'm really scratching my head with this.

I'm almost thinking about getting another roll of it, cutting it in half, respooling the 2 halves, and then develop one half the same as tonight and see how it goes. Ifit goes ok, then I screwed something up tonight, but if not, and the results from the first half are the same, then try the 2nd half with an additional 2 minutes (SWAG on the add'l 2 mins).

 

[Ghostman]

Are you sure you metered for ISO 100? It could well be that they are just that, underexposed. What camera or metering system do you use and what do the film edges look like?

 

[gone]

I think you're going to have to re shoot another roll to know anything. Shooting and developing ISO 100 AND 400 film....could be exposure related as Ghostman said. It's happened to me. Real easy to forget to reset your meter (unless you're using a camera that automatically reads a 35mm canister)

 

[bvy]

I think you need new storage bottles (private joke).

I had a similar problem with Pan F Plus last year and systematically ruled out just about every "user error" possibility ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)). At Simon's invitation, I sent the film to Ilford for inspection. They stopped short of calling it a manufacturing defect, but did acknowledge it as something of an anomaly and generously repalced the film. If you don't come up with an answer, you might also consider sending the negative to Ilford.

(Coincidentally, I fired my first frames of Delta 100 just yesterday. Now you have me nervous!)

 

[darkosaric]

I think you're going to have to re shoot another roll to know anything. Shooting and developing ISO 100 AND 400 film....could be exposure related as Ghostman said. It's happened to me. Real easy to forget to reset your meter (unless you're using a camera that automatically reads a 35mm canister)

It happened to me last weekend - I was testing LCA wide from a friend, and I shoot Kentmere 400 at iso 100.

 

[timor]

I've been thinking about it some more, and I really only use 2 chemicals - developer and fixer. The fixer is kept in a 2 liter pop bottle, and goes from the bottle to the tank and back into the bottle. I don't measure it, I just pour enough in until it gets to the bottom of the funnel, which is plenty for one roll. I also test my fixer before a session.

As for measuring, I'm 99.99% sure I measured correctly, as I recall double checking the quantity on mass dev before I dosed it.

I'm really scratching my head with this.

I'm almost thinking about getting another roll of it, cutting it in half, respooling the 2 halves, and then develop one half the same as tonight and see how it goes. Ifit goes ok, then I screwed something up tonight, but if not, and the results from the first half are the same, then try the 2nd half with an additional 2 minutes (SWAG on the add'l 2 mins).

Well, sometimes sh... happens. I have my share of such accidents to. The last "shock" came with the new HC110 from Tetenal which in my conditions is 25% less active, than the old one, Rochester made. That's why I am so interested in this thread. As much as I do not consider HC110 the best for Delta 100, nevertheless you should get proper densities in your negative. Fact, that you mentioned very thin edge marking (and in my experience Ilford markings are rather on the strong side) indicates low developer activity. How do you mix your solution B ? From the syrup I guess ?

 

[Alex Muir]

Hi. Are you sure you emptied the pre-soak water? Just a thought. If not, the result would be very dilute developer which would have needed a longer time. Thin edge numbers suggest under developed rather than under exposed.
Alex

 

[Kirks518]

Are you sure you metered for ISO 100? It could well be that they are just that, underexposed. What camera or metering system do you use and what do the film edges look like?

Two different cameras. The 120 was in a Rolfix, the second in a Rollei, and I pretty much use Sunny 16 on both, but because the rebate markings barely showed, I've ruled out exposure error.

 

[Kirks518]

Well, sometimes sh... happens. I have my share of such accidents to. The last "shock" came with the new HC110 from Tetenal which in my conditions is 25% less active, than the old one, Rochester made. That's why I am so interested in this thread. As much as I do not consider HC110 the best for Delta 100, nevertheless you should get proper densities in your negative. Fact, that you mentioned very thin edge marking (and in my experience Ilford markings are rather on the strong side) indicates low developer activity. How do you mix your solution B ? From the syrup I guess ?

The HC-110 I have is not the new stuff, it's the old stuff.

Now, before people start saying it must be that the developer is old, I've been using it with success since June. Other then 2 rolls of Forte 100 that were way expired (and I've decided the film was bad), everything I've developed in the HC-110 has been great.

Yes, I do mix straight from the syrup as a one shot, since it's cheap enough.

 

[Kirks518]

Hi. Are you sure you emptied the pre-soak water? Just a thought. If not, the result would be very dilute developer which would have needed a longer time. Thin edge numbers suggest under developed rather than under exposed.
Alex

The pre-soak was definitely dumped, as there wouldn't have been enough room for anything else.


At this point, here are what I think are the most likely possibilities;

1) some fixer remained in the tank from the previous roll, but between the 1st roll's fixer, and this roll's developer, the tank was used for a 10 minute wash, a 1 min wetting agent wash, completely dried (towel dried by hand), and a 1-2 minute soak. I have some difficulties imagining that any trace residue that may have remained would have this much affect, but I don't know.

2) while I'm certain I used the required 9 ml of syrup, it is possible that I added too much water. (I'm beginning to think this is culprit #1)

3) film is 'defective'. I'll be stopping in to my lab this afternoon, and ask if the current stock is from the same shipment (it's only been a couple of weeks since I bought this). If so, I'll buy another roll, and give it a go.

 

[Kirks518]

Oh, and how come we can't quote multiple posts when replying?

 

[timor]

2) while I'm certain I used the required 9 ml of syrup, it is possible that I added too much water. (I'm beginning to think this is culprit #1)

That is an "interesting" option.

 

[MattKing]

The pre-soak was definitely dumped, as there wouldn't have been enough room for anything else.


At this point, here are what I think are the most likely possibilities;

1) some fixer remained in the tank from the previous roll, but between the 1st roll's fixer, and this roll's developer, the tank was used for a 10 minute wash, a 1 min wetting agent wash, completely dried (towel dried by hand), and a 1-2 minute soak. I have some difficulties imagining that any trace residue that may have remained would have this much affect, but I don't know.

2) while I'm certain I used the required 9 ml of syrup, it is possible that I added too much water. (I'm beginning to think this is culprit #1)

3) film is 'defective'. I'll be stopping in to my lab this afternoon, and ask if the current stock is from the same shipment (it's only been a couple of weeks since I bought this). If so, I'll buy another roll, and give it a go.

Re: number 2

Like what might have happened if you used the same amount of water as you used when you prepared the developer for the 120 roll?