Ilford Delta 400 and Perceptol

[pentaxuser]

Probably not a new thread but I couldn't find an exact match anywhere in the forum so here goes.

As a result of being disappointed with using D400 at box speed and developed in Rodinal, I wrote to Ed Buffalo and decided to put into practice his recommendations of running it at ISO250 on the next occasion. However I then decided to try Perceptol instead of Rodinal. My jury's still out on Rodinal but that's another story.

Lokking at both the Ilford and Massive Development Charts, they both agreed on a time of 12 minutes using stock solution Perceptol which for information was only 24 hrs old so completely fresh. I further decided to develop using my Jobo so cut development time by Ilford's suggested 15%. This resulted in a time of 10 mins 12 secs.

On examination the negs looked thin but the detail was there. Sure enough most prints required grade 4/5 contrast filtration to give the prints "punch". I ran several test prints at grade 2 to check on this and they certainly lacked contrast and looked flat.

So my observation is that if 12 mins is the right time then 15% reduction for rotary processing is too much.

10% would have given me 10 mins 48 secs. Would an extra 36 secs have made all the difference?

If I use D400 at ISO 250 and Perceptol again in a rotary processor, what would users of this combination suggest?

I need to seek further advice on FP4 and HP5+ with Perceptol as well but have decided to keep each thread separate to avoid complicating matters and hopefully keep it easier for others who may wish to only learn about one of the films in question. So please keep an eye open for these threads as well

Thanks in anticipation of your advice and observations.

Pentaxuser

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I like Delta 400 at EI 200, 12 min. in Perceptol stock, 68 deg. F, agitating with 4 inversions every minute in a conventional daylight tank.

With a rotary drum, you use less developer than in an inversion tank typically, and this can be a source of underdevelopment. Try a regular tank, and see if that fixes it.

 

[BBMOR]

hey

for your information i always use HP 5 rated at 200 and develop in Perceptol 1+3 at 24 °C agitate the 30first sec continously after each two min 2 inversions and have full scala from white to black on a grade 2-2.5 with an extrem fine details

succes

jm

 

[pentaxuser]

Probably not a new thread but I couldn't find an exact match anywhere in the forum so here goes.

As a result of being disappointed with using D400 at box speed and developed in Rodinal, I wrote to Ed Buffalo and decided to put into practice his recommendations of running it at ISO250 on the next occasion. However I then decided to try Perceptol instead of Rodinal. My jury's still out on Rodinal but that's another story.

Lokking at both the Ilford and Massive Development Charts, they both agreed on a time of 12 minutes using stock solution Perceptol which for information was only 24 hrs old so completely fresh. I further decided to develop using my Jobo so cut development time by Ilford's suggested 15%. This resulted in a time of 10 mins 12 secs.

On examination the negs looked thin but the detail was there. Sure enough most prints required grade 4/5 contrast filtration to give the prints "punch". I ran several test prints at grade 2 to check on this and they certainly lacked contrast and looked flat.

So my observation is that if 12 mins is the right time then 15% reduction for rotary processing is too much.

10% would have given me 10 mins 48 secs. Would an extra 36 secs have made all the difference?

If I use D400 at ISO 250 and Perceptol again in a rotary processor, what would users of this combination suggest?

I need to seek further advice on FP4 and HP5+ with Perceptol as well but have decided to keep each thread separate to avoid complicating matters and hopefully keep it easier for others who may wish to only learn about one of the films in question. So please keep an eye open for these threads as well

Thanks in anticipation of your advice and observations.

Pentaxuser

Thanks for the replies. However without appearing to be ungrateful, I was hoping for a larger spectrum of replies and hopefully some from rotary processing users.

If I can summarise the reply on D100:

1.On non rotary tanks use 12 mins at ISO 200 with specified agitation pattern.
2.Using less developer in a rotary tank may have accounted for underdevelopment.

My conclusions would be:
1. Given that 12 mins is right for ISO 200 then using ISO250 and 12mins would have partially accounted for thinner negs.Am I right?

Questions: 1. Assuming that I had used ISO200 then would using 15% reduction for rotary processing have contributed to thin negs or would it have been spot on? If I use rotary processing again I want to be sure that 15% is OK. The safe route might be to reduce by 10% instead of 15% provided this didn't result in too much contrast. Its an extra 36 secs on just over 10 mins development time(see above).
2. If rotary tanks are set up to do both B&W and colour with less developer which I understand they are, then how likely is it that less developer is detrimental to developing? Some developers, I know, at rotary processor quantities and high dilution may result in less than the minimum quantities of stock developer but I used Perceptol at stock. Presumably even at 1:3 Perceptol still has more than a minimum quantity of stock developer?

Any comments from anyone welcome. I suspect that the majority of B&W subscribers don't use rotary processing but if any do and have used Perceptol and D400 then I'd be especially grateful to hear from them on the question of time and the reduction in processing time due to rotary processing.

Thanks

Pentaxuser

 

[david b]

Please remember that Perceptol has just recently returned to the market after a long time away.

 

[Gerald Koch]

If your negatives are thin and must be printed using 4/5 grade filtration then another 36 seconds is not going to give much improvement. I would suggest a development time 20 to 40 percent longer as more suitable.

While published times are for development under very exacting laboratory conditions, it is important to establish your own times since your no one else has your thermometer, timer, etc. The published times should be considered only a suggested starting points.